Judging Freedom - Prof. John Mearsheimer: Israel Shooting Itself in the Foot.

Episode Date: November 6, 2024

Prof. John Mearsheimer: Israel Shooting Itself in the Foot.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Thank you. Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Wednesday, November 6, 2024. Professor John Mearsheimer joins us now. Professor Mearsheimer, welcome here. I want to spend a fair amount of time with you on the developments in Israel. I want to ask you a few questions about Ukraine. But before I get to either of them, of course, I cannot avoid mentioning the election outcome. Two days ago, now-President-elect Trump named two people that would be his candidates to become Secretary of Defense. They are former CIA Director and

former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton. And I scratched my head. I thought, do the neocons run the foreign policy establishment no matter who the president is? What do you think? Well, I mean, Trump promised that this time was going to be different than 2017, 2021, his first term. And when he says that people like Mike Pompeo and Tom Cotton are going to be in key decision-making positions, one can only wonder, what is he talking about? They are pure establishment, and they're both basically neoconservatives. They're as hawkish as they come, and they will work mightily to undermine Trump's radical

agenda that he set out. So I wouldn't bet a lot of money in the final analysis that Trump will end up changing American foreign policy in any meaningful way, certainly if he's going to appoint people like this. Doesn't he have a $100 million debt to Mrs. Sheldon Adelson? Then you know what she wants. Well, there's no question on Israel, and I think even on China, that Trump was not going to be much different than Biden. And in fact, Biden was not much different than Trump on both China and the Middle East. The key issue where Trump says he's going to matter is the Ukraine-Russia issue. He wants to improve relations with Putin

and the Russians more generally, and he's been bragging that he could put an end to the Ukraine war. I've long believed that no matter who he puts in power, whether it's a restrainer or somebody like Mike Pompeo, it's not going to make much difference on Ukraine, in large part because I think the Ukraine issue is going to be settled on the ground, on the battlefield. And I don't think that Trump could reach any form of meaningful agreement with Russia that would end the war independent of what's happening on the battleground. The fact is that the Russians, and this is especially true of Putin, don't trust the West at all anymore. And they don't trust Donald Trump any more than they trust Kamala anymore. And they don't trust Donald Trump any more than

they trust Kamala Harris. And they're going to drive a remarkably hard bargain, the Russians are. And it's going to be, in my opinion, almost impossible for Trump or any other person to agree to Russian terms. Colonel Douglas McGregor agrees with you 100% on all this. He has referred to Ukraine as a collapse in slow motion, although the motion is not so slow anymore. How rapidly is the Russian military moving west, and how devastating has that move been to the Ukraine military? Well, there's no question, as Doug McGregor has said on numerous occasions, that the Russian steamroller is moving steadily westward, inflicting significant casualties on the Ukrainians, and it's clear that the Russians are going to win. I think it's a very interesting question to ask. What are the

consequences of yesterday's election on what's going to happen on the battlefield? If you think about it, the Ukrainians are in really deep trouble and they're barely hanging on. And they're in deep trouble because they listened to the Americans and the British in 2022. There's no question about that. And they listened to the British and the Americans in 2023 when they launched the famous counteroffensive on June 4th. This is June 4th, 2023, which proved to be a colossal failure. Just like their incursion into Kyrgyzstan has proven to be a colossal failure. Just like their, just like their incursion into Kursk has proven to be a

colossal failure. Yeah. Assuming that they, that the Americans and the British did encourage them to go into Kursk. I don't know that that's a fact. I wouldn't be surprised given that it was a foolish decision and the Americans and the British are specialized in bad advice. So it's, it's, it's likely, or it's at least plausible that that's the case. But the point I was making to you is, if you're the Ukrainian military, you're barely hanging on, it looks like you're going to lose the war, independent of who gets elected on November 5th. And then you see that Donald Trump is elected. Donald Trump, who's basically threatened to cut off all aid to Ukraine, which means it's all over for Ukraine. Are these people going to continue to fight on the way they

have been fighting since when the war broke out in February 2022? Just as meaningful a question I would submit is, are Joe Biden and Tony Blinken going to continue to pour money down a rat hole, knowing what will happen on January 20th? Well, they'll continue to pour money down a rat hole because they'll want to do everything they can to make sure that Ukraine holds on until they lose office, so that when Ukraine finally collapses, it does so on Trump's watch, and they can blame Trump and say, only if Kamala Harris had been elected, we wouldn't have had this terrible outcome. This would be tit for tat because Trump negotiated the departure of American troops from Afghanistan, but it didn't happen until Biden's watch. It was

perceived as a colossal disaster and they blamed Biden. Resolve to earn your degree in the new year in the bay with WGU. With courses available online 24-7 and monthly start dates, WGU offers maximum flexibility so you can focus on your future. Learn more at wgu.edu. That's exactly what happened well uh but back but back to uh ukraine what do you think the european elites you know these people uh are now thinking what what are they going to do are they going to ramp up their aid to ukraine or are they going to accept the inevitable which i would submit and you probably agree without the united states uk Ukraine doesn't have a leg to stand on, no pun intended? I would make one minor correction. With the United States, Ukraine doesn't have a

leg to stand on. Right, right. Nicely put. But what are they thinking in Rome and Berlin and London and Paris now about Ukraine? Well, we make two points. Number one, just like the Americans, they've run out of patience, they've run out of weapons, and they've run out of money. And they're not interested in throwing any more assistance in Ukraine or any meaningful assistance in Ukraine's direction. They've basically given up. And the interesting point to me is that they really don't believe that if Russia wins in Ukraine, it's a great threat to Eastern Europe, much less them in Western Europe. You know, there's all this talk that if Putin wins in Ukraine, he's going to end up conquering all of Ukraine. Then he's going to march eastward and act much like the Soviet Union did during the

Cold War. If the Europeans really believe that, they would be building up their defenses to protect themselves. But if you look at how much money they're spending, and if you look at the state of the militaries across Europe, and this especially includes the British and German militaries, these are militaries that are in pathetic shape and in no position to contest the Russians. But they're not trying to rectify the situation, and they're not trying to rectify the situation, and they're not trying to rectify the situation because they know deep down Russia is not a meaningful threat. That means that their interest, their commitment to making sure that Ukraine stops Russia is just not that great. So the Russians are going to end up winning an ugly victory here.

So how much longer can Ukraine possibly last? Ritter says they're losing 12,000 casualties a day between killed in action and severely injured in action. I mean, do the math. I don't know how many more bodies they have. Well, it's not simply a question of bodies. It's also a question of willpower. And the argument I was making about Trump's election is that I think that will have a significant negative effect on Ukrainian willpower. And I think willpower does matter here. But if you marry your comments about the number of casualties with my comments about willpower, it's hard to imagine the Ukrainian military lasting more than a few more months. You would think that at some point in the not too distant future, they're just going to have

to quit because they don't have the manpower or the will to continue fighting. How colossal a disaster has the American and British experiment in Ukraine been in the past two years? I mean, there's no good whatsoever that has come from it. Absolutely. But it goes back to the April 2008 decision. Right. But it goes back to the April 2008 decision, right, Ukraine into NATO. That was a colossal mistake. It's just hard to believe what a catastrophic decision that was. Because you want to understand that not only has Ukraine been wrecked in the process, not only have hundreds of thousands of people died, and Ukraine has been turned into a dysfunctional rump state, but once we get a frozen conflict, relations in Europe between Russia on one side

and Ukraine in the West on the other side are going to be poisoned for as far as the eye can see. The German economy has been hurt. This is going to do significant damage to NATO. The potential for this frozen conflict to turn into a hot conflict is going to be very great because there are all sorts of flashpoints in Eastern Europe, like the Arctic, the Baltic, Kaliningrad, Belarus, Moldova, and the Black Sea, where you could have a future conflict cause this frozen conflict to turn into a hot conflict. So this was just a disastrous decision. It's hard to believe that we made it. Let's transfer over to Israel, Professor Mearsheimer. In the past week, the Israeli press has revealed that top-secret Israeli documents were leaked. One of the three people arrested was the principal spokesman for Prime Minister Netanyahu. The documents, if true, reveal that Netanyahu was the one preventing ceasefire negotiations from proceeding to an amicable resolution so as to

bring home the hostages. Netanyahu, in turn, fired his defense minister, Yoav Galant. Galant says he was fired because he insisted that the ultra-Orthodox and Orthodox, consistent with a six-to-one ruling of the Supreme Court of Israel, be subject to the draft, and that there be some serious effort made at a ceasefire to get the hostages home, and that there be an investigation as to exactly what happened on October 7th, and when he made those demands public and privately to Prime Minister Netanyahu, Prime Minister Netanyahu fired him. Has Netanyahu again shot himself in the foot, or has he avoided another self-inflicted wound? Well, he has a truly impressive ability to shoot himself in the foot, but he also has a truly impressive ability to survive. So he's done a remarkably large number of foolish things before October 7th. Remember, he supported Hamas before October 7th, and he's done a remarkably large number

of foolish things since October 7th. But he has survived, and his political position today looks like it's firmly intact. But let me just say a few words about his relationship with Gallant. I mean, I think there are three issues, two of which you identified, but there's a third one that's also very important. As you pointed out, there's a big dispute between the two of them on the ultra-Orthodox and bringing the ultra-Orthodox into the military, making them serve. And Gallant, of course, wants to do that, and Netanyahu, for political reasons, doesn't. And that's a huge bone of contention.

The second bone of contention has to do with getting the hostages back, as you pointed out. But related to that, and very importantly, a big issue between the two of them for a long time now is that Gallant has wanted Netanyahu to give his plan for what Gaza would look like once the shooting stopped. Gallant believed that somebody has to administer Gaza and that somebody has to be on the Palestinian side. And Gallant wanted to be on the Palestinian side. And Galant wanted to know what the plan was. But again, because Netanyahu is interested in ethnically cleansing Gaza and wants nobody left when he's done, he doesn't come up with a plan. He refuses to come up with a plan. And of course, if you refuse to come up with a plan, you're not going to get the hostages back. But Gallant kept pestering him for the plan. And finally, that, combined with the other two factors, caused Netanyahu to fire him.

I wonder if he fired him to get this issue of the documents off the front page. I mean, Haaretz, which you and I read as referred to it, as all these things are today, mimicking Watergate as BBGate. Here's former Defense Minister Gallant yesterday summarizing what he says are the reasons that he was dismissed. Cut number six.

This dismissal comes as a result of a dispute on three issues. The first, my firm stance that everyone who is eligible to be drafted to the military must be drafted to the military. They must serve in the IDF and protect the state of Israel. Second topic, our moral obligation to return our sons and daughters, the hostages. The third topic, the need to implement learning from the mistakes of the war. I support a deep investigation into looking into who is responsible, and I call for a national commission of inquiry. I suggest to you that it's the third of those three that Netanyahu most fears. Probably. Gallant should fear it too. It's quite remarkable that he's calling for that investigation because you want to remember he was the Minister of Defense on October 7th,

and he bears significant responsibility for what happened. Of course, Netanyahu is the prime minister, and he bears ultimately responsibility. The buck stops at his desk. But both of them would be treated harshly, I'm sure, by any kind of independent investigation of the events of that day. is the IDF still intent on so degrading Gaza that no human being can live there? That's certainly the case in northern Israel. I think they're basically trying to ethnically cleanse northern Israel by murdering, excuse me, northern Gaza by murdering huge numbers of Palestinians and making life unlivable for people who remain there and hoping that they can drive people into the southern half of Gaza. Whether they succeed is another matter, but what's happening

there is catastrophic. So Netanyahu says he had three or four goals to defeat Hamas, to secure the safe return of the hostages, to facilitate the safe return of the settlers into northern Israel. Can any argument whatsoever be made that he has succeeded in any of those three goals? No, but you're leaving out what I think is his most important goal. And his most important goal is to cleanse Gaza. He wants to empty Gaza of Palestinians. This was the point I made before about why he and Gallant have been fighting. Gallant wants a peace plan for administering Gaza once the shooting stops. And Netanyahu refuses to give him that peace plan, in large part because Netanyahu is committed to driving the Palestinians out.

This is genocide per se. If he were tried for genocide, all they'd have to do is put up tapes of what he'd said eventually out of the West Bank as well. But it failed. The Palestinians did not leave. And in effect, what's happened is that the massacres, the early massacres, have morphed into a genocidal campaign. And that's what you see happening now. And just to remind viewers, it's important to remember that the United States, and here we're now about 10 days ago, the Wall Street Journal claims that the Israelis seriously crippled Iran's defenses and sent a message to the world that the Israelis can hit any target in Tehran at will. Is there any evidence for such a claim? No. I think that the Israeli offensive ran into significant problems. It's very hard to get

details that you can rely on regarding what exactly happened with the Israeli offensive, but it's clear that it didn't go as planned and that they did limited damage. There's no question they did some damage, but they did limited damage inside of Iran. Moreover, they did not go after the nuclear targets. They did not go after the energy or oil targets. They did not pursue a decapitation strategy. They just didn't do a lot of damage. But I want to make another point. Even if they did a lot of damage, even if they tore apart the air defenses and Iran was vulnerable to an Israeli attack, a future Israeli attack, the fact is that Iran can still retaliate against Israel because Israel doesn't have the capability to prevent Iran from hitting a wide assortment of targets inside of Israel. This is a situation

where both sides, take away the air defenses on both sides, both sides have the capability to retaliate against each other. Israel does not have escalation dominance. So it doesn't make a lot of sense for Israel to play tit for tat with Iran because as they go up the escalation ladder, Israel doesn't dominate Iran. And in fact, Israel absorbs significant punishment. So Israel is in deep trouble vis-a-vis Iran, whether or not they take out the air defenses or not. And as best we can tell, they did not do a satisfactory job of taking out the air defenses. And by the way, this is why they want to drag us, the United States, into their fight against Iran, because they understand full well they don't have escalation dominance. They understand they're having problems tearing apart Iranian air defenses, and they understand full well that they can't take out the Iranian nuclear capabilities without us. So they're trying to drag us in. But thankfully, they've been unsuccessful at that attempt.

I want you to listen to what retired four-star General Jack Keane told one of my former colleagues and still a friend at Fox News two days ago. Cut number three. The military effects of that strike is beyond what's being reported because they have literally taken down most of the Russian air defense system, the so-called S-300 missile defense systems that the Russians gave them years ago. And that's what's really protecting their nuclear enterprise, their oil and gas industry, and other key strategic assets like the missile production factories that the Israelis did destroy at multiple sites. Those were ballistic missile factories, by the way. So yes, this air defense system destruction is really powerful because Iran is sitting there essentially naked. Are any evidence to support that Iran is sitting there essentially naked. Are any evidence to support that? Iran is sitting there essentially naked? No, I would argue that his comments failed the common sense test. I think if the Israelis had been as successful as he describes, we'd be hearing about it.

The Israelis would be putting their successes up in bright lights and telling everybody how formidable the Israeli Air Force is, and they would be advertising the fact that Iran is naked. But you don't see them doing that, and you don't see them doing that because they actually ran into a significant amount of trouble. But I want to reemphasize the point I made earlier, that even if it was true, Iran still maintains the capability to retaliate against Israel and do devastating damage. Professor Mearsheimer, if Israel cannot penetrate Iran's defenses, can the United States? Oh, I think we could, yeah. I think we have significant capabilities. This isn't to say that we wouldn't get our hair messed in the process. We surely would. But the United

States has the capability to tear apart Iranians' defenses and to hit all sorts of targets. And there is some real chance that we could take out their nuclear capabilities. They would, of course, rebuild them and they would end up with nuclear weapons. So it would be foolish to try to do that. But I think in terms of our ability with our air power and our missile power, we could definitely tear apart their air defenses at some cost again, and then go after a wide ranging target set in Iran. But I want to make it very clear, it is not, not in our interest to do this. And this is why we have gone to great lengths to avoid a war with Iran, because we understand that even if we have this capability, if you play it out and you think about where it all leads, it doesn't have a happy ending.

Can you enlighten us all on the BB Gate document leak and the arrest of his chief spokesperson who sought bail and bail was denied by the court? aspersion at all, but with a person in that position being arrested for leaking classified documents to embarrass the president, would it be that equivalent if it happened here? Well, I think what's going on here is that these documents that were leaked were designed to give the impression that it was Hamas, not Netanyahu, who was delaying the negotiations over a ceasefire and the release of the hostages. This was these documents, which in good part were false documents, were designed to give the impression that Hamas was responsible for the delay in the negotiations, not Netanyahu. And it was also designed, these documents, to make it look like that Hamas was interested in taking the hostages and moving them to Egypt. And Sinwar himself was looking to escape from Gaza with the hostages. You know, the idea that Sinwar is really kind of a coward

and they're trying to get the hostages out and Israel is going to therefore have to try to prevent this. None of this, of course, was true. So adding to your argument about the fact that these documents were fake is the identity of the lawyer who showed up at the bail hearing for this now former spokesperson for Benjamin Netanyahu. The same lawyer defending Benjamin Netanyahu in his criminal cases. So if Admiral Kirby is going to be arrested for releasing secret documents, he's not going to get Joe Biden's lawyer. But I just want to say that if you well know, and we've talked about on the show and your other guests talk about on the show all the time, leaders leak all the time. Yes. It's not the leaking of documents that really is the issue here.

It's the fact that these were mainly false documents. And that Netanyahu obviously knew about it and sought to benefit from it. Of course. I'd truly be shocked if he didn't know what was going on here. He does this stuff all the time. And by the way, he's very effective at it. That's why he has been able to shoot himself in the foot on so many occasions and nevertheless escape almost unscathed. The first phone call that Donald Trump took from a foreign

leader was from Benjamin Netanyahu. Do you think he is sleeping well tonight that Trump was elected, believing that he can take on Iran and the 7th Fleet and 101st Airborne or whatever they call themselves today will be there beside his IDF? I don't think that Netanyahu in the end cares that much, whether it's Trump or Biden. I think that he fully understands that Israel basically owns the United States, regardless of who's president. I mean, Trump might be a bit more sympathetic, but who knows? And Netanyahu probably understands that Trump is something of a loose cannon. And, you know, Biden, you couldn't be more pro-Israel than Joe Biden. I mean, it'd be hard to imagine that Trump is going to be more pro-Israel. He might be slightly less pro-Israel.

But in the final analysis, it doesn't matter because if Netanyahu has any trouble with an American president, he just calls up the lobby, the lobby goes to work, and the American president falls in line. I mean, you know as well as I do, this is how U.S.-Israeli relations work. They're in the driver's seat, not us. All he has to do after January 20th is call Miriam Adelson in Las Vegas, Nevada, and his wishes will be taken care of. Well, I mean, I don't know whether he has to call her. I mean, well, she is the biggest donor donor, but there are all sorts of other individuals and groups that he can call. And there are just many ways that he can get to Trump.

But he's not going to have any problems with Trump. And he had no problems with Biden. He's pretty much gotten everything he wanted. Professor Mearsham, always a pleasure. We missed you last week. Your audiences were blessed to be able to hear you, even though knowing you, you stirred the pot and caused some of them to have sleepless nights. Am I right? I hope I did. Thank you, my dear professor. It's been a pleasure. I look forward to seeing you again next week.

Likewise. Thank you. Coming up at three o'clock this afternoon, Phil Giraldi. Aaron Mate, we are attempting to reschedule to tomorrow because I have a conflict, not Aaron. And at 5 o'clock, Professor Jeffrey Sachs. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. We'll be you next time. able to graduate sooner than you think by demonstrating mastery of the material you know. Make 2025 the year you focus on your future. Learn more at wgu.edu.