Judging Freedom - Prof. John Mearsheimer : Israel’s Deep Troubles

Episode Date: June 27, 2024

Prof. John Mearsheimer : Israel’s Deep TroublesSee 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 Thursday, June 27th, 2024. Professor John Mearsheimer joins us now. Professor Mearsheimer, not your usual day or your usual time, but much appreciate your accommodating our schedule. Thank you very much, my dear friend. Is the United States at war with Russia? De jure, I think it is not. De facto, I think it is not. De facto, I think it is. I mean, at this point, we're doing everything but pulling the triggers and pushing the buttons. And one might discover at some point down the road that we're even pulling some triggers and pushing some buttons. But we're about as close to being

in a full-fledged war with the Russians as you could be. Were you surprised to see that more likely than not, because of the technical and secretive aspects involved of downloading data from a satellite, Americans were involved in causing a cluster bomb, bomblets, to kill civilians, including children, on a beach on a Sunday on a profound religious holiday in Crimea? Well, I think there's little doubt at this point that the Americans are providing necessary information to the Ukrainians so that they can use those ATAKM missiles. So I think we're involved in the process of launching all those ATAKM missiles from Ukraine into places like Crimea and into the Russian territory that's right across the border from Ukraine. So I think we're involved. I do not believe that the Ukrainians purposely targeted those people on the beach. I think it was an accident that they were hit. I may be wrong on that, but I think it was an accident.

I think the missile either went off course or it was hit by a Russian ground-based defensive missile, broke apart, and lots of the shrapnel or bomblets landed on the beach. But I think the Americans certainly bear some responsibility for this. Here's how the Russians see it, Foreign Minister Lavrov. I'll have to read this because we don't have the tape. The U.S. is responsible for this massacre, and they will get an answer. All flight missions for American ATACOM's missiles are programmed by American specialists based on their own U.S. satellite intelligence data. This is what you've just said, Professor.

Therefore, the responsibility for the deliberate missile strike against the civilian population of Sevastopol lies primarily with Washington, which supplied this weapon to Ukraine, as well as the Kiev regime from whose territory this strike was launched. Such actions will not go unanswered. Can we assume that this is President Putin's attitude as well? Of course. I mean, I think there's no doubt that virtually everyone in the Russian foreign policy elite believes what Lavrov just said. I think the interesting question at this point in time is simply what will the Russians do in response? I think they clearly have to do something. And the question is, will it be a minor response or a major response?

Can you foresee President Putin exercising, demonstrating his usual patience, the sort of Sicilian theory that revenge is a dish best served cold, and not allowing the Americans to goad him into violent retaliation. You know, that's my view. Actually, I think that when you wage a war like Putin is waging against not simply Ukraine, but the West as well, and you could argue for sure that the West is Russia's main adversary in this conflict, what you want to do is keep in mind what your goals are. And if you're Putin, you have two main goals. One is you want to defeat the Ukrainians. You want to win the war inside of Ukraine. And number two, you want to make sure that you do everything you can to avoid

escalation, in part because you don't want to bring the Americans and NATO into the war. It's not in your interest if you're Russia. And furthermore, because escalation could mean escalation to the nuclear level, and Putin certainly doesn't want that. So I think he has to keep those goals in mind when he thinks about retaliating. But can you put your formidable brain inside the State Department's mind? They've unleashed madmen with these who are desperate, whose military is grounded down to next to nothing, to use this equipment to kill civilians. Isn't that an indication that this is the end game? Well, it's an indication that we are in deep trouble. We're desperate. And the Ukrainians are even more desperate because it's their country that is going down to defeat. It's

their territory that's being lost. And what the Ukrainians want to do is they want to suck us into the war. And from their point of view, that makes smart, that makes good sense. And of course, the Biden administration does not want that to happen. So the fact is that even though we have given a TACOMS to the Ukrainians and we have given them permission to use them against the Russian homeland, we have put very strict limits on what they can do in terms of hitting the Russian homeland. And we're going to great lengths to prevent incidents like the one that took place Sunday. But as you well know, when you fight a war like this, and when the Ukrainians have an incentive to drag us in, you're going to have incidents like the one that happened on Sunday. And there's always a possibility that I'll be wrong and that Putin will turn the dogs loose.

And there will be a large scale and violent response against American targets. And then Biden may feel compelled to counter escalate. And then we're off to the races. We're heading up the escalation ladder. Hopefully that won't happen. And as I was off to the races. We're heading up the escalation ladder. Hopefully that won't happen. And as I was saying to you, I don't think that Putin has a vested interest in having that happen because Putin is doing very well in the war. What's happening on the battlefield, which is paramount importance to him, looks very good from a Russian point of view. So he does not want to let the Ukrainians goad him into escalating to the point where he brings NATO in. I mean, I would argue that the State Department,

the Defense Department, the White House, whoever makes these decisions is reckless to allow people with this mentality and this level of desperation to reach targets inside of Russia, whether this was an accident or whether it was intentional, it slaughtered children on a beach. You can imagine how the Russian population reacts to that. Let's say I accept your rhetoric. I would then qualify it by saying you can be more or less reckless. And what we're trying to do is be less reckless. I think you can make a very powerful case as you're doing that our behavior in Ukraine is reckless. And what I'm saying is I think there are some limits on our recklessness. And my belief is that we'll be reasonably smart moving forward. Am I sure that I'm right?

No. Do I think you might be right? Yes. But I hope in this case you're dead wrong. All right. You're so kind. How much longer do you think the war in Ukraine can go on? We know that in Biden's mind it's got to go at least until November 6th. Whatever happens tonight with the debate, he's in the running. Doesn't look like the Democrats are going to replace him. And this war is his war. But how much longer do you think it can last, no matter what the West sends the Ukrainian military. Well, let me tell you what my template is for

thinking about this. I think the question is, how long will this war last before we have a ceasefire? And then once we have a ceasefire, how long will that ceasefire last before we have some sort of permanent peace agreement? And I think with regard to the first question, it might be the case that by the end of this year, 2024, that you get a ceasefire. It could be the case that the Russians were doing very well in wearing down the Ukrainians, wear them down to the point where the Ukrainian army simply can't fight anymore, and we get a ceasefire. And if that doesn't happen at the end of 2024, I think it's likely to happen in 2025. So in the not too distant future, I believe you're going to get a ceasefire. My view with regard to the second question is that that ceasefire will continue for as far as

the eye can see. It'll be like what you have on the 38th parallel between North and South Korea, a ceasefire that has been in effect since 1953 and shows no signs of going away. And that ceasefire is basically a frozen conflict. And the great danger there is that that frozen conflict will heat up again. And I think there's a good possibility that if you get a frozen conflict, you get a ceasefire, that it will eventually turn back into a hot war. That frozen conflict, and again, these are hypotheticals, but from your perspective, a highly educated hypothetical, would not include NATO in the remains of Ukraine? Because that would not produce a ceasefire. Well, there's not going to be a

Ukraine inside of NATO as long as the war is going on. Whether Ukraine comes into NATO during a ceasefire is a different question. I find it almost impossible to imagine Ukraine coming into the alliance during a ceasefire or during a frozen conflict. Stoltenberg has recently said that Ukraine has to win the war against Russia before it can become a member of the alliance. Isn't that impossible? Yes, that's impossible. And that's why I think Ukraine will never join the alliance. I think everybody, even though most people in the foreign policy establishment won't admit it, recognize that the key issue on the table is Ukraine and NATO, or to put it in slightly different terms, Ukrainian neutrality. And I think that almost everybody understands, even though they won't say this publicly,

that bringing Ukraine into NATO is going to make the situation as bad as it is now even worse. How dangerous is President Biden's decision? He hasn't articulated this, and I don't know who has, but no one in the government is denying it. Maybe even General Ryder wouldn't answer a question about it. He's the John Kirby of the Defense Department, to allow American contractors on the ground in Ukraine. Now, these contractors are typically former military who work for military private American companies. They're not going to have American uniforms on, but they're going to have camouflage on them. They're going to be armed. They're fair targets for the Russians. How dangerous is that? I'd make two points. One is that it is a form of escalation. The United States is upping the ante, and this is something that should naturally worry all of us. Second point, and I think the more important point is, it all depends on how effective they are at shifting the balance of power in the war.

If we put significant numbers of contractors in who begin to help the Ukrainians in a meaningful way on the battlefield, and the balance of power on the battlefield shifts against the Russians, I believe the Russians will escalate in a serious way. And Americans will die. Well, these Americans are going to die from the beginning. If you're putting contractors in there, they're fair game. I mean, I would be shocked if the Russians don't go after the contractors. Remember what the Russians said about putting French troops in Ukraine. They said very clearly that as soon as those French troops cross the border into Ukraine, they're fair targets. The Russians would be crazy not to go

after those contractors. So the potential for escalation is real here. But again, my second point, which is I think the more important point, is a lot depends on just how effective the contractors are. This is the same point I make with regard to the ATACOMs. The ATACOMs, putting ATACOMs in the hands of the Ukrainians is escalatory for sure. But the key question is how effective are those ATakams at affecting the progress of the war? And I think the Atakams are not very effective, and therefore, escalation is kept under control. But if all of a sudden, those Atakams looked like they were a war-winning weapon, you can rest assured that the Russians would escalate in a serious and dangerous way.

Switching gears to Israel and Gaza, since last we spoke, I mean, the Trump campaign hasn't announced this, but the New York Times has, that Mrs. Sheldon Adelson has deposited or promised to deposit $100 million in the account of a political action committee controlled by Trump's people. One could only imagine what she thinks she's buying if Donald Trump becomes president. Yeah. I mean, the evidence up to this point is that what she's interested in is seeing the Israelis annex in a formal way the West Bank. They have annexed it in a de facto way, but she would like to see it annexed formally. So the story goes. And that she thinks that by contributing to Trump's campaign and hopefully from her point of view to Trump's victory, that this will give him a powerful incentive to go along with the Israelis

in his next term in office, should he win, and then push with Israel to annex, formally annex, the West Bank. Have you ever seen the donor class be so brazen as Mrs. Adelson? Well, I think the donor class has been remarkably brazen since October 7th. It's truly remarkable, in my opinion, out in the open and how brazen the donor class is. You see this especially with regard to universities and the fact that the donor class played the principal role in overthrowing the president at Harvard University and the fact that the donor class played the principal role in overthrowing the president at Harvard University and the president at the University of Pennsylvania. I never dreamed I would see something like this in my lifetime. It's truly stunning. And it just shows you how much trouble Israel is in. Israel needs to be defended by the lobby. And the task that the lobby faces is monumental.

And as a result, they're pulling out all stops. And therefore, they are behaving in very brazen ways when it comes to, you know, throwing their influence around in the American political system. Here's how much trouble Israel's prime minister believes Israel is in. This is Prime Minister Netanyahu speaking to his senior staff. It's a little paranoiac, I think, but you can give me your views. Just two hours ago, Professor. And Iran is fighting us on a seven-front war. Obviously, Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, the militias in Iraq and Syria, Judea, Samaria, West Bank, Iran itself, they'd like to topple And their goal is to have a combined ground offensive from various fronts, coupled with a combined missile bombardment. We have to, we've been given the opportunity to scuttle it, and we will. The first requirement is to cut that hand, Hamas.

People who do this thing to us are not going to be there. We'll have a long battle. I don't think it's that long, but we'll get rid of them. We also have to deter the other elements of the Iran-Tehran axis. But we have to deal with the axis. The axis doesn't threaten only us. It threatens you. But we have to deal with the Axis. The Axis doesn't threaten only us. It threatens you.

It's on the march to conquer the Middle East. Conquer the Middle East. Conquer. That means actually conquer. Conquer Saudi Arabia. Conquer the Arabian Peninsula. It's just a question of time. And what's standing in their way is the small Satan, that's us, on the road to the middle-sized Satan, that's the Europeans. They're always offended when I tell them that.

You're the great Satan, not them. And we have to stop them. Amir Shamir, is there any evidence that Iran wants to conquer Saudi Arabia? No. What is he talking about? Well, he is right in the sense that Israel faces multiple threats. Israel's strategic situation is quite dire at this point in time. You just want to understand that. And it's in good part due to the policies of Prime Minister Netanyahu and his predecessors. But you want to remember, he talks about defeating these adversaries in a

decisive manner. He's talked for a long time about decisively defeating and eliminating Hamas. He's failed. Hamas is still alive and functioning in Gaza, and there is no chance that he's going to finish Gaza off. So he has not gotten the job done. And with regard to Hezbollah, the idea that he's going to march into Lebanon and finish off Hezbollah the way he promised to finish off Hamas is another pipe dream. It's not going to happen. Hamas is going to remain a formidable adversary, Hezbollah is going to remain a formidable adversary. And furthermore, there is a serious danger now that Iran, which is a formidable adversary, is going to get nuclear weapons. And furthermore, the Houthis are developing missiles and rockets that have the capability to hit Israel.

So Israel faces threats on all fronts. It is not a good strategic situation for any country to be in. And Netanyahu has no way of getting out of this disastrous situation. Is he a madman? Is he doing this just to stay in office? Doesn't he realize the, I'll use your phrase, realism of what you just articulated? I don't think he's a madman. I wouldn't use rhetoric like that. I think he's strategically foolish. I think that he has long believed that Israel, with the full support of the United States, could work

hand in hand to deal with any possible threats that Israel faces. And he placed a very heavy premium on using military force, both Israeli military force and American military force, to deal with those problems. And the fact is that Israel has reached the point where using its military and even the American military to deal with those threats just doesn't buy you very much. This is the point I made about Hamas. Israel, with full support from the United States, was not able to defeat Hamas. It's not going to be able to defeat Hezbollah. And if Iran decides it's going to develop nuclear

weapons, there's nothing Israel and the United States can do to prevent that. This tells you that Israel is in deep trouble. We are looking at a tape released by the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard showing their people training coming out of tunnels in Hamas. They're on motorcycles. They're not in tanks or armored personnel carriers. Are they itching for a fight with Israel? I do not think that Iran itself is itching for a fight with Israel. I think that the Iranians would not mind seeing Israel get its nose bloodied by Hezbollah the same way it's gotten its nose bloodied by Hamas. But the Iranians do not want a direct conflict with Israel. And you remember, we've talked about this before. After the Israelis attacked the Iranian embassy in Damascus on April 1st, right? The Iranians

then retaliated on April 14th. And the Americans coordinated with Iran before that attack on April 14th to keep it limited. And then when the Israelis retaliated against Iran on April 19th, we went to great lengths to keep 7th to avoid a war. So I don't see Iran as anxious to pick a fight with the United States or with Israel directly. But this is not to deny for one second that the Iranians are surely very pleased to see Israel fighting on multiple fronts and not doing very well at all. Is the Zionist experiment in danger? I think there's no question that the Zionist experiment is in danger. And you see all sorts of pieces in the Israeli press talking about that. What the future holds is very hard to say. But when you look at the threat environment that Israel faces, which I just described, look at the centrifugal forces at play inside of Israel, one really wonders what the future holds for Israel. There are

huge and powerful cleavages inside that society. And there's no evidence that those cleavages are going to go away. People often talk about two Israels that are in effect at war with each other. When you look at the relations today between the IDF, the Israeli military on one side, and Prime Minister Netanyahu on the other side, it's really quite shocking how terrible the relations are. Prime Minister Netanyahu's wife recently said that she believes that the IDF, the army, is out to effect a coup against her husband. And there's just all sorts of evidence inside of reserve units in the Israeli military that when they are calling up reservists for a second and third time now, many reservists are refusing the call-up. They will not go back on active duty

and go to Gaza or maybe at some point go into southern Lebanon. There's just huge dissatisfaction in the military with the political leadership. So there are big problems ahead inside this country. And again, they face a really wicked threat environment that's only going to get worse with time. Maybe this question is too early in our happy relationship to ask, but where do you think World War III will start? In Russia slash Ukraine? In Israel in the Middle East? Or, this is a Mearsheimer question, in the South China Sea? I don't think you're going to get World War III. I think given the fact that we live in a nuclear world, I think in the final analysis, it's highly unlikely, extremely unlikely that you will have anything approximating World War II or World War I.

I think for sure you could have a shooting war between the United States and China in the South China Sea, and the United States could get involved in Ukraine, and the United States and Russia could be involved in a great power war. But I don't see it escalating into a world war that's fought across the three big theaters that are now at play, the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and East Asia. I just don't see that. And I think the fact that we live in a nuclear world makes it highly unlikely that you would have significant escalation. I think if shooting started between any two great powers, there would be real limits on how far each side would go. And there would be rather rapid movement to shut the conflict down because of

the threat of mutual annihilation. I may be too optimistic in my prognosis, but that's sort of my best guesstimate on, you know, what the future holds, the sort of what is the worst case scenario for the future. I guess that's what I was asking you is the worst case scenario from the prophet of realism. But Professor Mearsheimer, thank you so much, my dear friend. It's always a pleasure. We have a short week next week. I hope we can find time where you can join us again midweek. Likewise. Thank you. All the best. All the best to you. Thank you. A terrific day of many, many guests. Let me just preview tomorrow for you. At 3 o'clock, Colonel Wilkerson.

And at 4.15, the Intelligence Community Roundtable. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom. Thanks for watching!