Judging Freedom - Prof. John Mearsheimer : Trump Unintentionally Reshaping Middle East

Episode Date: September 15, 2026

Prof. John Mearsheimer : Trump Unintentionally Reshaping Middle EastSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Undeclared wars are commonplace. Pragically, our government engages in preemptive war, otherwise known as aggression, with no complaints from the American people. Sadly, we have become accustomed to living with the illegitimate use of force by government. To develop a truly free society, the issue of initiating force must be understood and rejected. What if sometimes to love your country you had to alter or abolish the government? Jefferson was right? What if that government is best which governs least? What if it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong? What if it is better to perish fighting for freedom

than to live as a slave? What if freedom's greatest hour of danger is now? Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for judging freedom. Today is Tuesday, September 15th, 2006. Professor John Mearsheimer joins us now. Professor Mearsheimer, a pleasure, as it was a pleasure to spend a week with you in Moscow last week. Thank you very much for coming here today. Before we get to the substantive issues about which I need to ask you, your impressions, from our time with Foreign Minister Lavrov and with Russian academics and students? Well, I would make two major points. The first is that with regard to Lavrov, and I think it's true of the other Russian elites

that we talk to, they are very angry at the West, and the way the West, and especially Ukraine, is waging the war. And the Russians have now clearly taken the gloves off, and they are going to be, I think it's fair to say, ruthless in their employment and military force to win this war and to win this war as quickly as possible. You get the sense talking to all sorts of people that most believe that Putin was not waging the war as toughly as he should have been. But those days are now over with. Russians again have taken off the gloves, and they are going to escalate and win this war. The second thing that struck me from talking to Lavrov is his description of what happened at Anchorage and how the Americans subsequently reacted to what was effectively a deal in the Russians'

mind at Anchorage. I thought at the time of the Anchorage negotiations that the sort of deal that was being talked about was hard to believe. I couldn't believe that the Russians would have agreed to what was being described as the deal. And you want to remember that what was said at the time was that Ukraine would have to give up the Donbass. But the Russians would agree to freezing the conflict lines in Zaporosia and in Hearsan. That meant that the Russians, if that was the final deal, would not end up conquering, all of Hirsan and Zaporosia, which they had then, at that point, formally annexed. And I just didn't think the Russians would agree to that. But Lavrov made it clear that that was the deal and that

Putin was willing to make certain compromises because President Trump told him that he could deliver and he could get the Ukrainians to agree to the deal. So it looked from a Russian perspective, like they pretty much had a deal in place when the anchorage discussions ended. And of course, President Trump welched on the deal. He couldn't get the Ukrainians or the Europeans to go along, and it all fell apart. And the end result is that I think that Lavrov and other Russian leaders have come to the conclusion. You just can't depend on President Trump. You can't, you know, trust Steve Whitkoff and Jared Kushner to deliver on any kind of deal.

gets back to my first point, which is, I think they now understand there's only one way to win this war to put an end to it, and that's with military force. And that's why they are going to escalate. And they are going to escalate with the thought in mind that they are going to win. Well, I agree with everything you've just said. I would add to it that the deal, which was sealed over a handshake in the Russian view, was offered by the Americans. was offered by the Americans before Anchorage, and the Russians accepted it in the spirit of compromise. I think, I'm just reading between the lines

and what Foreign Minister Lavrov told us, in President Putin's mind was the hope for a reset of relations, the normalization of relations between the United States and Russia, and then they were bitterly disappointed when this didn't happen. And remember, Putin, according to Prime Minister Lavrov, said to President Trump, what about President Zelensky? And Prime Minister Lavrov overheard Trump say, don't worry about Zelensky, he'll do what I tell him. None of that happened. Yeah, that's exactly right.

And you want to remember, just consistent with what you said and, of course, with what Lavrov said, that the meeting in Anchorage was actually remarkably short. Most people think that it would last for a much longer time. The reason it was so short is because the terms of the deal had been agreed to by Steve Whitkoff and President Putin. In other words, we had done a lot of work beforehand to lay out what the terms of the deal were. And therefore, it wasn't necessary to have a long conversation between Putin and Trump in Anchorage. and that was the case, of course. But the key, as you point out, is that President Trump failed to get the Europeans and the Ukrainians

to reach a final deal. And by the way, this is another example of where the Ukrainians would have been much better off cutting the deal that was on the table at Anchorage rather than what's going to be the end result of the ongoing military campaign. They're going to end up worse off when this war finally ends than they would have ended up if they had agreed to the deal that was worked out as Anchorage. Because as I said, it was quite clear that the Russians were not going to insist that they get all of Hearsan and they get all of Zaporosia. They were going to get all of the Donbass, the two Oblasts and the Donbass. Wow. Here is Foreign Minister Lavrov earlier today, restating almost verbatim what he told us at that dinner. Chris, cut number nine. If the Americans hadn't, and I truly mean this, if they hadn't backed away from the critical anchorage agreements,

and if Europe hadn't actually pulled them away from those essential commitments we would have been living in peace, without the shadow of war for a full year already. It is a tragedy that we find ourselves in this position today. That is an obvious fact. So draw your own conclusions. It's a tragedy that we find ourselves in today. The only thing that he added that you and I didn't mention is the Russian view, that it was the Europeans who pulled him away.

In your view and mine, I think it was his own advisors. I'm sure Europeans were not in favor of it either. Yeah, there's no question that the Russians, and this is especially true of Lavrov, are exceedingly angry with the Europeans. And the two countries that are the principal targets of their anger are number one, Britain and number two, now Germany. And they view the United States more as a bunch of stumble bumps than they do the Europeans. the Europeans they view as evil.

They see the Europeans as out to destroy Russia. And they may have some of that in their thinking about U.S. policy. But with regard to the U.S., they think, I believe, that Trump had good intentions. He just couldn't deliver, as made clear by our previous comments. Right. Last weekend, Professor Mir Schimer, the Russians targeted a train station. at the Polish-Ukraine border, minutes after Boris Johnson, the former British Prime Minister, had passed through and minutes before General Petraeus was scheduled to pass through.

Was this just a coincidence? No, they were clearly sending a message that they are now playing hardball. They knew exactly what they were doing, and they were sending a message to the West that they are are playing hardball from here on out. So, Russian intel knew who was on what train? Oh, I think there's no question about that. And I believe that Russian intel knew that in the past. This is nothing new.

I think the Russians have the ability to pretty much read everything that's happening inside of Ukraine, especially with regard to the movement of Western elites on trains. and on road networks. But in the past, they have stayed away from hitting those targets, much the way they stayed away from hitting all the ports, the Ukrainian ports, on the Black Sea. But again, the gloves are off, and they have basically turned Ukraine into a landlocked country. And they're sending a message to the West that the West support for Ukraine is going to bring down the wrath of Russia on top of any Western elites and any Western installations inside of Ukraine. I mean, you've been saying for a couple of years now that the war will not be resolved on a conference table.

It will be resolved in the battlefield. And I know you used a word that maybe our Russian colleagues or host didn't want to hear. it'll be an ugly victory. Yeah. One question we asked Lavaev, and I've asked all sorts of other Russians in my conversations, is what was the final agreement from, what is the best final outcome from Russia's perspective? How do they see the war ending? What are the favorable terms that the Russians are seeking? And nobody had an answer for that.

But it is very clear that the Russians do not have any interest in conquering all of Ukraine. I know in the West many people think that the Russians are bent not only on conquering all of Ukraine, but then they are going to move into Eastern Europe. There was zero evidence in all of my conversations. And this was certainly true with our discussion with Lavrov. There was zero interest in conquering all of Ukraine or conquering. any territory in Eastern Europe. So the question is, what does the territorial settlement look like?

What kind of political leadership is left in Ukraine? How much support is left in the West for supporting Ukraine, bringing it into NATO, and how likely or how stable will that settlement be? Nobody gave us any clear answers to those questions. And I think the reason is that the Russians understand that it's hard to determine what the final outcome is going to look like. The Russians are clear that they're going to win. But what exactly victory means is hard to say. But the mere fact that there will be a Ukrainian rump state, that Ukrainian rump state will want all that territory back,

and that there will be at least substantial support from the West for Ukraine moving forward, means that the best the Russians can hope for is an ugly victory. Now, I want to be clear, nobody said that, and certainly Foreign Minister Lavrov didn't say that. But that's the clear implication of everything I heard from talking to all sorts of people. All right. Before we jump to the Middle East, some relatively breaking news. This apparently happened last night.

The Keeve Post is reporting that Ukraine strikes a Russian refinery drone plant, an ozone facility in a massive overnight attack. Ukraine launched a major drone and missile attack on Russia, reportedly hitting a Rosneft, that's one of their major oil companies, refinery and other facilities. The strikes came as Moscow and Kiev resumed talks on an energy ceasefire, though President Putin reportedly opposes a deal before winter.

yesterday President Trump as if he could divert attention from the skyrocketing prices of gasoline in the United States hitting the average American consumer very, very hard said the following. I don't think this is credible at all

but here's what he said. Cut number one, Chris. Diesel is being driven up by the fact that it's having a hard time coming out of Russia And that's the case that hurts the world. We gotta stop. Mr. Zelensky has to do one thing. He has to stop knocking out diesel fuel in Russia. Let him go after targets, but not diesel fuel,

because he's causing a shortage of diesel fuel. This isn't done by the Middle East. This is done by what's happening with Russia and Ukraine. So we spoke to Mr. Zelensky about it. There are plenty of other targets. Don't hit diesel fuel. Because that's hurting the world. We don't want him to hit diesel fuel.

He's hitting diesel refinery. I mean, nobody could take that seriously, that it's Zelensky's fault, that it's now $6.40 a gallon for diesel in Georgia and $10 a gallon in California? Well, it's President Trump not taking responsibility for the disaster that he's created in the Middle East and for the negative consequences that is having on the international economy. especially with regard to oil and diesel prices. But to argue that Zelensky is responsible for this is ridiculous. I can understand why Trump doesn't want Zelensky hitting oil refineries or diesel sites inside of Russia. We want all the diesel, all the oil. We can get out on world markets.

But the idea that Ukraine is the principal cause of the problem we face is not a serious argument. To the Middle East, Professor Mearsheimer, over the weekend, two events. Iran struck a major U.S. air base in Jordan, and according to reports, did severe damage to computer equipment as well as helicopters that were on the ground. No U.S. response. And, of course, the Houthis captured the Bob Al-Mandeb straight. Muhammad bin Salman, the effective leader of Saudi Arabia, called President Trump twice and asked for military assistance to repel the hoodies and both times he was rejected. I guess the Middle East is being reshaped under our noses inadvertently by Donald Trump's war.

Yeah, I think there's absolutely no question about that. Let me just say a word about the tit-for-tat strategy that is not taking place here. And to start by putting it in a broader context, we've had two major tit-for-tat campaigns. The first was from July 8th to July 29th. That was the first tit-for-tat campaign. And we effectively ended it on July 29th because we were not winning and we were running out of munitions. Then the second tit-for-tat campaign, started on August 30th. And we initiated it. Remember, that's when we attacked those sites

in Iran because we believe that they were going to deploy rockets with mines that were going to be sent into the Strait of Formuz. So we started the Fetat campaign on August 30th. This is the second major one. It effectively ends on September 9th because the United States stops responding to Iranian attacks. But since September 9th, this is very important to understand, since September 9th, the Iranians have continued to attack American targets throughout the Gulf region and in Jordan. But the United States is no longer responding. The tit-for-tat campaign has gone away. Now, you want to ask yourself, what's going on here? What's going on here mainly is that we don't have the munitions to engage in a tit-for-tat campaign, number one. And number two, it doesn't work. As I told you,

there was a tit-for-tat campaign in July, from July 8th to July 29th. We stopped it because it wasn't working. We started it up again on August 30th. We quit, not the Iranians, because they continue to fire away at us. We quit on September 9th, because, again, we were run down to munitions, and it wasn't working. And this just shows you where we are in terms of being able to deal with the Iranians, and by the way, with the Houthis as well, in the Middle East. We have no military option. And of course, that's why we try to blockade or we are trying to blockade. And we had the Scott Besson strategy as well to try and strangle the Iranian economy. And the reason we turn to that economic approach was because we had no military approach. But of course, the economic

approach isn't working anyway. You hear much about the Besson strategy these days? No, you don't. And why? Because we're not really employing it in any meaningful way, because it was a cockamamie strategy to begin with. So what you see is we have no way of responding to the Iranians. And the Iranians and the Houthis are in the driver's seat at this point in time, and it's the Iranians and the Houthis who are reconfiguring the Middle East, not the Americans who are retreating. I wonder why President Trump turned down his buddy, Muhammad bin Salman, who made two phone calls desperately asking for aid in the middle of the battle. It's very simple, as I just said, we don't have the munitions to wage another war against

against the Houthis. So is Saudi Arabia no longer our friend and ally? Well, we like to think it's our friend and it's our ally. It's not like we've decided that we don't want Saudi Arabia as an ally anymore. What's going on here is we no longer have the capability to provide security for the Saudis. The Saudis, who behaved remarkably foolishly by picking a fight with the Houthis, And the Saudis started this giant mess by picking a fight with the Houthis. They are in desperate straits now. And they are clearly in desperate straits. But we have no ability to pull their chestnuts out of the fire.

So we look like a toothless ally. They thought they were allied with this all-powerful United States that was going to provide security for them and for the other countries in the Gulf and was going to deal with the Iranian in all sorts of sophisticated and competent ways. That's proof not to be the case. The Iranians have a significant edge over the United States, and this is affecting the U.S.-S.-Saudi relationship in all sorts of negative ways. The Saudis are really in deep trouble. Chris, can you put up the map that you just had up there, please? So the X of the bottom is the area that the Houthis took over

the weekend. The X in the middle represents the East-West crude oil pipeline that belongs to the Saudis. It's either been destroyed or closed, but no oil is flowing. And of course, the X on the right represents the Strait of Hormuz,

which is now under Iranian control. I mean, this is really the beginning of a major reshaping of the Middle East promulgated promulgated by the Netanyahu Trump War. Yeah, there's no question about this.

Let me just say a few words to put this into a broader context. Sure. Remember when the Bessent strategy was announced, we were very confident at that point that our blockade, combined with the Bessence strategy, would cause enough pressure to be put on Iran, that Iran would be forced to negotiate with us. There was a lot of confidence, not just coming from the Trump administration, but coming from the major media outlets like the Wall Street Journal that are behind this strategy.

But what then happened is that the war broke out between the Houthis and the Saudis. And now the Red Sea is closed off. Now the pipeline is closed off. And of course, the Strait of Hormuz was, for all intents and purposes, closed off beforehand. So Saudi oil is basically no longer coming out onto the world markets. There may be a trickle, but for the foreseeable future, there's no Saudi oil coming out. This is disastrous. And this is why everybody's now much more pessimistic than they were a few weeks ago

when the Houthis began to go to work against the Saudis. Boy, Donald Trump really needs to tell the military to pack up and come home. I mean, this is getting worse from a domestic political perspective. It is getting worse from an economic pocketbook of the average American perspective almost day by day. What are the likely consequences on the world energy market? What remains in the United States strategic petroleum reserve? What happens to the price of oil going up by the minute? Well, it's a very dire situation and all sorts of people are saying, people who study these things or are in the business world are saying the situation is only going to get worse. Look, what this tells you is that President Trump

should have stuck to the memorandum of understanding that he signed with the Iranians on June 17th. That was not a good deal from an American perspective, but it was the best possible deal we could get. And he walked away from that memorandum of understanding. The second thing he should have done was told the Saudis in no uncertain terms that they cannot go to war against the Houthis. He should have put enormous pressure on the Saudis to shut down that war as soon as it started. But instead, he did not. He effectively supported what the Saudis did against the Houthis. So we are now in a terrible situation, and it's hard to see how we're.

we get out of it. So what will Saudi Arabia do now, turn to Russia or China? What big brother will they try to attach themselves to when Donald Trump says no? The problem that the Saudis face is that they don't have good options here. Relying on the Americans has not proved to be a winning formula. And it's hard to believe that moving forward, they're going to place much reliance on the United States in terms of providing for their security. The problem is that the Chinese and the Russians don't provide much of an alternative. And the Saudis by themselves are not capable of standing up to Iran. Iran versus Saudi Arabia's Bambi versus Godzilla. So I think that But if you're the Iranians, the best strategy moving forward is to work out some sort of

modus vivendi with the Iranians. You just have to accept the fact that the Iranians have a significant military advantage over you, and therefore you have a vested interest in working out some sort of accommodation with the Iranians. Excuse me, yes, with the Iranians. And at the same time, you can strike up good relations with the Chinese and the Russians, and maintain some semblance of an alliance with the Americans, realizing all the time that the Americans, the Chinese, and the Russians cannot provide a sufficient security umbrella over your head in the future, and therefore you have to accommodate the Iranians.

In the meantime, here in the U.S., inflation will continue. to be exacerbated. Everything we eat and almost everything in our homes is moved by trucks fueled by diesel. And the price of gas is now going up for me, 25 cents in New Jersey, 25 cents every week. Almost everybody who studies this issue says that it is likely that the situation will get worse. The best case scenario is, best I can tell from reading what the experts have to say, is that we maintain the status quo. But reversing this is not going to happen anytime soon. How are we going to shut down the war between the Houthis and the Saudis? How are we going to open the Strait of Hormoos?

How are we going to open the Babel Manda up straight? It's just hard to see how that happens anytime soon. And without that happening, the price of oil, the price of jet fuel, the price of diesel is going to go up. And this is going to have, you know, huge consequences for the cost of living in the United States and more generally around the world. And by the way, there are all sorts of problems that haven't manifested themselves yet. For example, the food dimension of this situation. It looks like the price of food will go up significantly later in the fall and over the course of the winter. So the picture moving forward for the American economy and for the international economy does not look good at all.

I just showed you full screen from Costco. Costco's business model, of course, is to sell in bulk. They'll sell you anything in bulk. A week ago, they'll sell you a truckload of engine oil. Now they're limiting it to two cans of engine oil per person. I mean, that is a radical, radical reduction in their business model and what they have available to sell. Yeah, this shows you just what a disaster this whole enterprise is in the Middle East. What a fundamental mistake that Trump and Netanyahu made by.

initiating this war. We focus here on the economic dimensions and the whole question of opening the strait of war moves or opening Babelmandop strait, but you want to remember that the key issue going into the war was the nuclear issue. Nobody talks about the nuclear issue anymore. And the fact is that it's hard to see how we're going to get an agreement with the Iranians that significantly limits their nuclear enrichment capability. In fact, they're good reasons to think that Iran may now move to develop a bomb. So when we talk about the consequences of this war, the consequences are just not economic. They're strategic as well.

And the whole nuclear issue has been complicated in ways that make one really fear for the future. Because you want to remember, if Iran gets nuclear weapons, it's likely that other countries in the region, including the Saudis, will move to nuclear weapons. You know, we were talking a few minutes ago about what Saudi Arabia can do now that it can no longer rely on the United States to provide security. And we said that the Russians and the Chinese really can't replace the Americans in that regard. Well, wouldn't you think it might make sense for the Saudis to get their own nuclear? deterrent, aren't nuclear weapons the ultimate deterrent? And if you can't depend on anyone else to provide for your security, if you recognize that you live in a self-help world, don't you want to think seriously about getting nuclear weapons? I think that in Saudi Arabia

now, inside the elite circles where they talk about these issues, there's probably a serious conversation taking place about getting nuclear weapons. Professor Mirshamber, great conversation, as always. Thank you very much for your time. I'll look forward to seeing you later this week and, of course, back here next week. Thank you, John. All the best. You're welcome, Judge.

Coming up soon, if you're watching us live in 30 minutes at 10 o'clock this morning, Aaron Mote, at 2 this afternoon, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, at 3 this afternoon, Colonel Karen Koukowski, Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom.