Judging Freedom - Prof. John Mearsheimer : Why Israel Will Fail.

Episode Date: June 26, 2025

Prof. John Mearsheimer : Why Israel Will Fail.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Agent Nate Russo returns in Oracle III, Murder at the Grandview, the latest installment of the gripping Audible original series. When a reunion at an abandoned island hotel turns deadly, Russo must untangle accident from murder. But beware, something sinister lurks in the Grandview shadows. Joshua Jackson delivers a bone-chilling performance in the supernatural thriller that will keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series.

Love thrillers with a paranormal twist? The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible. Hi, everyone. Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Thursday, June 26, 2025. Professor John Mearsheimer will be here with us in just a minute with his views on why Israel will fail. But first this. We all know how devastating war is. Lives lost, communities destroyed. But war can also threaten your financial freedom. That's where America's heading.

Our growing involvement in global conflicts. It means more spending, more debt, and a weaker dollar. That's a direct hit to your wallet. So here are three things to keep your eyes on. Exploding debt, declining dollar, rising prices of gold and silver. These things are already happening. Goldman Sachs predicts gold could hit $4,500 an ounce by 2026. Why? Because central banks and smart investors are buying gold hand over fist. They know what's coming and they're hedging against it. Currency collapse, inflation and market volatility.

Gold has been a trusted store of value for thousands of years and today we need that protection more than ever. Call Lear Capital now at 800-511-4620 or visit learjudsnap.com. No one is going to protect your wealth for you. You need to do it yourself. And now is the time. Professor Mearshamer, welcome here. For those of you who were watching us

with Professor Sachs a few minutes ago, my internet went down. Professor Sachs' did not. Producer Chris's did not. And they were able to maintain the show for another eight or nine or 10 or 12 or 12 minutes. We don't expect that to happen again, but we are prepared. Professor Mirshamer, I have a series of questions for you. But before I do, this just came in from Haaretz, the English language Israeli newspaper that you and I and many others read. I'm going to read it. It's a significant description of the mess that things that are in. So this is two minutes old. Prime Minister Netanyahu

halted the entry of humanitarian aid into northern Gaza after far-right minister Belazir Smotrich threatened to quit to leave the coalition government. Iran's supreme leader Khomeini declared victory over Israel and said the US quote will definitely pay a heavy price close quote should it attack Iran again. EU states believe that Iran's kilograms of highly enriched uranium were not consecrated in Ford Oak, the Financial Times reported. US Secretary of Defense Hegseth said he was unaware of any intelligence suggesting things were not where they were supposed to be. President

Trump called, you can't make this stuff up. President Trump called for an immediate cancellation of Netanyahu's criminal trial. Three Palestinians were murdered by IDF gunfire in the West Bank. Nothing has changed. Basically that's correct. What was the status, as we understand it, of US-Iran negotiations before Donald Trump ordered bombs dropped on Saturday night and Sunday morning? Well, we had been negotiating with the Iranians, and it appeared that the negotiations were going

to continue, and then we bombed Iran on June 22nd. And where the negotiations are now is just hard to say, but the negotiations were ongoing. They weren't going anywhere because there's a fundamental difference between the two sides that can't be settled, which is that the Iranians insist that they have some nuclear enrichment capability, and we insist that they can't have any nuclear enrichment capability.

You can't square that circle, so the end result is the negotiations weren't going any place, but again, they were going on. Why do you think Donald Trump dropped those bombs on Saturday night? He said, I'm going to give you two weeks to work this out. He dropped the bomb between the second and the third day of that two week period. Well, if the negotiations are not going anywhere and you're basically buying into the Israeli narrative on what the Iranians are up to.

You really don't have much choice but to bomb Iran. And it's not terribly surprising that he did. I found it surprising that he did it on the 22nd because he had been indicating before the 22nd that he was going to let the diplomacy run its course for at least another two weeks. But obviously he was trying to bamboozle the Iranians and he might have been successful, who knows. But I think he bombed because he understood that the negotiations were going nowhere, number

one. And number two, he was under pressure from the Israelis to attack Iran and he bought on to their rhetoric that they were pursuing a bomb. Max Blumenthal reports that to refute the conclusions of the American intelligence community, the Zionists in the National Security Council brought Mossad agents into the Oval Office to brief and cajole and manipulate Trump. Does that make sense to you? It's surely possible.

I don't know for a fact that they did that, but it makes good sense. Although one could argue that they did that, but it makes good sense. Although one could argue that they don't have to bring in massage agents because they have people in the very administration who will

make Israel's case for Israel. I mean, people like John Ratcliffe, who is the head of the CIA and a handful of others. So I'm not sure they needed the, the Masad, but they probably did bring in the Masad to make the case. It appears that Kelsey Gabbard is being sidelined perhaps as a result of that public kerfuffle.

I mean, it wasn't a kerfuffle when she said what she said under oath, which was a true statement, that it was the conclusion of the intelligence community, which according to Ray McGovern and Larry Johnson, is five of the 16 intelligence agencies actually do the gathering, the others do the analyzing. I don't think she's been sidelined. I think she's capitulated to the other side. Oh, all right. Well, that's a better description. She's no longer the person whispering into Trump's ear that the Iranians had no nuclear weapons and weren't building one. Although it seems inescapably clear that those tunnels were empty by the time Trump bombed them. In fact, the Iranian Foreign Ministry announced two days in advance that the tunnels had been emptied.

So did Donald Trump, did Pete Hegseth knowingly bomb empty tunnels? I have no idea whether they thought the tunnels were empty. My sense is that they had gotten the enriched uranium out. My guess is that the cascades were still down there, that they didn't completely empty the underground site at Fordow. I think it would have taken them a long time to get the cascades out of there. And my guess is that the IAE it would have taken him a long time to get the cascades out of there. And my guess is that the IAEA would have known about it. But who knows for sure.

Do you think that the government got caught lying about whether or not it completely obliterated, I'm quoting the president, in a brilliant maneuver planned by the Biden administration, I'm quoting the Secretary of Defense. Do you think they got caught flat foot lying? Well, I think they made unequivocal statements about what had happened here that were contrary to what the Defense Intelligence Agency was saying on the inside and many people were saying on the outside. They probably believed what they were saying, Hegsith, Trump and company. They believed it. So you can't accuse them of lying if they believed and they believed it. So you can't accuse them of lying if they believed what

they were saying. But there were all sorts of reasons to think they were wrong, especially this DIA report. But what's happened now is that the administration and its allies on the outside have gone into overdrive to make the case that it was a spectacular success and we have either eliminated the Iranian nuclear program or set it back for a good number of years. And by the way, you see Tulsi Gabbard and John Radcliffe acting as a tag team to make this case.

But that's just the tip of the iceberg because all sorts of other people in the administration and outside the administration are saying it is a great success, but it was not a great success. Here is President Trump and Secretary Hegseth. Hegseth gets a little hot under the collar, but here they are making their defense of total obliteration. Chris, cut number four. I believe defense of total obliteration. Chris, cut number four.

I believe it was total obliteration. I believe they didn't have a chance to get anything out because we acted fast. If it would have taken two weeks maybe, but it's very hard to remove that kind of material. Very hard and very dangerous for them to remove it. Plus they knew we were coming. And if they know we're coming, they're not going to be down there. There aren't too many people that are going to be down there. Pete, do you have something to say about that?

Well, Mr. President, when you talk to the people who built the bombs, understand what those bombs can do, and deliver those bombs, they landed precisely where they were supposed to. So it was a flawless mission. Flawless. Right down where we knew they needed to enter and given the 30,000 pounds of explosives and capability of those munitions, it was devastation underneath Fordale. And the amount of munitions, six per location, any assessment that tells you it was something

otherwise is speculating with other motives. And we know that because when you actually look at the report, by the way it was a top secret report, it was preliminary, it was a top-secret report, it was preliminary, it was low confidence, all right, so this is a, you make assessments based on what you know, they don't— And they said it could be very devastating, very serious— Moderate to severe, and we believe far more likely severe and obliterated. So this is a political motive here. When they feed each other words like that, I find that highly unpersuasive, Professor Meir Schaumer.

I don't know whose opinion they were trying to persuade. When the Secretary of Defense says flawless and then the President repeats flawless, I don't think anybody questions what the military did. We question the success of the mission, because there may have been nothing there. Well, the point is that they're in panic mode here because they understand the word is getting out, that this was not a spectacular success,

that we didn't obliterate those sites. And this is bad news for Trump because Trump wants to put this war in the back closet. He does not want to continue to fight a war against Iran. And if you declare it's a great success, we won this decisive victory, then we don't have to go back and bomb them again. The real problem here is that it wasn't a great success. We can talk about that.

And that means that the Israelis are going to reload the shotgun to go back after the Iranians. If you look at the Israeli press and you look at what people are saying, on the surface people are making the same argument that Trump is making. Benjamin Netanyahu recently gave a speech where he was sounding just like President Trump. He was saying it's a great success. We've devastated the program, the nuclear program and so forth and so on. But there are all sorts of Israeli national security people who are saying publicly or privately, and then it's being reported in the press that they have to reload the shotgun because this is going to have to be done again.

And the reason is that they fully understand that they did to reload the shotgun because this is gonna have to be done again. And the reason is that they fully understand that they did not take out the entire nuclear program. Iran remains committed to nuclear enrichment. So this war has not come to an end and President Trump will eventually find out that the Iranian nuclear program is alive and well, and then he's going to be faced with the problem of figuring out what to do about that. We're going to play one more clip on this and then we'll change the topic.

Chris, would you please play back to back cuts number 18 and 19. This is Senator Chris Murphy, who's not just a Senator, he's the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. So he has a top secret security clearance. He receives collective and individual briefings from members of the intelligence community. Here's what he had to say, 18 and 19.

The initial assessment of DIA, of the photographic evidence, is that they did not fundamentally destroy those assets. And what we also know is that the Iranians were successful in moving a lot of the enriched uranium out of Fordow. And that maybe is the most important fact. If we didn't destroy the 60% enriched uranium, they frankly don't need that many centrifuges in order to continue to enrich up to nuclear grade. So listen, they're mad, they're furious.

You can see it in their voice because they got caught in a lie. They got caught in a lie. They went out there and said that the nuclear capacity of Iran was obliterated, that we'd set back the program at least a year. They knew they were lying when they said it. They got caught in the lie. That's super embarrassing. And they're trying to cover up that lie with this righteous indignation, blaming everybody but themselves for the fact that they did the really unforgivable sin of national security communication. They fudged intelligence. They fudged intelligence about our national security. You can't do that because, as we have seen over and over again over the course of our

history, that's what gets us into unnecessary wars of choice. That's what gets not dozens or hundreds of Americans killed, but thousands of Americans killed. They're angry because they got caught lying this weekend. Danger is it, dangerous is it for the government to fudge intelligence? It's very dangerous. Let me make a couple of points about what the Senator said.

Please. On the matter of time, it's important to emphasize that the Iranians have known for a long time that we were coming after them in all likelihood at some point. And the Israelis were coming after them in all likelihood at some point.

So over the course of this long time, you can rest assured that the Iranians made all sorts of provisions to protect themselves for the day when the Americans attacked or the Israelis attacked or both of them attacked. And that tells you that it's highly likely that they got the enriched uranium out of Fordow. And contrary to what a number of people on the other side say, it's not that difficult to get the highly enriched uranium out, it just isn't.

It's difficult to get the cascades out. That's why I think the cascades are still down there. Whether they were destroyed is another matter, but I think they were left. But I think they got the highly enriched uranium out. Now, the second point is, it's very important to understand that the uranium's have, the uranium's, the iranians have a very sophisticated capability to build lots have dedicated centrifuges.

And don't you think that along the way they would have built a substantial number of centrifuges that were hidden away somewhere? I'm almost certain that they did that. There are surely centrifuges out there that they can now marry to the enriched uranium that was not in Fordow and make a bomb. This is why the program is not destroyed or obliterated, even if Fordow were obliterated.

And again, I don't think Fordow was obliterated. I think that the senator is correct on that point. And there are all sorts of people on the outside who make that argument. And I think that's where the DIA report was going as well. So the idea that this problem has been settled for once and all is simply wrong and again this is why the Israelis are reloading the shotgun. Who sought the ceasefire? The Israelis or the Iranians? I think it was mainly the Israelis who sought the ceasefire and

the Iranians were interested in the ceasefire, but there's no question the Israelis were in big trouble and Netanyahu and others in the Israeli administration were making the point that they were not prepared to fight a war of attrition. This was clearly evolving into a war of attrition. And in terms of resolve, the Iranians had a great advantage over the Israelis, who are not tough enough to withstand a lengthy war of attrition like the one that was developing. But also, the Israelis were running out of weaponry and their economy was being badly damaged. So they wanted to put an end to the war. And they went to Trump and Trump did it. How badly damaged was Israel stated differently? How badly did the

Israeli leadership underestimate the firepower and resilience of the Iranians? to automate the firepower and resilience of the Iranians? Well, it's very hard to figure out exactly how much damage was done because the Israelis have gone to enormous lengths to make it impossible for us to figure out how much damage was done. And the reason is that a lot of damage was done. And the reason is that a lot of damage was done. But based on the evidence that we have, it's quite clear that significant damage was done to all sorts of buildings inside of Tel Aviv, to the port in Haifa, to Israel's refining capability. Its airport was shut down during the conflict,

which had all sorts of economic consequences. And moreover, it's very important to point out that the Israeli population was not only not used to being attacked like this, it didn't think it could happen. And this has had a really significant effect on the Israeli psyche. And that, again, is one of the reasons I believe that Netanyahu was interested in shutting down the war. He was receiving a lot of pressure from down below. The public was deeply unhappy about what was happening.

And if that war had continued for weeks and then months and then years, it would have had a devastating effect on Israel. According to President Trump on Truth Social. So I don't know whether or not to accept it, but this is what he said, Benjamin Netanyahu will be spending Monday morning Israeli time in the seat of the defendant in a criminal trial. His criminal prosecution continues. How badly damaged did Netanyahu, how badly did Netanyahu damage himself, his tenure in office by this ill-advised,

vengeful, politically motivated attack on Iran? Actually, his standing in Israel is higher than ever, and it's in large part because he, with the help of President Trump and others, have been able to portray this as a great victory. There's just all sorts of people who think this was a stunning victory for Israel. And until that misconception is straightened out, his standing will remain high. But he's been very successful.

He's a brilliant propagandist. There's just no getting around that. His ability to manipulate public opinion in Israel is unparalleled there, just like President Trump's ability to manipulate public opinion in the United States and the bamboozled people, and get away with pretty much anything he wants is unparalleled in American history.

Here's another example of that from President Trump just a few minutes ago. You'll enjoy this. Did you know that the bombing of Iran was a victory for everybody? But here it is. I think it was just a tremendous victory for everybody, including Iran. Look, you know, they've got a country and they've got oil and they're very smart people and they can come back.

Israel got hit very hard, especially the last couple of days. Israel was hit really hard. Those ballistic missiles, boy, they took out a lot of buildings. Is the second part of this statement true about how hard Israel was hit? I guess we don't really know, but we can extrapolate from the crying uncle of Netanyahu. No, he's absolutely right. That's what I was saying before. We don't know the details. There's no question about that. He may know the details because he has access to all sorts of intelligence. Plus, he deals with the Israelis. But he's correct. And by the way,

I said to you that if you read the Israeli press, you'll see that they're talking about reloading the shotgun because this problem has not gone away. You wanna understand that the Iranians now have experience from this bombing campaign, they know what works and what doesn't work. And you can rest assured that they're gonna either go out and procure or buy from another country the sorts of ballistic missiles or cruise missiles

that are most effective against Israel. And if the Israelis start up another fight or we start up another fight, they have the capability, I believe, or they will have the capability in the future to do even more damage against Israel than they did this time. One other point that comes out of this that we don't want to lose sight of, it's quite clear that President Trump was spooked by the possibility the straits of Hormuz may be shut down by the Iranians, that that possibility was real. And this would have had a significant effect on oil prices, and this would have not been good for President Trump's standing here inside the United States. And it's quite clear that one of the reasons he was very interested

in shutting down this war and one of the reasons he wants to keep it shut down is he understands that the threat of attacking Hormuz and shutting down the straits or shutting down the straits of Hormuz is a serious danger to the United States. And I'm sure the Iranians understand that. And the next time this happens, I wouldn't be surprised if they emphasize that threat. And I think it will have some deterrent effect on President Trump. You are a graduate of West Point and a former officer in the Air Force. How dangerous or foolish, or am I barking up the wrong tree, was it for us to reveal the power of our strongest and greatest and highest and most powerful weapon on the Iranians only to have them learn that it did minimal damage.

I don't think it mattered much at all. I think this weapon is good for one thing and that is attacking targets that are particularly difficult to get at because they're buried so deep in the ground. And the number of times that you're gonna run into that problem is not very great. Furthermore, everybody knew that we had this bomb. And so there was no great secret involved here. But I just don't think this is some sort of super weapon that you wanted to keep under wraps until the right time. Should we expect that the Israelis

will comply with the ceasefire? No, the Israelis never comply with the ceasefire. I wouldn't even expect the Americans to comply with the ceasefire. These are two countries that don't believe in rules. I mean, is it a ceasefire to the extent that it is reduced to writing, or is it just Trump on the phone with Netanyahu and Rubio on the phone with the Ayatollah or the president of Iran who was under the Ayatollah? I mean, how serious, how reduced to writing, how legalistic, how universally respected is this kind

of a ceasefire? Well, as best I can tell, there's no written document that lays it out. I think Trump just worked out a deal. The broad parameters of the deal are understood by both sides, and that's what the ceasefire is. But I don't think it would matter even if you had a written ceasefire. Go back to the ceasefire that was put into place on January 19th between Hamas and the Israelis. This is right before President Trump took office. It was a detailed plan, but the Israelis violated it.

They violated the ceasefire in Lebanon against Hezbollah. The Israelis don't really care about ceasefires. They'll adhere to the ceasefire when it's in their interest, and when it's not in their interest, they'll go out and violate the ceasefire when it's in their interest and when it's not in their interest to go out and violate the ceasefire Well, all this is going on the slaughter in Gaza continues outside of Trump and changing his mind. What will stop this slaughter? I

Don't see anything that'll stop it at this point in time You know, it's it's categorically depressing, but there's no other country around the world that's going to step in. And if anything, the Europeans are behaving as badly as ever on this issue, especially the Germans. And the Trump administration shows no evidence of switching gears on this one and putting an end to the genocide. I mean, one hopes that that will happen, but it doesn't look like it's going to happen. And it looks like the Israelis, if anything, get tougher by the day in Gaza. One or two questions about the Europeans, if I might, because of the NATO meetings in Brussels, can they afford to spend 5% of their gross domestic

product on defense? And if they do, what will be the consequences of that? Well, not all of them can. That's for sure. And the Spanish prime minister said, we are the US and the US and the US and the US and the US and the US and the US and the US and the US and the US and the US and the US and the US and the US and the US and the US and the US and the US and the US and the US and the US and the US and the US and the US and the US and the US and the US and the US and the US and the US and the US and the US and the US and the US and the US and the US and the US and the US and the the number is not 5%. It's more like 3.5% because you're allowed to spend 1.5% on non-military things

like building roads and call that defense spending. So they're playing games to begin with. But even 3.5%, I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that you don't even come close to getting all the countries up to 3.5%. It's important to emphasize that what public opinion says in these countries and what their leaders say when they go to Brussels or to The Hague are two different things. And there's going to be a huge amount of opposition in countries like France to going up to 5%. I think that'll even be true in Germany and in Britain.

to going up to five percent. I think that'll even be true in Germany and in Britain. While all this is going on, the war in Ukraine continues. How much longer do you think President Zelensky and his government can last? It's very hard to say, and I don't feel like I'm in a good position to assess what's going on in Ukraine because I've been paying so much attention to the war between Israel and Iran that I have paid little attention to Ukraine over the past two weeks. And I would note that even if I wanted to, it would be very difficult to do because the Israel-Iran issue has so completely dominated the news that there are hardly any stories or hardly any analysis or op-eds about what's going on in Ukraine. But there's no question that the Ukrainians are on the ropes and that Zelensky is on the ropes. Exactly when that government falls remains to be seen. Here's Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov two days ago in an English translation, rather firm in the Russian determination.

Chris, cut number one. The fiasco of Western strategy and tactics is obvious. But Europe is still trying to inflict maximum damage on Russia or, as they say, to contain Russia. But now, however, they say not to contain Russia, but to defeat it, otherwise it will destroy Europe in three to four years. The position of the UN Secretary General Mr. Guterres, a citizen of Portugal, a member state of the European Union and NATO, is very regrettable.

Not only does he regularly and blatantly abuse his powers, he refuses, despite our numerous demands, to call things by their proper names and even to assist in obtaining basic information. Germany's position is also very worrying. Since some time now, together with Italy and Japan, it has voted at the United Nations General Assembly against our annual resolution on the inadmissibility of the glorification of Nazism and, in addition, has taken on the role of leader in supporting the Nazi regime in Kiev, pumping it with finance and weapons. Now they have come up with such a scheme, according to which supposedly they will produce weapons on the territory of Ukraine.

Many objective observers have already cited facts according to which nothing of the sort will happen. This is just a cover for supplying weapons from Germany, from other European countries to the Ukrainian armed forces. Referring to the fact that this is not support, it is not pumping weapons, but it is assistance in setting up their own production. In setting up their own production, making them all co-belligerents. One could argue they're already co-belligerence. But what Lavrov's comments indicate, and I think what's indicated by events at the NATO summit

and just with regard to US-Russian relations in general and US-European relations and European-Russian relations, is that we're nowhere near ending this conflict diplomatically. It's just not going to happen. You're going to get a frozen conflict. It's going to be settled on the battlefield. And furthermore, if you listen to the Europeans talk, it's quite clear that you're going to have poisonous relations

between Europe on one side and Ukraine with them, and then Russia on the other side. It's hard to see a happy ending here. The Europeans have no interest in working out an accommodation with the Russians. And although Trump says he does, he seems to be pushing in that direction one day and then the next day he's pushing in the other direction criticizing the Russians for one reason or another, or siding with the Europeans. And if you're the Russians and you're thinking about some sort of rapprochement with Trump, it's hard to see how you can work that out in any meaningful way given the flips direction every other day. So I think the situation in Ukraine is

as disastrous as ever. Professor Mirsham, thank you very much. Thank you for letting me take your thoughts across the board. And thank you for sharing them with us. Always a pleasure. Thank you for accommodating my schedule. We'll look forward to seeing you next week, my friend. Likewise, Judge. Thank you.

All the best. Coming up tomorrow, Friday, the Intelligence Community Roundtable, Larry Johnson, Ray McGovern at 430 Friday afternoon. Judging the Pallet Town Hall for Judging Freedom. MUSIC