All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 21, 2024 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano
37:26
Prof. John Mearsheimer : A Destructive Foreign Policy
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, everyone.
Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom.
Today is Thursday, August 22, 2024.
Professor John Mearsheimer will be here with us in just a moment on just how destructive to world peace is American foreign policy.
But first this.
A divisive presidential election is upon us, and the winner is gold.
Let me tell you what I mean.
Since 2016, Our national debt has grown a staggering 70%, and gold has increased by 60%.
Do you own gold?
I do.
I bought my gold in February 2023, and it has risen 33%.
You've heard me talk about Lear Capital, the company I trust.
Let me tell you why.
Recently, Kevin DeMeritt, who is the founder and CEO of Lear, assisted the FBI in discovering a nationwide gold theft ring.
And because of Kevin's good work, the FBI caught these people before they could steal anymore.
That's why I have been saying...
They believe in America.
They believe in their product.
And they're honest to the core.
So take action right now, my friends.
Call 800-511-4620 or go to learjudgenap.com.
Protect your savings and retirement before it's too late.
800-511-4620, learjudgenap.com.
Remember, hope is not a strategy, but gold is.
Professor Mearsheimer, my friend, welcome back to the show.
Thank you, of course, for all the time you give us.
How dangerous is it?
A big picture now, you can get as granular as you like in your response.
How dangerous is it for world peace for the United States to be searching the world for enemies?
Stated differently, how dangerous is our general post-World War II foreign policy?
Post-Cold War policy has done a lot of damage around the world.
I think when you go back to the forever wars and the global war on terrorism, you see that after September 11th, we caused unending trouble around the world and got ourselves into a whole heck of a lot of trouble in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.
And more recently, we basically played, I think, the key role in precipitating the Ukraine war, which is a disaster.
And now we're not only involved up to our eyeballs.
In the Ukraine war, but we're involved up to our eyeballs in the Gaza genocide.
We have supported the Israelis hook, line, and sinker as they've executed this genocide.
Furthermore, the war has escalated beyond Gaza.
To include a conflict between Israel and Hezbollah that we worry about getting sucked into.
To include a conflict between Iran and Israel that we actually got sucked into on April 14th when we actually were in combat against Iranian forces, missiles, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles and drones.
And there is a real danger when we get sucked back into a conflict between Iran and Israel.
So we live in a very dangerous world, and we, of course, have played a key role in creating this world, and we have had lots of opportunities to tamp down the violence and to avoid conflicts, and we hardly ever take advantage of those opportunities.
How dangerous for the peace and security of Israel is Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu?
Well, I believe he's a disaster for Israel.
I think it's in Israel's interest.
To certainly shut down the war with Gaza, the war with the Palestinians in Gaza as soon as possible.
And I believe that would put an end to the conflict with Hezbollah, or at least put that conflict on the back burner, which is in Israel's interest.
And furthermore, I think if Israel were smart, It's not clear that's possible anymore, in large part because of the policies that Netanyahu has been pursuing over the years.
But Israel has a deep-seated interest in working out some sort of deal, some sort of arrangement with the Palestinians, putting an end to the conflict with Hezbollah.
And furthermore, Netanyahu has a penchant for picking a fight.
With Iran.
He wants, indeed, to drag the United States and Iran into a war.
He's tried twice now to precipitate that war.
This is not in our interest, and I believe it's not in Israel's interest.
So if you look at all these conflicts that Israel is in, You see that Israel is in really serious trouble.
Let me add to this, if I may, Professor Mearsheimer, the fact that every time Hamas agrees to whatever is on the negotiating table, Israel demands more.
And whenever Israel places a plan on that negotiating table, it knows Hamas will never accept it.
Moreover, Israel has murdered the chief negotiator on the other side.
Can we safely conclude that Prime Minister Netanyahu has given up on the hostages, given up on the ceasefire, never wanted it, and given up on negotiations?
Prime Minister Netanyahu does not want to cease fire.
It's interesting.
Tony Blinken recently was in the Middle East, and all the headlines advertised the fact that after talking to the Israelis, including Netanyahu, Blinken pronounced that Israel accepted the deal, the bridging proposal that the Americans had put on the table for creating a cease fire.
But if you read those articles carefully, in the articles, a couple paragraphs down, it invariably says that Netanyahu did not accept the bridging proposal.
He's not in favor of the ceasefire.
So Blinken is saying something that, in my opinion, is patently untrue.
He's either delusional or he's lying.
Your colleague on this show and admirer I agree with Chaz, of course.
I'd take it a step further.
I think we should now refer to Tony Blinken as Netanyahu's lawyer.
I think that would be an accurate representation of the relationship.
That is a brilliant and gifted nom de guerre for him.
One of the former director generals of Mossad last week called Israel, quote, a racist and violent state that cannot survive, closed quote.
Do you agree?
Well, it is an apartheid state.
So by definition, it's a racist state.
Israel is clearly an apartheid state, despite the fact that its supporters here in the West recoil at that label.
They do.
I have lost friends for articulating that label.
In the case of one of them, a friendship of 50 years going back to when we were undergraduates at Princeton.
Yeah, I mean that is commonplace.
You know Israel supporters In my opinion, this is not a serious argument.
An apartheid state cannot be a flawed liberal democracy.
An apartheid state is a racist state.
And as I've said a number of times in public, there are three major reports done by three of the most prominent human rights organizations in the world.
Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and B'Tselem, which is an Israeli.
Human rights organization that have all written lengthy reports that make the case in a comprehensive and compelling way that Israel is an apartheid state.
And just to take this a step further, Judge, it's very important to understand that this apartheid state is executing a genocide.
And at the same time, the United States is joined at the hip with Israel.
We support Israel unconditionally.
This is crazy.
From America's point of view, and in my humble opinion, it is not good for Israel for one second.
And I think this is why a lot of people think that Israel's future is so bleak.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that Israel is going to disappear from the map, but Israel is in real trouble.
And as you look forward, that trouble just grows and grows and grows.
So the war against Hamas cannot be won.
That's not from me or from you.
That's from the leaders of the IDF.
The IDF has publicly stated they're exhausted.
They don't want to be forced to go into Lebanon against Hezbollah.
The Israeli economy is in shambles.
You have comments like the one I just quoted from the former chief of Mossad.
You have Ben Gavir and Smotrich threatening to leave the government, which will remove the prime ministership from, No, I don't think there is a tradition in Israel of the military trying to unseat the political leadership.
And I see no evidence that the military is now thinking about removing him from power.
And I think the military understands, as hard as this might be to believe, that Netanyahu is the most popular politician in Israel at the time.
So if they were to remove him, they would be removing a very popular prime minister.
And this would not be a smart thing to do.
So I don't think this is a real problem.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
He'd probably be replaced by somebody of like mind, maybe with a more pleasant attitude.
I think that's true with one major qualification, and that qualification is I think it is likely that if he were replaced by someone like Bennett, that he would work out a ceasefire arrangement in Gaza.
I think there are all sorts of people in the security community and outside of Netanyahu's circle who think it's time to have a ceasefire in Gaza.
But in terms of how that new replacement or how that replacement for Netanyahu, that new prime minister, would act towards the Palestinians in general, I think there would be hardly any change at all.
Before we move over to Ukraine and Russia and the invasion into Russia, what is your observation about the time that has passed between the assassination by the Israelis of the Hamas leader in Tehran and today,
during which there has been no, that we're aware of, military response I'm actually surprised.
After the assassination, which you want to remember was on July 31st.
That was a long time ago.
If you listen to the Iranians talk, they were talking about a massive attack, and that massive attack was going to happen soon.
But obviously there's been no attack at all, as you said.
And that, I think, is surprising to almost everybody.
Now, the Iranians are saying, don't worry, we will attack at some point and it will be at a time of our choosing.
And they point out and others point out that this works to Iran's advantage because it keeps the Israelis on their toes, keeps them in a state of fear, and it has economic consequences for Israel.
Airlines are very reluctant to send planes flying into Israel when there's a possibility.
That the Iranians will launch a missile strike against the airfields that they land at.
So one could argue that this is a smart strategy from the Iranian point of view.
But whether that's true or not, it is surprising that they didn't attack.
They haven't attacked so far.
Prime Minister Netanyahu apparently was underground for 12 days in some protective facility expecting an attack.
I would think Mossad would have a good handle on whether and when the attack is coming.
They probably do have a good handle on when it will come once the Iranians mobilize the assets they're going to use against Israel.
But the fact is the Iranians have done nothing in that regard.
So there's been nothing for the Mossad or for the Israeli intelligence forces to see.
So I don't think they're missing anything here.
I want to make one other point.
You know, we were talking about how much trouble Israel is in.
Over all the years that I've followed Israel, one of its most important claims was that it could defend itself.
Yes, it needed to buy weaponry from the United States or to be given weaponry by the United States, but when it came to fighting against its adversaries, it could do it alone.
It was a sovereign state, if I can use that term.
If you look at what's going on with regard to how Israel will deal with an Iranian attack, should it come?
And how Israel dealt with the Iranian attack on April 14th, it's very clear that the Israelis need the United States, and they need the United States in a big way.
And they not only need the United States, because once they bring in the United States, they bring in some European states as well, like the British and the French, they bring in the Jordanians, they bring in the Saudis, and it's a collective effort.
Now, one can say this is a good thing because Israel is able to work with other countries.
Okay.
But the real problem is, if you're Israel, you don't want to be in a situation where you're dependent on any other country in the crunch.
And this includes the United States.
And for a long time, this was one of the central planks of Israeli security policy, this sense of independence.
but it has really gone away.
And it just shows you Will there ever be a two-state solution without force, without a power forcing it on the Israelis?
I don't think so.
To be honest, I find it unimaginable.
I've argued for many years now that that train has left the station.
There are just too many settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem to begin with.
And furthermore, if you look at the political center of gravity inside of Israel, since you and I were young, that center of gravity has moved steadily toward the right.
And if you project out into the future, it's going to move even further to the right.
When I was young and you were young, the idea that somebody like Ben Gavir or Smotrich would be in an Israeli cabinet was almost unthinkable.
It was unthinkable.
It's not possible.
And in fact, if anything, the state would have had its gun sights on those guys and have gone to great lengths to make sure that they didn't cause any unnecessary trouble.
But those days are gone.
They now have the car keys.
And they're not going away.
They're going to become more powerful politically as time goes by.
And the people who should worry the most about this are the Palestinians.
You really want to think about what the future holds for the Palestinians who live inside greater Israel, given where the political center of gravity inside Israel is headed, and given what the Israelis have just done since October 7th.
Are there Palestinians who are citizens of Israel because they were born there and they still live there?
Yes.
Yes, there are Palestinian citizens.
You want to remember when we talk about greater Israel, we're talking about three pieces.
One is Gaza.
Two is the West Bank.
And Gaza and the West Bank are the occupied territories.
But then there is what's called Green Line Israel.
This is the Israel that was created in 1948 when Israel got its independence.
And it was before the 1967 war when Israel acquired Gaza and the West Bank, the so-called occupied territories.
So Green Line Israel, pre-1967 Israel, has a population that includes about 20% Palestinians.
And most of those Palestinians are citizens and they can vote.
The Palestinians who live in Gaza and the Palestinians who live in the West Bank, it's a completely different story.
What about the Golan Heights in this geographic description of yours?
Well, the Golan Heights belong to Syria.
Isn't it occupied?
Yes.
It's occupied.
Although Donald Trump, when he was president, said that it's not occupied and it belongs to Israel.
That is obviously not consistent with international law or international understanding.
That's correct.
Okay.
There's no doubt about that.
All right.
Transitioning.
Who or what invaded Russia in the Kursk region?
Was it Ukraine?
Was it NATO?
Was it the United States?
Well, it was clearly Ukraine.
And the interesting question is whether the United States was involved and whether Britain was involved.
And, of course, if the United States and Britain were involved, you could say NATO was involved.
But I think the really important question is what level of involvement That the Americans and the British have.
Let's just focus on the Americans.
At first, we made the argument that we didn't even know the Ukrainians were going to do this.
Is that credible?
No, it's not credible, in my opinion.
You want to remember that the Ukrainians have to ask our permission as to how far into Russia they can lob a Takum's missiles.
This is a really big deal.
The Ukrainians are not free just to lob Atakum's missiles anywhere inside of Russia.
Given that simple fact, do you think that they would not have felt compelled to ask permission to send about 10,000 forces across the border?
Oh, but Professor Mearsheimer, Nettingen Two members of the president's cabinet stayed in defense.
Well, in the case of those two individuals, they might not have known anything about it, but I can tell you that it's much more likely, if not extremely likely, that people who are deeply involved in the intelligence community and even in the And furthermore, as I say, I think it's unthinkable that the Ukrainians wouldn't have asked for our permission to do this.
You want to understand what's happened here.
Ukraine has invaded Mother Russia.
This is the first invasion of the Russian homeland since June 22, 1941.
This is not just dropping a couple Atakum's missiles on the Russian homeland.
This is a ground invasion of Russia.
I find it hard to believe that they didn't coordinate this with us.
And the idea that we were surprised, how could we have been surprised?
We are inextricably bound up in their planning process, in their intelligence process, in the training of their military forces, and so forth and so on.
It's really inconceivable to me that we didn't know about it.
And then the question becomes, Did we help them?
Did we purposely help them?
Did the British purposely help them?
Did we help them plan this operation?
And so forth and so on.
Did we give them intelligence?
And if I had to bet, I would bet a lot of money that we did, despite the fact that we're denying that.
So our friend and colleague on the show, Larry Johnson, says...
given the certainty that American ammunition was used, given the probability that American human beings were on the ground, CIA, contractors, soldiers of fortune, maybe even U.S. military out of uniform.
Larry Johnson says, he takes what you say one step further, the United States of America invaded Russia.
Do you accept that argument?
You can argue both sides of that, which is a way of saying I'm agreeing with Larry, but on the other hand, I'm not sure I completely agree with him.
We are so deeply involved in this war that it is not a great leap to agree with Larry.
We don't have mainstream or mainline combat units involved in the process, but we're doing everything else possible to help the Ukrainians wage this war.
And by the way, I was listening to Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, talk the other day.
And it's quite clear from listening to him talk and listening to other Russians talk that they agree with Larry, that they believe that the United States is deeply involved in this whole operation in Kursk and the United States is effectively at war.
Do you think that this was NATO brilliance or Russian?
I think this operation was a fiasco.
I think it was a huge mistake on the part of the Ukrainians to invade Russia.
It's not going to work to their advantage.
In fact, I believe it's going to speed up their defeat.
There's no question the Russians were caught by surprise.
At least in my mind, there are some people who think the Russians saw this coming and just let the Ukrainians cross the border because they knew it would end up as a fiasco.
I don't believe that.
It is possible, but I don't believe that.
I think the Russians were caught by surprise.
And by the way, the reason I think the Russians were caught by surprise was because it's such a crazy idea that the Russians didn't think the Ukrainians would be foolish enough to do it.
That's why they got caught by surprise.
No.
If he were smart, and he is smart, he'd leave them there.
And he'd go after them with air power and drones and artillery.
it's a giant killing zone.
Look, what happened here is the Ukraine And that strike force went on the offensive.
And when you go on the offensive, you're moving out in the open.
And when you're moving out in the open and you do not have air cover, and the other side has control of the skies and also has a huge fleet of drones.
And also has a huge amount of artillery.
You are presenting the other side, which are the Russians in this case, with a huge number of targets.
And what the Russians have been doing is basically cordoning off the assault forces, keeping them in a relatively restricted area, and letting them go on the offensive and try to break through.
And in the process, destroying those forces.
David Axe, who is a quite astute analyst of the conflict, who writes for Fortune magazine, says that the Ukrainians have been losing twice as many armored vehicles on a daily basis than they were in the war before August 6th.
Just think about that.
The Russians are destroying twice as many armored vehicles since August 6th in Kursk than they were destroying other places on the battlefield before that date.
This tells you that that attack force is exposed, and an attack force that's exposed and has no air cover and is up against the Russians, who have lots of air power and have lots of artillery, is going to suffer egregious casualties.
My estimate, by the way, is that the Russians committed about 10,000 troops, excuse me, the Ukrainians committed about 10,000 troops, and they've suffered about 4,000 casualties.
Were you surprised, or are you surprised, Professor Meersheimer, at the reports that Poles and other Eastern European countries,
I would not be surprised if there is a small representative of Polish soldiers and even soldiers from the Baltic states.
I would not be surprised.
But I don't think the numbers would be or the numbers are large.
And I have no evidence that they actually were there.
I'm just telling you, I wouldn't be surprised.
Right.
Do you think Zelensky's people are crazy enough to this group that's there attack Russian nuclear facilities?
They already attacked a cooling tower on one of them.
Well, Putin is saying out loud that they are trying to attack the nuclear plant that's just south of Kursk.
There are a number of people who argue that the principal objective of this offensive was to capture.
This Russian nuclear plant that's just south of Kursk.
So I think that there is a real danger here that the Ukrainians will move on that power plant one way or another because they are convinced that it will give them leverage.
I don't think it will give them leverage.
I think it's a remarkably foolish thing to do.
Look, if the Ukrainians were smart, what they would have done is used all those forces that they've sent into Kursk to reinforce the Eastern Front.
It's hard to believe, but to make the Kursk offensive work, the Ukrainians had to pull forces off the Eastern Front, where this war is being settled, and where they're in deep trouble.
They had to pull forces away.
It's not only that they didn't send reinforcements to the Eastern Front, they pulled forces away from the Eastern Front.
And if you read about what the battles look like on the Eastern Front since August 6th, it's quite clear that the Russians are doing better by the day because Ukrainian resistance is weakening by the day because the Ukrainians have funneled and are funneling forces away from the Eastern Front into the Kursk region.
This, in my opinion, is remarkably foolish.
They should be concentrating on defending in eastern Ukraine.
Can I be a little cynical?
We know that Ukraine can't fall until after November 5th, right?
Yeah, I think there's a lot of truth in that.
I think the United States is deeply fearful that Ukraine will fall before then.
I don't think that's likely, but I think it's certainly possible.
And fall might not be the right word.
It could be the case that the eastern flank collapses.
It's a lengthy flank.
You know, it's many hundreds of kilometers, and that front could collapse.
It's very hard to say.
When you read the accounts, and this is in the Western press, of the state of the various brigades and battalions that are fighting against the Russians on the Eastern Front, it's very clear that the casualty levels inside those brigades and battalions is just enormous.
You say to yourself, when you read about this, how are these casualties?
By historical standards, they should have collapsed.
They should be incapable of carrying on the fight.
But for some reason, they managed to sort of hang in there.
But there are limits to what they can do because they're so thoroughly outgunned.
This is the Ukrainians by the Russians.
They're so thoroughly outmanned.
And the Russians have a huge advantage in air power.
It's just a matter of time before that Russian steamroller causes the Ukrainian forces in the East to collapse.
But when that happens, it's hard to say.
But it would be a huge blow for the Biden-slash-Harris team if the Eastern Front collapsed before the election.
Before we went on here, I promised you a little surprise.
This is a clip from 11 years ago.
You'll know both people in this clip.
One is a decent, peace-loving man who passed away this week, which is why we're running it.
And one is one of the great blowhards of our era.
Please pay attention to the last sentence articulated at the very end of this by the peace-loving man.
Chris, cut number 10. We say that her positions are radical, and they are radical.
Let me tell you what's radical.
What's radical is to send more Americans to die in this war, which is a monumental blunder by a president who's swaggered us into it, with, by the way, the at least tacit approval of the Democratic Party.
There's a lot of sin to go around here.
What's radical for you?
Do you want to send more people to this war?
Is that your position?
If we cut and run out of there like you want to do, we would be putting every American in a thousand times more jeopardy than they're in now.
We're going to cut and run anyway, Bill.
Well, that's your opinion.
That's my opinion.
American military leaders have said we're going to draw down beginning next year.
The difference is we've drawn down and cut and run.
Now listen, listen.
You wouldn't send your children to this war, Bill.
My nephew just enlisted in the army.
You don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Very good.
Congratulations.
You ought to just walk away.
How many more young men and women?
Are you going to send to have their arms and legs blown off so that you can be tough and point at people in a kind of cowardly way?
And they knew that, first of all, only Congress can declare war.
Why is that unimportant to you, Billy?
Why can't you become the patriot that your loud voice proclaims to be and stand behind the Constitution and insist that we never go to war again without...
Poorly planned and poorly executed, but Bill O 'Reilly wants to send more kids to fight and die.
We've already had almost 2,000.
Just let me have the last word.
In the last year, two things have doubled.
The number of dead American troops in Iraq have doubled, from over 1,000 to almost 2,000.
You know what else doubled, Billy?
The price of Halliburton stock.
Whoa!
What'd you think?
Well, it brings back memories of the run-up to the Iraq War in 2003.
Steve Walt and I were adamant opponents of that war and were way out in front in public arguing against that war, but there were not many people with us.
Phil Donahue was with us for sure.
And he suffered seriously.
Yes, yes.
His career suffered seriously.
But God bless him.
He was right.
He was right.
Of course he was right.
He was right in what his views were.
And he was right in predicting how this would end.
I thought you'd appreciate this bit of history.
I call O 'Reilly a blowhard.
He's still my friend.
He knows I call him a blowhard.
So I was outside the studio when that happened in the green room.
I was on right after Phil.
Phil came out, and I hugged him, and he hugged me.
And I sat down with O 'Reilly, and I said, Bill, Phil Donahue just ate your lunch.
And he got so mad at me, he threatened to throw me off the show.
I said, go ahead, throw me off.
Do whatever you want to do.
John Mearsheimer, it's a pleasure, my dear friend.
Thank you for enjoying this little piece of history.
But more importantly, thank you for all the time.
And the intellectual depth that you present to us.
I hope we can see you again soon.
You're welcome, Judge, and I look forward to coming back.
Thank you.
Coming up at 4 o 'clock Eastern, Professor Jeffrey Sachs.
▲
Export Selection