Nov. 20, 2024 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano
27:23
Prof. John Mearsheimer : Israel In Trouble
|
Time
Text
Hi, everyone.
Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom.
Today is Wednesday, November 20, 2024.
Professor John Mearsheimer joins us now.
Professor Mearsheimer, it's a pleasure, my dear friend.
Thank you very much for accommodating our schedule.
I want to spend some time with you on the latest events in Israel.
And what your views are of whether or not the relationship between Israel and the United States can or will change under the Trump administration.
But before we get there, I'd like to ask you some questions about your views on the events in Ukraine.
Over the weekend, the Biden administration announced that it was going to authorize The use of Americans to fire long-range missiles into Russia, and they have done so.
They fired six, five were neutralized, and one destroyed a Russian ammunition depot about 75 miles into Russia.
And just last night, the president announced that he would allow the Ukrainians to use American antipersonnel,
One, when Ukraine finally loses this war, the Biden administration wants to be able to say that it did everything possible to prevent that outcome.
And I think given this last tranche of weapons to Ukraine, they believe will help on that front.
Second point I'd make to you is there is a danger that the Ukrainians will collapse before January 20th.
In other words, the military defeat will take place during the Biden presidency.
And that's the last thing Biden wants.
He wants the collapse or the defeat to occur under Donald Trump.
So that Biden and the Democrats can blame Trump.
So what they're doing here is they're doing everything possible to make sure that Ukraine doesn't collapse before January 20th.
And their belief is that by giving them these mines and by allowing them to use, say, tacums to attack into Russia, that will help somewhat to stem the tide and make sure that Trump ends up getting blamed for Ukraine's defeat.
Almost like Trump, who's Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, negotiated the departure of U.S. forces from Afghanistan, but delayed, delayed, delayed it until it happened on Biden's watch, and Biden got blamed for a catastrophic departure, almost as if it's a tit-for-tat.
I think the analogy is an excellent one.
Let's face it, as we've been saying on this show for God knows how long, Ukraine is an utter disaster.
And when it finally becomes clear that Ukraine has lost, the question is going to be, who has blood on their hands?
And the fact is, whether you like Donald Trump or not, it is not Donald Trump.
It is Joe Biden who is principally responsible for what's happened since February 24th, 2022.
And he deserves the blame, not Trump.
But of course, what's going on here is he's trying to avoid that.
This extension of hostilities, this, as the Russians call it, qualitative difference, is done without regard for morality, without regard for military needs, without regard to the law.
It's just being done to extend morality.
I hope you're not surprised by that.
No, I am not surprised.
You've surely noticed what's going on in Gaza, which is that the Biden administration is complicit in a genocide.
So when you have an administration that's complicit in a genocide, the idea that they're going to act morally or pay attention to international law when it comes to Ukraine is not a serious argument.
I think that's the question.
The timing of this obviously is intended to interfere with the Trump smooth transition, I guess is the only way to characterize it.
But I want you to look at what Sergei Lavrov had to say, the foreign minister of Ukraine.
a process involving top-secret information.
American technicians are inputting data and programming the missiles.
Top secret information.
He knows that American troops are doing this.
Here's the way he put it.
Cut number 14. Well, on the decision of the United States to allow Ukrainian regime to use missiles up to 300 kilometers long, we read what the New York Times published about this.
There are still no confirmation.
Either from the White House or from the Pentagon.
But we basically take our position on the basis of what is going on physically.
And physically attackants, apparently not as long as 300 kilometers, are being used, including this early morning in Russia, against the Bryansk obelisk of Russia, which is...
And we proceed from the understanding that this is happening and that any modification of attack arms cannot be used without American experts and instructors, including satellite data, including programming and targeting.
The President mentioned this several times.
If long-range missiles Are going to be applied from Ukraine into Russian territory, it will also mean that they are operated by American experts, military experts.
And we will be taking this as a qualitatively new phase of the Western war against Russia, and we'll react accordingly.
And we will react accordingly.
What do you think they'll do?
Well, let me just say that when he says it's a qualitatively new phase, I certainly understand what he's saying.
But I think the most important question is, what impact do you think that this will have on the course of the war?
Because that means an enormous amount to the Russians.
Yes, it is true that the Americans have crossed the red line here.
But I would argue that crossing this red line is going to have hardly any military consequence.
That's the point I tried to make earlier.
Whatever Biden is thinking, this is of no military consequence.
Big deal.
They blew up an ammunition depot and they wasted six missiles to do it.
And they only had 50 to begin with, according to most accounts, which means they have 44 left.
And when you take into account that the Russians...
You really wonder what 50 missiles, 58 TACMA missiles, are going to do to change the balance of power.
And the answer is hardly anything at all.
So I don't think this is that big a deal.
I do think that the Russians have a vested interest in doing something to deter future moves like this by the Americans.
So they want to send a signal.
But I don't think the Russians want to overreact here.
I think they just want to continue to do pretty much what they're doing on the battlefield and win the war.
The British...
Also, in this case, they attacked a residential neighborhood, so it probably caused death.
Look, in both of these decisions, Professor Mearsheimer, you will recall President Biden, as recently as a month ago, to the embarrassment of the British Prime Minister, had not been given any forewarning.
Said, we're not going to do it.
It's too dangerous.
He also said about a year ago he wasn't going to allow them to use landmines.
Now, after his administration has been repudiated overwhelmingly by the electorate, he decides to allow the long-term missiles fired by Americans and allow the use of the landmines illegal in 160 countries, but not Ukraine, Russia, or the United States.
The politics here cannot be gainsaid or overlooked, but we're talking about human lives.
Yes, but again, I think what's going on here is that Biden is mainly concerned with who's going to be blamed for the loss of Ukraine, and are people going to be able to say that Ukraine lost because Biden didn't give them all the weapons they need?
So that's really what's going on here, and this is hardly surprising.
You know, the Biden administration is trying to undermine the Trump administration before it takes office on January 20th.
This is what happened back in 2016.
The Democrats and the deep state went to great lengths to cause Trump enormous problems before he took office in January 2017.
And we see this again.
Yes, the George H.W. Bush administration did the same thing in Eastern Europe.
To Bill Clinton.
So these things happen.
Let's transition over to Israel.
How dangerous for the United States is its current relationship with Israel?
Well, I think it's very dangerous for the United States.
There are three big conflicts taking place here, one with Hamas, or the Palestinians more generally, if you want to throw in the West Bank, two with Hezbollah, and three with Iran.
And the United States needs these three conflicts, like it needs a hole in the head.
And furthermore, and very importantly, because we are deeply involved in the Gaza genocide, we have a situation where the United States, and in particular President Biden and his administration, is complicit in a genocide.
This is a moral stain on America's reputation that's going to last for a very, very long time.
So from my point of view, our relationship with Israel today is disastrous, both strategically and morally.
I have to go back to Ukraine.
Forgive me.
I forgot to ask you.
Donald Trump has said he can end the war in 24 hours.
Is that even conceivable?
No.
It's not even conceivable that he can end the war in 24 days or 24 weeks, maybe even 24 months.
The Russians are unequivocal on what the terms are for even starting negotiations.
And one is that Ukraine has to be a permanently neutral country.
In other words, a country that's not in NATO and has no security ties with the West.
And here we're talking mainly about the United States.
And number two, both the West and Ukraine have to accept the fact And without accepting those two provisos, Putin says we don't even negotiate.
Well, I find it hard to imagine that Donald Trump is going to accept the fact that Ukraine And I find it hard to believe that Donald Trump and the Ukrainians as well will accept the fact that those four oblasts and Crimea are Russian territory forever.
So it's just very hard for me to see President Trump accepting the provisos that...
Jake Sullivan, who's the president's national security advisor, revealed that of the 240 or 260 billion, depending on how you count it, that Congress authorized, they have about 7 billion, with a B, remaining, and that Joe Biden plans to spend it.
The Pentagon will spend $3.5 billion a month in the next two months.
How much longer can Ukraine hold out if Donald Trump cuts off the pipeline at noon on January 20th?
Are they receiving enough ammunition and equipment from other Western nations that will sustain them if Trump cuts everything off?
Or do they have enough to last for, as you said, 24 weeks or 24 months?
Well, it's very important, and this was implicit in your question, to distinguish between money and weapons.
We can give them money, but they don't need dollar bills.
What they need are equipment.
What they need is equipment.
They need artillery tubes.
They need tanks.
They need infantry fighting vehicles.
They need lots of artillery shells, air defense systems, on and on.
And very importantly, they need manpower.
And we can't give them any of those things in sufficient numbers to turn the tide here.
It's just not going to happen.
So Biden can spend all the money he wants.
It just doesn't matter.
With regard to what's going to happen here, it is possible that the entire front will collapse before January 20th, despite the fact that Biden is shoveling all this money at the Ukrainians.
This just shows you how hopeless the situation is.
But I have long argued that I think the key effect of Trump will not be so much the material effects of cutting off the flow of money and weaponry as limited as it is to Ukraine.
The key effect will be on the morale of the Ukrainian army.
It's quite clear that at this point in time, the Ukrainian army is losing the war.
They're on their back foot.
And they're in deep trouble.
And I think the fact that Trump is coming into the White House and Trump has made it clear he's not committed to defending Ukraine forever is going to cause, in all likelihood, a morale crisis inside the Ukraine military or the Ukrainian military and speed up the process at which it loses the war, right?
I don't think we're giving cash to Ukraine.
I think we're giving equipment and then giving cash to the defense manufacturers in the U.S. to replace the equipment.
So it's a win-win for the defense manufacturers.
There is much truth in that.
Yeah.
Going back to Israel, do you think Israel will attack Iran without the active military assistance of the United States?
The interesting question is, what will Israel do if there's evidence that Iran is going down the nuclear road?
I think that's the contingency under which Israel will seriously contemplate attacking Iran.
And the Americans have indicated up to now
Now, the question is, what would happen if the Americans sort of welched on their promise and the Americans said, you know, We understand that Ukraine is probably developing a nuclear weapon, but we're not willing to start a major war with Iran.
The question you have to ask yourself is, what would the Israelis do then?
It's quite clear that they do not have sufficient conventional weaponry to shut down the Iranian nuclear program.
Then the question becomes, would the Israelis use nuclear weapons, and we know the Israelis have a nuclear arsenal, to shut down Iran's burgeoning nuclear weapons capability?
And I think there is a serious possibility that they would.
And what would Russia and China do if Israel uses nuclear weapons on Iran?
China buys 90% of its oil from Iran.
Well, it's not clear what they would do.
I mean, they're not going to start a nuclear war, and if the Israelis were to use nuclear weapons, it's not clear what anybody would do at that point.
I mean, the Iranians would certainly be incentivized in the extreme to get their own nuclear weapons, so they had a nuclear deterrent that could prevent a further attack of that sort.
Well, if the attack were not nuclear, and the U.S. decided to Help Netanyahu.
How would Donald Trump sell this to the American public?
I mean, stated differently, what would be the purpose of an American war?
Boots on the ground and jets in the air in the Middle East.
Well, they'd have no trouble selling it.
The lobby would go You could count on the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and the mainstream media to tell a story why it was in Israel's interest and America's interest, and they'd have no trouble selling it.
Of course, in the alternative media, in shows like this, we would tell a different story, of course.
In the mainstream media, they'd have no problem selling this.
And what would the American objective be?
To destroy the Iranian nuclear capability and allow the Israelis to retain theirs?
Of course, that would be the goal.
But as I've said before on the show, I think over the long term, that's an impossible goal to achieve.
I mean, there's no question that there is a serious chance that the United States, especially, but working with the Israelis, Could tear apart Iran's nuclear capability, but it would only be for the short term.
The Iranians would eventually build that capability in places that we could not get at, and they would end up with nuclear weapons.
And this would be disastrous.
But that doesn't mean that we, the Americans and the Israelis, wouldn't try if we thought that Iran was...
What would be the strategic cost to the United States, if any, of not assisting the Israelis to attack Iran?
Well, the United States has a vested interest, independent of Israel.
In preventing proliferation.
And we don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons.
And if Iran has nuclear weapons, this is not considered good.
But the problem is much bigger than that, because if Iran gets nuclear weapons, the Saudis have said they will get nuclear weapons.
And of course, the Turks, the Iraqis and the Egyptians won't be far behind.
So you would have, I believe, significant nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.
If Iran were to get nuclear weapons and the process of proliferation would be full of potential dangers because different states would have incentives to take out other states' nuclear capabilities.
Before they reach fruition.
So it would be a very messy and dangerous process, and one that we'd like to avoid.
And that, of course, is why we have gone to great lengths, independent of Israel, to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
But the proliferation has begun.
India has nuclear weapons.
Pakistan has nuclear weapons.
Pakistan might come to the aid of Iran.
Would Trump crew understand the danger of blindly giving Netanyahu everything he wants?
No.
But just to go to the nuclear issue, you want to remember that it's President Trump who in 2018 pulled out of the JCPOA.
That was the nuclear arms control agreement that Barack Obama and the Chinese and the Russians and the Germans and the French and the British had worked out with Iran in 2015.
We had basically shut down for a long time the Iranian nuclear program in 2015 with the JCPOA.
But, of course, the Israelis hated that agreement.
Benjamin Netanyahu, in particular, hated that agreement.
And he put tremendous pressure on the United States to kill it.
And Donald Trump foolishly killed it in 2018.
And he said, what we're going to do instead is put maximum pressure on Iran.
And he thought that the strategy of maximum pressure would work.
But of course, it has not worked.
And now Iran is really very close to being able to build a nuclear weapon.
And it's in large part because we pulled out of the JCPOA.
So listening to Netanyahu and the Israelis more generally was a foolish thing to do.
How...
Israel is in deep trouble.
There is no question about that.
In Gaza, they have not defeated Hamas.
They have no solution for putting an end to that war and allowing themselves to get out of there.
In fact, they're stuck there.
And you wanna remember that Well, they're back in the hornet's nest.
They've been unable to defeat Hezbollah.
Hezbollah is still firing over 100 rockets and missiles per night into Israel.
And with regard to Iran, they can whack Iran, but Iran whacks them back.
So they've not, you know, And indeed, as we were just talking about, Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons.
And then when you look inside Israel and you look at the centrifugal forces at play inside that society, and you couple that with the state of the Israeli economy, Israel is in real trouble.
And even when the shooting stops, there's no good reason to think that the trouble is going to end.
This is a country that is in deep trouble and is going to remain in deep trouble for as far as the eye can see.
And the fingers will be pointed at Benjamin Netanyahu, one of whose corruption trials is resuming, even though he's the sitting prime minister.
Yeah, I think that that's right.
I think once all the shooting stops and people have a chance to take stock of what's happened, It's going to be disastrous for Netanyahu.
Because you want to remember, he was in charge on October 7th.
And he had pretty good relations with Hamas before October 7th.
He was not unsatisfied with the presence of Hamas in Gaza.
And he was, in an indirect way, helping to keep Hamas in power.
And then, of course, Israel got surprised on October 7th.
So I think that, you know, he's going to get a lot of blame once people begin to write about what happened during this conflict.
His chief spokesperson is indicted and incarcerated without bail, and the allegation is falsifying records about to whom Benjamin Netanyahu spoke and when he spoke to those people on the morning of October 7th.
Yeah, I've been following that.
It's a fascinating story.
And there are a number of other cases involving him and his office, leaking documents that were designed to put the blame on Hamas for what was happening with regard to not reaching some sort of negotiated settlement in Gaza that show his office behaving in unethical ways.
Professor Gersheimer, a pleasure, my dear friend.
I hope we can chat next week.
If we miss you, happy Thanksgiving.
But it was a short week, and I hope we can find time together.
Likewise, and happy Thanksgiving to you if we don't talk.