Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

July 10, 2025 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano

36:16

Prof. John Mearsheimer : Ukraine/Gaza/Iran: Is Peace Possible?

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hi, everyone.
	Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom.
	Today is Thursday, July 10th, 2025.
	Professor John Mearsheimer joins us now.
	Professor Mearsheimer, always a pleasure, my dear friend, thank you for joining us.
	Thank you for accommodating my schedule.
	Professor Mearsheimer, why do you suppose that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been to the White House and to Capitol Hill each three times in the past six months, the most recent of which were two visits this week, concluding yesterday?
	Let me make one big point here.
	You do not want to underestimate the extent to which Israel is dependent on the United States.
	As I've said on a number of occasions on the show, Israel used to pride itself on being an independent actor in terms of fighting wars and in terms of conducting its foreign policy.
	That world has gone away.
	They are heavily dependent on us.
	Benjamin Netanyahu, who needs us, needs us desperately.
	So it's no accident that he has come to visit Trump three times.
	Just think about that.
	Three times in the past six months.
	And as you watch him interact with Trump, what you see is that he goes to enormous lengths to kiss up to Trump.
	And the reason is he's so dependent.
	His country is so dependent on the United States.
	This is an unhealthy situation for Israel.
	And it's also an unhealthy situation for the United States.
	But it is where we are at today.
	Do you suppose that Trump is naive enough, simple-minded enough, vainglorious enough to be impressed by the sycophant-like behavior?
	I mean, for example, Benjamin Netanyahu nominating somebody for the Nobel Peace Prize.
	This sounds like a skit on Saturday Night Live.
	It's so absurd.
	Who would take such a nomination seriously, except perhaps the nominee?
	I think that's exactly right.
	It's laughable to people like us, but to Trump, having his ego assuaged is of enormous importance.
	You also see this with Mark Ruda, who is the present head of NATO.
	He goes to great lengths to kiss up to Trump because he believes, like Netanyahu believes, that flattering Trump really gets you a long way.
	And I think both Ruda and Netanyahu are correct in that assessment.
	Do you think there's any connection between or can you shed any light on or can you offer any analysis of the fact that while Netanyahu was here, the government did a 180 on the Epstein files and after the Attorney General said they're on my desk and we're reviewing them now says the client list doesn't exist.
	Is there any connection between Netanyahu's presence here and this bizarre aggravating to his base announcement?
	I don't have any hard evidence to show a connection, but as Max Blumenthal laid out on the show the other day, there's a lot of circumstantial evidence that makes one thing, that Jeffrey Epstein was tied up very closely, certainly with Mossad, but probably with the CIA as well.
	And what's going on here is if that list is made publicly available, we'll see those connections.
	I'm not sure of that because I haven't seen the list, but there's a lot more going on here than meets the eye for sure.
	And again, I think Max laid that out very clearly on the show the other day.
	Here's the president's reaction when in his presence, actually at a cabinet meeting, the attorney general was asked what's going on here.
	Before she could answer, he jumps down the reporter's throat.
	Why are you even asking this?
	Watch this.
	Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein?
	This guy's been talked about for years.
	That is unbelievable.
	Do you want to waste the time?
	Do you feel like answering?
	I don't mind answering.
	I mean, I can't believe you're asking a question on Epstein.
	In February, I did an interview on Fox, and it's been getting a lot of attention because I said, I was asked a question about the client list, and my response was, it's sitting on my desk to be reviewed.
	Also, to the tens of thousands of video, never going to be released, never going to see the light of day.
	To him being an agent, I have no knowledge about that.
	We can get back to you on that.
	And that's it on Epstein.
	The United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Alexander Acosta, who was the Trump Secretary of Labor in the first term and who negotiated the plea deals with Mr. Epstein, said he was an agent.
	Would it be beyond Mossad to use sex as both a weapon and an instrument of intelligence?
	Oh, absolutely not.
	And Jeffrey Epstein was the perfect person to use.
	Again, we don't have the hard evidence, but the circumstantial evidence here is overwhelming.
	And I would also note to you that when I listen to Trump talk about this issue, he's protesting too much.
	He's so defensive that it makes you almost certain that there's something going On here that he doesn't want to let out.
	And, you know, we don't know absolutely, we're not absolutely certain what that is, but it certainly smells like there's a connection here with Israel.
	Will Israel ever be at peace with its neighbors without them being reduced to impotence?
	No, no.
	If they're reduced to impotence, you will have peace.
	I mean, and that is Israel's ultimate goal here.
	It's to basically cleanse Greater Israel of the Palestinians, create what's effectively an all-Jewish state, and then turn Iran into Syria and basically create this situation where there is no country in the region that can challenge Israel in any meaningful way.
	And of course, at the same time, they will go to great lengths to remain joint at the hip with the United States.
	That's what they're trying to do.
	Now, whether you think they can achieve that is another matter.
	Well, that is effectively unachievable, isn't it?
	Are they going to reduce Iran to impotence?
	Are they going to reduce Egypt to impotence?
	Are they going to reduce Turkey to impotence?
	And what are they going to do?
	Destroy the sovereignty of the countries around them for a thousand miles?
	Well, they'll try, for sure.
	There's no question about that.
	I do not think they will succeed for one second.
	As we just saw in Iran, their efforts to turn Iran into Syria failed.
	And if anything, it reinforced the strength of the regime in Iran.
	And before I came on the show today, I was reading where Israeli intelligence says that they believe that Iran has nuclear material, that not all the nuclear material was destroyed in the various attacks during the 12-day war.
	So all of this tells you that that offensive failed.
	We read the same article at the same time because this just came out about 90 minutes ago, and I was going to ask you about it.
	Does this resolve, I guess Trump would get defensive on this if asked in public and on camera, does this resolve the totally obliterated argument that he and Pete Hegseth hung on to, that in fact there was no obliteration, no total obliteration, as they insisted for weeks?
	Well, one would think in Donald Trump's case that for something to be finalized, he would have to get the okay from Israel, from Israeli intelligence.
	And now that Israeli intelligence has said that some of that enriched uranium has survived, he would acknowledge that and admit he was wrong.
	But if it was just Americans like you and me and others making the argument, he wouldn't accept that.
	He prefers to rely on Israeli intelligence.
	Do you think that in those private meetings with Netanyahu, and by my count there were three of them, well, one of which was partially public, where he ostentatiously handed what purported to be a copy of the letter of nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize, that Mossad agents or officials were present?
	Or do we not need Mossad agents?
	And I'll use Max Blumenthal's phrase, because the Mossad stenographer seated three seats over from Trump is always there.
	He has another job.
	It's called the Director of Central Intelligence.
	I agree with Max.
	You know, the Director of Central Intelligence is in Israel's pocket.
	And there's no need for Mossad agents to be there.
	Furthermore, Benjamin Netanyahu is there, and he's more than enough to deal with this issue.
	I don't know if you know or know of this professor, Paolo Noguria, an economist and the former head of the International Monetary Fund.
	This professor made a very, very important comment recently.
	Chris Cutt, number six.
	Iran is not only a very important country by itself in all respects, but it is a link between Russia and India.
	It is a link, possible link between Middle East oil and China, bypassing the Strait of Hormuz.
	So Iran is strategically very important.
	And that perhaps is in the minds of Americans and Israelis when they are permanently hostile to Iran.
	Now, Iran should have had an atomic bomb a long time ago, in my opinion.
	Because this is deterrence acting.
	Iran failed to do that, tried to cooperate, and now it has learned a lesson, I presume, and will go for a full-scale nuclear program, in my opinion.
	Let's see.
	Does this make sense to you, Professor Mearsheimer?
	Well, I've long argued that Iran should have gotten nuclear weapons, and they were foolish not to.
	Whether they will is another matter.
	I'm not sure on that count what's going to happen moving forward.
	There are all sorts of factors at play here that point in either direction, so one doesn't know for sure.
	But the incentives for them to get nuclear weapons are certainly great at this point in time.
	With regard to Iran and its strategic importance, the gentleman is exactly right.
	Iran is a country of great strategic importance.
	It matters a lot to China.
	It matters a lot to India.
	I would note that Iran, over the past few decades, and I'm choosing my words carefully here, decades, has gone to great lengths to improve relations with the United States.
	It's very important to understand that Iran does not want to have bad relations with the United States.
	And the United States has actually made some moves to improve relations with Iran.
	You saw this during the Clinton administration.
	But guess what happened in those cases?
	What happened is the lobby moved in at the behest of Israel, of course, and said that is unacceptable.
	And the principal reason that the United States has such terrible relations with Iran today is not because Iran and the United States don't have a vested interest in some sort of rapprochement, because they do.
	We have terrible relations with Iran, in large part because of Israel.
	Israel basically dictates our strategy on Iran.
	And Israel will never be at peace until Iran is reduced to Libya or Syria.
	I think that's correct.
	But I would just say this, after this recent 12-day war, I don't think the Israelis are too enthusiastic about picking another fight with the Iranians, nor do I think the Americans are very enthusiastic.
	The Iranians did an enormous amount of damage to Israel.
	Israel's never expected.
	Is there any question in your mind, but that it was the Netanyahu regime?
	I don't know if it was them personally, the Netanyahu government that importuned the White House for a ceasefire?
	It was not the Iranians?
	Oh, it's definitely not the Iranians.
	It was mainly the Israelis.
	But it was also the fact that Trump discovered that the Iranians were moving to mine the Straits of Hormuz.
	And this really spooked the Trump administration.
	So if you think about Iran moving forward and you think about Iran's deterrent capability, let's leave aside nuclear weapons.
	There's sort of two key elements in Iran's deterrent strategy.
	One are the ballistic missiles, which they have many of and which can get through Israel's defenses in large numbers.
	The second element of their deterrent strategy is shutting down the Straits of Hormuz.
	And as I said, and there's lots of evidence to support this, once the Trump administration saw the Iranians moving in that direction, they decided it's time to shut this one down.
	So I think that both the Americans and the Israelis will be reluctant to start another war with Iran anytime soon.
	The Israelis surely want to do that.
	I was surprised that Israel Katz, who's the defense minister of Iran, has been threatening a resumption of hostilities.
	I mean, according to Larry Johnson and Scott Ritter, one-third of Israel has been severely damaged, one-third of the country by the Iranian retaliation.
	Why would this minister Katz be making such a threat?
	Well, the truth is that the Israeli leaders are not what one would call strategic geniuses, and they've gotten themselves into a whole heck of a lot of trouble.
	And Israel Katz is not the smartest guy in that leadership group.
	And I think that when he's talking about going back after Iran, he's making arguments that do not make good strategic sense.
	You want to remember there are a lot of people in Iran today who believe that Iran should not have agreed to the ceasefire.
	They believe that Iran was in the driver's seat, that as the war prolonged, as the war went on, right, as it turned into a war of attrition, the Iranians were in a better situation than the Israelis were.
	And of course, this is the other half of the story, that it was the Israelis who went to the Americans and said it's time to shut this war down.
	The Israelis understood that they would not prevail in a war of attrition.
	The Iranians had too many missiles.
	Those missiles were getting through.
	Israel is the size of a postage stamp, and it's very easy for a country like Iran, building on what you just said about Scott Ritter's and Larry Johnson's comments, to do enormous amounts of damage to that small country.
	So I don't understand why people are talking about starting the war back up again in Israel.
	Here's something else that Israel Katz said.
	Chris, you have these full screens.
	Defense Minister from Ha-Aretz.
	Defense Minister says Israel plans to concentrate all Gaza's population in humanitarian zone built on Rafah's runes.
	Times of Israel.
	Plan said to outline humanitarian transit camps to house Gazans before possible relocation.
	So after he retired from the IDF, one of their commanding generals referred to the Gaza Strip as an open-air concentration camp.
	Now Israel Hats is planning a formal, not open air concentration camp.
	Yeah, I mean, you really have to wonder about the rhetoric that the Israelis use.
	It's so Orwellian.
	You know, they talk about voluntary transfer as if the Palestinians are voluntarily going to leave.
	They talk about a humanitarian camp, as if this were a humanitarian camp.
	The more time goes by, Judge, and I hate to say this and I say it reluctantly, but I believe it's true, the Israelis look like the Nazis.
	Their rhetoric, their behavior, it's truly appalling.
	And it's hard to believe that a Jewish state is behaving much the way the Third Reich did in the 30s and 40s.
	Switching gears to Ukraine, Professor, and we have a clip that I'll show you, which is laughable but true.
	But before I show you the clip, how do you explain the on-again, off-again, on-again Trump delivery of arms to Ukraine?
	I just don't think he understands what's going on here.
	And I find it hard to comprehend this whole situation.
	The Russians have made it manifestly clear what is necessary to get a peace agreement with them since last June.
	June 14th of 2024, Putin gave a very prominent speech to his foreign ministry.
	He laid out the terms.
	Hardly anything has changed since then.
	And basically, you either accept those terms or the war goes on.
	All this nonsense about calling for a ceasefire and trying to get the Russians to change their terms and so forth and so on is a waste of time.
	The Russians have made it unequivocally clear what they want.
	They view this as an existential threat that they're facing, and they have no intention of changing the terms that they are demanding.
	You might not like that, but that's what's going on here.
	Now, Trump and his representative, Steve Witkoff, have had numerous conversations with the Russians, including with Vladimir Putin himself.
	You would think that they would understand what has to be done here.
	And if they're not going to agree to it, just say that and go on with the war.
	But instead, there's this constant back and forth pretending that some sort of deal can be worked out, and it's the Russians who are unreasonable, and it's the United States that's reasonable and so forth and so on, is a charade.
	It just makes no sense at all.
	So what's going on here is that Trump is being pulled in one direction and then in another direction.
	And the end result is he's going to end up looking like Joe Biden number two.
	He's going to end up looking like Joe Biden number two in the Middle East.
	And he's going to end up looking like Joe Biden number two vis-a-vis Ukraine.
	He's not going to get a settlement.
	And he's going to end up continuing to fund this war until it's settled on the battlefield.
	I'm going to show you a montage of clips of questions put to Trump about this on-again, off-again thing.
	But before I do, I want to tell you and the listeners that we are conducting a poll of the chat room, those who chat in.
	And the question is, is the war in Ukraine Trump's war or Biden's war?
	And people can vote Trump's or Biden's.
	We'll have the result of that poll at the end of the show.
	Watch this, Professor.
	Chris, cut number 11.
	Are you planning to send more weapons to Ukraine?
	We're going to send some more weapons.
	They have to be able to defend themselves.
	They're getting hit very hard now.
	They're getting hit very hard.
	We're going to have to send more weapons.
	Your defensive weapons, primarily?
	Mr. President, weapons to Ukraine, as you said last night.
	Last week, the Pentagon paused some shipments of weapons to Ukraine.
	Did you approve of that pause?
	We want to put defensive weapons because Putin is not treating human beings right.
	He's killing too many people.
	So we're sending some defensive weapons to Ukraine, and I've approved that.
	So who ordered the pause last week?
	I don't know.
	Why don't you tell me?
	Sir, yesterday you said that you were not sure who ordered the munitions halted to Ukraine.
	Have you since been able to figure that out?
	Well, I haven't thought about it because we're looking at Ukraine right now and munitions, but I have not gone into it.
	What does it say that such a big decision could be made inside your government without you knowing?
	I would know.
	If a decision was made, I will know.
	I'll be the first to know.
	In fact, most likely I'd give the order, but I haven't done that yet.
	This is just inexplicable.
	I haven't thought about it.
	I don't know.
	You tell me.
	Hard to believe.
	I mean, this is the gang that can't shoot straight.
	I mean, what else can you say?
	Trump has basically failed to deal with the Ukraine problem, and he's failed to improve relations with Russia, as he promised he was going to do.
	It looked like he was off to an auspicious start at the beginning of his term, but everything has kind of gone to hell in a handbasket, and we're in this real mess now.
	And what's staring him in the face, and you don't want to underestimate this, is defeat in Ukraine, right?
	The Russians are slowly but steadily rolling back the Ukrainians, and the Ukrainians are in real trouble.
	All of these attacks that Trump is talking about, where Ukraine is really getting pounded, are having an effect.
	And I believe at some point the Ukrainians are going to collapse and the Russians are going to win an ugly victory.
	And this is going to be done on Trump's watch.
	And he knows that.
	He's not so foolish as to fail to understand that what happened in Afghanistan with Joe Biden, where that defeat was dumped in his lab, is going to happen in all likelihood with regard to Ukraine.
	He's going to be seen as the president who lost Ukraine.
	And he has nobody to blame but himself for the mess he's in.
	Have the neocons in his inner circle triumphed?
	I think they basically have.
	I think that if you look at the line of argument that he was making in the run-up to the campaign or run-up to him taking over in the White House and the arguments that he was making about Ukraine shortly after he moved into the White House, and then you look at where he's at today, it's quite clear that the restrainers, the people who were interested in cutting the deal with Russia and putting an end to the Ukraine war, have lost.
	And the neoconservatives have basically won.
	Will the neocons settle for anything less in Ukraine other than a complete, this is absurd, but will they settle for anything less other than a complete Russian withdrawal?
	Or is this thing just going to go on and on and on until the last Ukrainian soldier is dead?
	Well, I think you're going to get a frozen conflict here.
	I don't think the Russians are going to try to conquer Western Ukraine.
	I think you're going to be left with a dysfunctional rump state in the form of Ukraine, and the Russians are going to end up cleaving off a big chunk of Ukrainian territory and making it part of Russia.
	I think that's what's going to happen.
	But once you have this frozen conflict, you're going to have poisonous relations between the Russians on one side, the Europeans, the Americans, and the Ukrainians on the other side.
	So the potential for trouble in the future vis-a-vis The Ukraine crisis is going to be very great.
	We're not going to solve this once and for all.
	We're not going to end up having good relations with Russia and living happily ever after.
	This mess in Ukraine is going to go on and on, even once it's settled on the battlefield and you get a frozen conflict.
	Here's more nonsense from their cabinet meeting where the president isn't sure about the answer to a question and he whispers something to Pete Hegseth and Hegseth has, I don't know, asked John, meaning the Mossad stenographer, John Ratcliffe, who's a couple of persons away.
	And then the director of the Central Intelligence Agency with no visible evidence whatsoever intimates the Russians might be using chemical weapons in Ukraine.
	There is no evidence for this whatsoever, but tell me what you think of this dog and pony show.
	Chris Cussy.
	The Ukrainians have asked the international accord to go after Russia for using toxic chemicals in the fight.
	Germany and the Netherlands have had intelligence saying that.
	What does U.S. intelligence believe and what do you believe about the use of chemical weapons?
	And would you agree that?
	Well, I'd ask John maybe to discuss it if you'd like, John.
	Well, Mr. President, obviously chemical weapons, if it's documented in its use, it's illegal.
	It's against all international laws of armed conflict and treaties.
	And obviously, I can't share in this room with this audience the intelligence that I can share with you privately.
	But obviously, you're not going to stand or allow for any violations of international law by anyone.
	That's right.
	Thank you.
	Intimate that the Russians were using it, or did he just give a pabulum statement of the law?
	No, he clearly intimated that they're using chemical weapons, but he didn't want to explicitly say that because he knows they're not using chemical weapons.
	This is a new charge.
	I haven't even heard this one before.
	But it just goes to show you that you can't trust anything that the administration says.
	It's really truly remarkable where we are at as a country when you can't trust your own government.
	It just purveys lies all the time.
	It speaks in Orwellian ways that are really quite remarkable.
	And the consequences of this, not just for foreign policy, but just for how we function as a society, are really disastrous.
	There is a photo of another angle of that cabinet meeting of a person who was there who was not permitted to say anything.
	And the last thing she said under oath was credible.
	There's a Telsey Gabbard sighting.
	That's the full cabinet.
	She didn't say a peep in the two words, but the last thing she said publicly was on March 25th, 2025, under oath, where she testified that the Iranians were not working on, that it was the consensus of American intelligence that Iranians were not working on a nuclear weapon statements that were without evidence contradicted by the president who said, I don't care what she says.
	Well, she's been truly marginalized.
	And also, much to my disappointment, she's basically adhered to the party line.
	She's sort of fallen in line here and does what's necessary to play Kate Trump because she doesn't want to get fired.
	Right.
	Before we go, Professor, the results of that poll, is this war, is the war in Ukraine now Trump's or Biden's Biden, 11%.
	Trump's 88%.
	But I would ask you this, Judge.
	Wouldn't you say that the war belongs to both of them?
	Yes, it does.
	I agree with you.
	The war belongs to both of them.
	But the president has stopped saying it's not my war and has stopped saying it's Joe Biden's war.
	And you were right on the mark, in my view, Professor, where you said he's going to have another Afghanistan on his hands.
	Of course, it was his administration, Mike Pompeo, that negotiated the withdrawal from Afghanistan.
	It did occur disastrously on Joe Biden's watch.
	He's going to be confronted with this.
	Yeah.
	Well, in Trump's defense, there's no question that when he walked into the White House, he inherited a series of really difficult foreign policy problems.
	Ukraine is one.
	The Gaza genocide is another.
	The Iran issue is a third.
	But the fact is, he's done a terrible job of dealing with these three problems.
	Some of it has to do with the fact that he has surrounded himself with neoconservatives.
	You ask, have the neoconservatives won?
	All you have to do is look at the people sitting with him at the table.
	But I do wonder about his level of comprehension.
	I mean, the answers to that question, I haven't thought about who ordered the halt.
	I don't know.
	You tell me.
	These are non-sequiturs.
	Yeah.
	But just to come at this from a slightly different angle and talk briefly about the tariffs issue.
	About a month and a half ago, when the whole tariff issue was a hot issue, somebody asked him how he decided when to put tariffs on a particular country or to take them off and what the level of the tariffs would be and so forth and so on.
	And he said very clearly that I do this by intuition.
	I don't use pencil and paper.
	I don't do calculations.
	I do it by intuition.
	This is a truly remarkable statement.
	This is not a man who thinks long and hard about how to deal with problems.
	It's not a man who consults the best experts on a particular subject and tries to figure out how best to move forward.
	And as I say, when you're operating in an environment where you have a host Of exceedingly difficult problems to try to solve.
	It's imperative that you do that.
	But instead, he flies by the seat of his pants.
	He thinks he's a genius.
	And the end result is he's just digging deeper and deeper in that hole that he's fallen into.
	We're not getting too into the weeds, but to put a bow in this package, the tariff authority is based on an economic emergency.
	The economic emergency is defined in the statute as a sudden and unexpected event.
	He used as the economic emergency the imbalance of trade.
	We've had an imbalance of trade since 1934, so it is hardly a sudden and unexpected event.
	Okay.
	He used the latest tariff, 50% on Brazil, his belief that Jair Bolsonario, the former Brazilian president, should not be prosecuted.
	And because they're prosecuting him, I'm going to put a 50% tariff on.
	He is so far afield from the law and the Constitution, it is mind-boggling.
	I'd make two points.
	One is that Trump does not believe in rules.
	He believes that rules are for everybody else, but not for him.
	He believes he's a genius.
	And as a genius, he doesn't have to pay attention to rules.
	Second point I'd make, and you know this better than I do as a judge, rules are of enormous importance, or to put it in slightly different terms, laws are of enormous importance for making a country function in a coherent and just way.
	It's the reason we have laws.
	It's why we talk about the rule of law.
	But what we have here is a lawless president.
	And this is terrible for the country at large.
	Forget the foreign policy issue per se.
	Forget the tariffs per se.
	This is just terrible what's going on where we have this character in the White House who just thinks he can lie, who thinks he can just pay no attention to the law, who thinks he can invent facts and so forth and so on.
	And we are paying a serious price for this.
	As if to make matters worse for him, in the past 15 minutes, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a jury's verdict of $5 million against him for defamation.
	I believe with prejudgment interest and penalties, it comes to $11 million.
	It's a drop in the bucket for him, but the jury upheld it.
	Oh, well, life goes on.
	Professor Meir Schimer, it's a delight to speak with you.
	Thank you for all this.
	Thank you for letting me go all over the place from Israel to Iran to Ukraine to tariffs to Brazil.
	But thank you very much.
	Always a pleasure.
	Likewise, Judge.
	We'll see you again next week.
	All the best, Professor.
	Thank you.
	All the best to you.
	Thank you.
	Coming up tomorrow, Friday, from talking about Brazil, live from Brazil, who monitored every minute of the BRICS meeting there, including all the insults that were deflected, that were hurled at them from Washington.
	Pepe Escobar, 3.30 in the afternoon at 4 o'clock, end of the day, end of the week.
	Larry Johnson, Ray McGovern, Ray in Berlin, the intelligence community roundtable.

▲