March 24, 2026 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano
26:50
Prof. John Mearsheimer : No Way for Trump to Win
Professor John Mearsheimer argues that President Trump's war with Iran is a catastrophic mistake driven by ignoring deep state intelligence and relying on pro-war advisors like General Keene. With no quick victory achieved, the U.S. faces an impossible stalemate where Iran demands total regime change while America insists on abandoning nuclear programs, leaving no viable peace off-ramp. Mearsheimer warns that desperate leaders may make foolish moves like deploying 50,000 troops to seize Karg Island, ensuring a global disaster with no face-saving exit strategy for the administration. [Automatically generated summary]
Tragically, our government engages in preemptive war, otherwise known as aggression, with no complaints from the American people.
Sadly, we have become accustomed to living with the illegitimate use of force by government.
To develop a truly free society, the issue of initiating force must be understood and rejected.
What if sometimes to love your country, you had to alter or abolish the government?
What if Jefferson was right?
What if that government is best which governs least?
What if it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong?
What if it is better to perish fighting for freedom than to live as a slave?
What if freedom's greatest hour of danger is now?
Hi, everyone.
Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom.
Today is Tuesday, March 24th, 2026.
Professor John Mearsheimer will be with us on just a moment on, is there any way for Trump to win this war?
But first, this.
Don't you just cringe when people say, I told you so.
Sorry.
I told you gold and silver would reap the benefits due to excessive money printing, inflation, and global uncertainty.
It's here.
It's happened.
Gold and silver have reached all-time highs.
Did you call Lear Capital and buy some?
It's not too late.
Experts are predicting higher prices ahead.
Why?
Nothing has changed.
Geopolitical chaos, cost of living crises, and a weaker dollar are driving central banks to boost their gold reserves.
Forecasts suggest gold could hit $6,000 an ounce and silver $200 an ounce.
Even Morgan Stanley ditched the 60-40 rule for 60-20-20, putting 20% into precious metals.
They're getting educated, and you should too.
Call the best in the business and the people I trust, Lear Capital.
Get their reports.
Get the facts.
Get some gold and silver.
Tell them the judge sent you and get up to $20,000 in bonus gold or silver.
Call 800-511-4620 or go to LearjudgeNapp.com.
Professor Mearsheimer, welcome here, my dear friend.
As always, a pleasure, and thank you for accommodating my schedule.
How precarious is the U.S. positioned in Iran in this Iran conflict as we speak, Professor Mearsheimer?
Well, it's remarkably precarious because we had assumed that we were going to win a quick and decisive victory.
And once we didn't do that and we ended up in a long war, we found ourselves in a situation where it's the Iranians who hold most of the cards, not us.
And there's nothing President Trump can do to escalate this crisis that works to our advantage.
In fact, it works to Iran's advantage.
And at the same time, it's hard to see where there is a viable off-ramp.
Iran Holds Most of the Cards00:14:25
So he's stuck, which is another way of saying we're stuck in a war that we can't win and that has the potential to do enormous damage to the international economy.
What became of the Bill of Goods that Netanyahu and his aides apparently sold to Trump that a quick decapitation of Iranian leadership would result in mass chaos and revolution in the streets and they would take over the government?
You know, the New York Times had a fascinating article two days ago that laid out in detail how the head of Mossad, a man named David Berea, convinced Netanyahu as well as the Trump administration that once we decapitated the regime, that what would happen is that there would be a mass uprising in Iran.
The regime would be overthrown and we would, in effect, win a quick and decisive victory.
And it's worth noting that the Times points out that his predecessor, a man named Yossi Cohen, had said that this was a pipe dream.
This was not going to happen.
But the new head of Mossad did a 180-degree turn and was able to convince both Netanyahu and Trump that we had the magic formula.
And of course, he proved wrong.
And all I would say is it's quite remarkable that people bought this argument.
There's just a huge literature on regime change and coups and so forth and so on that tells you that it was extremely unlikely that this strategy would succeed as the predecessor at Mossad had understood.
Do you have any indication or feeling of whether President Trump takes into account the advice of the American CIA or the American intelligence community?
I realize there's a lot more agencies out there besides the CIA when it conflicts with the Mossad?
Well, I think, you know, if you look at what the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was saying before the war and the military more generally was saying, and what the intelligence community was saying, and this would include the CIA,
but especially the reports on what the National Intelligence Council was saying, it's quite clear that there were all sorts of people and institutions inside the deep state who were telling him that this is not a good idea, that we don't have a viable strategy for winning this war.
But instead, what he did was, here we're talking about President Trump, is he listened to the Israelis and he listened to the Zionists in the United States who were pushing him towards war.
And this, of course, would include people like General Keene, Lindsey Graham, and his two principal advisors, Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoffs.
So it's that crew inside the United States, plus the Israelis who were pushing hard for us to get into this war.
I think, generally speaking, against the advice of the deep state.
I'm going to guess that Joe Kent, the former director of counterintelligence in the office of the director of national intelligence, counterterrorism, his title, offered that advice and it was rejected.
And that resulted in his resignation.
Well, he works for Tulsi, or he worked for Tulsi Gabbard, and the National Intelligence Council comes out of Tulsi Gabbard's office.
So I would assume that almost all of these people who were working with Tulsi Gabbard were on the same page.
And I would imagine that many people in the CIA and in the military understood that this was not a workable scheme, which proved to be the case.
Has President Trump offered any evidence of which you're aware to substantiate his claim denied by the Iranians that his two real estate agent negotiators are in fact negotiating with a high-ranking official of the Iranian government I've not seen any evidence of that.
I mean, it could be that they sent an email, Steve Witkoff, let's say, sent an email to someone in Iran who's at a high level, and that person responded.
And President Trump can characterize that as a serious negotiation.
But of course, it's not.
I think to the extent that there's any hope of getting some discussion going between the two sides, it appears that the Pakistanis are trying to get something started next week where Pakistan serves as a mediator between Iran and the United States.
But I think this is really going nowhere.
The Americans want a ceasefire, and the Iranians would be crazy to agree to a ceasefire, and they're not going to do that.
And then when you get down to real negotiations that are designed to settle this conflict, it's impossible to see how you get a deal.
This situation, by the way, is analogous to the whole question of whether you can get a ceasefire in Ukraine and whether you can have a meaningful peace agreement.
You can't do it in Ukraine, and I don't see how you can do it here.
I mean, if you look at, just let's take Iran, look at Iran's demands on one side, and then look at the concessions that the United States and Israel are expecting the Iranians to accept.
And when you look at those two sides of the equation, there's just no way you get a deal here, right?
The Iranians are really playing hardball in terms of their demands.
They want all U.S. military forces and installations out of the Middle East.
They want reparations.
They want sanctions relief, so forth and so on.
Then, when you go over to the concession side of the equation, we want them to give up their ballistic missiles.
We want them to give up their nuclear enrichment capability.
We want them to stop supporting the Houthis, Hezbollah, and Hamas.
This is not a set of demands that there's any chance the Iranians would accept.
So, how do you get a deal here?
I don't know, but here's what the Iranian foreign minister had to say yesterday about President Trump's claims that negotiations are going on.
Chris number 10.
I don't think that question of talking with Americans or negotiation with Americans once again would be on the table because, you know, we have a very, you know, bitter experience of talking with Americans.
We negotiated with them last year, in last June, and they attacked us in the middle of negotiations.
And again, this year, they tried to convince us that this time is different.
They promised us that they don't have any intention to attack us.
And they wanted to resolve Iran's nuclear question peacefully and to find a negotiated solution.
And we finally accepted.
But again, after three rounds of negotiation, and after that, the American team in the negotiation said itself that we made a big progress, still they decided to attack us.
So I don't think talking with Americans anymore would be on our agenda anymore.
I don't think that talking to the Americans anymore would be on our agenda anymore.
You can't blame him.
No, there's no question about it.
But let me add another dimension to it.
Judge, just imagine that you're playing Iran's hand.
And the question is, how do you think about prolonging this war?
And it seems to me that if you're playing Iran's hand, you don't want the war to end now.
You want the war to keep going for the foreseeable future.
And the reason is, as the war goes on, the costs that the West is paying for this conflict go up and up and up.
And that means that you gain greater leverage.
My view is that if there's anything that's going to stop this war, it's going to be a situation where we are on the precipice of a major economic disaster, worldwide economic disaster.
That situation will force President Trump to go to the negotiating table and make huge concessions to the Iranians.
He'll have no choice.
I think that's the only way you get a deal here.
Well, if that's the case and you're the Iranians, you have a vested interest in continuing to inflict pain on the West and really on the entire world and putting enormous pressure on us, on President Trump, to cut a deal, push us toward the precipice.
So I don't see why the Iranians, from a strategic point of view, would agree to cut a deal now.
What would become of Israel if the United States stopped the bombing?
Well, the Israelis won't stop the bombing.
And if the Israelis are on their own, what will happen is they will probably go after the energy infrastructure inside of Iran and the Iranians will respond.
And that will push us very close to the precipice, if not over the precipice.
So if the United States just pulls out and leaves the Israelis and the Iranians to fight it out between themselves, it's not clear that there'll be a happy ending to that story.
And one can tell a story, a very plausible story, where we end up going off the cliff.
Here's a rather glum Prime Minister Netanyahu last night in Jerusalem, Chris number nine.
Earlier today, I spoke with our friend, President Trump.
President Trump believes there is a chance to leverage the tremendous achievements of the IDF and the U.S. military to realize the objectives of the war in an agreement.
An agreement that will safeguard our vital interests.
At the same time, we continue to strike both in Iran and in Lebanon.
We are disrupting the missile program and the thin nuclear program, and we continue to inflict heavy damage on Hezbollah.
Just a few days ago, we eliminated two more nuclear scientists, and this is only the beginning.
We will safeguard our vital interests under any circumstances.
Last thing he wants is for the United States and Iran to enter into some sort of an agreement which stops the U.S. from attacking Iran.
Well, that's true now, but we'll see how this plays out.
I was looking at Haaretz this morning, and there were eight missile barrages from Iran overnight.
This is Monday night, Tuesday morning.
There were eight missile barrages from Iran, and there were two rocket barrages from Hezbollah in Lebanon.
The Israelis are really being pounded, and their missile defenses are clearly not working for whatever reason.
And the Iranians have the capability to continue pounding Israel.
So we'll see how long Prime Minister Trump, I mean, Prime Minister Netanyahu wants to continue this war.
It's not clear to me that he's going to want to fight a long war with Iran.
And by the way, this is why I said if the Israelis are left on their own, they'll go up the escalation ladder and they'll go after energy infrastructure in Iran.
And that could lead to real catastrophe really quickly.
What has been the international geopolitical reaction amongst diplomats and heads of state to this war?
Well, I think almost everybody around the world understands that this was a catastrophic mistake by the United States and Israel to start this war.
I just saw with the German farm, the German president, excuse me, the German president said almost exactly that.
The Europeans understand that this is a disaster.
And of course, all across the global south, there is great consternation about what is going on here, because the cost of food, the cost of oil, the cost of gas and diesel is going to go up significantly over time.
It's only going to get worse.
And this is going to have disastrous economic and political consequences for countries all over the world.
Furthermore, all those leaders and many of the people in those countries understand that there is no quick and easy solution to this problem.
It looks like it's just going to go on and on, and their situations are going to get worse.
So if you look at what people around the world are thinking about what President Trump did and what Prime Minister Netanyahu did, I think that most people think this was a remarkably foolish move that is going to have significantly negative consequences for them.
Trump does not have a face-saving off-ramp right now, does he?
No.
Desperate Leaders Escalate Conflict00:08:02
No, if he did, he would take it.
Again, it's very important to understand that the Iranians have a vested interest in continuing this war, because the longer the war goes on, the more leverage they have.
Look at President Trump today compared to what situation he was in three days after the war started.
Three days after the war started, he thought he was in the catbird seat.
He doesn't think he's in the catbird seat now.
He knows he is in deep trouble and he's looking for a way out.
But there is no war for him.
And a lot of that, as I said, has to do with the fact that the Iranians understand that they hold most of the cards at this point.
And it's in their interest to continue the war.
When he says that the United States and Iran have engaged in productive negotiations, do you think he's lying?
He's making this up just to move the markets?
Well, he definitely is making this up.
There's no question about that.
And I understand the markets argument, and I'm sure there's some truth in that.
But I think more importantly, he just didn't want to have to attack Iran on Monday night.
This would have led to catastrophe because what Iran was talking about doing was basically destroying the Gulf states.
Very important to understand that.
They said, the Iranians said that if the United States and Israel attacked their energy infrastructure, they would retaliate not only by going after energy infrastructure in the Gulf states, but they go after the desalination plants as well.
They would erect these societies.
It would have been catastrophic.
And furthermore, the consequences for the international economy would have been disastrous.
So President Trump would have been, in my opinion, out of his mind to start a war on Iran's energy infrastructure on Monday night.
And I think that's why he changed the rhetoric.
And let's hope at the end of five days, he has the same basic attitude and doesn't tend to attack that energy infrastructure after five days.
This, again, would lead to disaster.
Let me make one more quick point here.
One thing that really matters when countries get into war and you think about escalation is just how desperate they are.
And what really worries me about President Trump is that he's getting into a desperate situation.
Despite the positive face that he puts on every day when he gets out in public, he has to know behind closed doors that he is in deep, deep trouble.
And I would imagine that the level of desperation goes up every day.
And when countries get desperate, you do not want to underestimate the extent to which they're willing to roll the dice and pursue policies that stand very little chance of succeeding and indeed could lead to disaster.
But nevertheless, the leaders feel that they're in a position where they have no choice.
This, by the way, is what happened to the Japanese with regard to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
The Japanese were in a desperate situation.
They understood full well that it was likely to end in catastrophe.
But nevertheless, they rolled the dice and they did it because they were desperate.
So people want to understand, despite that, despite all the positive words and all the tough words that you hear from President Trump every day, behind closed doors, he fully understands that he is in really deep trouble, that he made a huge mistake.
And that makes me very nervous because, again, there's lots of evidence when leaders desperate, they do foolish things.
Is he compounding that mistake by introducing ground troops?
I mean, we don't know how many.
The number started out at 5,000.
It now appears close to 50,000 American infantry, army, and marines are on their way to the Middle East.
Yeah, this is, I think this is evidence of how desperate he is, right?
Because he would have never countenanced a ground invasion before the war.
The problem he faces is that there is no good military option for using those ground forces.
I mean, for example, there's all this talk about invading and taking Karg Island.
You know, it's hard to see, number one, how you get to Karg Island.
Number two, it's hard to see how you conquer Karg Island without lots of casualties.
Number three, it's hard to see how you hold on to it once the Iranians realize you're there and they zero their artillery and rockets and ballistic missiles on top of your troops.
And then finally, let's assume that we take Harg Island.
It's ours.
We control it.
Tell me the story about how that leads to a happy ending.
Do people really think the Iranians are then going to roll over and play dead?
I would not bet any money on that.
So that's not going to work.
And then there's all this talk about, you know, inserting forces into the middle of Iran to rescue that highly enriched uranium.
The chances of that succeeding are about zero.
And then we're not going to invade the whole country.
Have you ever looked at how big that country is?
And they have 93 million people.
There's just no way he can do that.
We would need an army of about 2 million men and women to do that.
And that's not happening.
So I don't think there is a ground forces option here that is a viable one.
But again, he may be desperate enough that he'll try.
Yeah, this brings us back to where we started.
How precarious is the U.S. position?
Extremely precarious, based in large measure, I invite your comments on this, on the U.S.'s failure to appreciate Iranian resistance, failure to understand the asymmetrical nature of Iranians' military response, failure to appreciate the underground silos that Iran has, which are impervious to U.S. and Israeli attack.
I think everything you say is correct.
Again, it gets back to that simple point that I made that, you know, we thought we would win a quick and decisive victory.
This is what David Barney, the head of Ossad, convinced Netanyahu and Trump would happen.
And once that doesn't happen, you're into a war of attrition.
You know, this is like the Soviet Union and Germany, Nazi Germany in World War II.
The Wehrmacht invades on June 22nd, 1941.
They think they're going to win a quick and decisive victory.
The German troops going into the Soviet Union in June 1941 don't even have winter clothing.
They think it's going to be quick and easy.
And that does not prove to be the case, thankfully.
And the Wehrmacht is stopped outside the gates of Moscow on December 8th, 1941.
And they are in a war of attrition.
And by April of 1945, the Red Army is in Berlin and Germany is about to be finished off.
So if you don't win a quick and decisive victory and you're not prepared for a long war and you get into a long war, you're in real trouble.
And that's what's happened to us.
And then you just factor in all the points that you made and you can just see how bad off we are.
War of Attrition in Berlin00:00:59
Professor Mearsheimer, thank you very much, my dear friend.
Always such crystal clear analysis.
Deeply appreciated by me and by the huge number of people watching you right now.
Thank you so much, my dear friend.
My pleasure, Judge.
Be well.
Thank you.
You as well.
We'll see you again soon.
Coming up later today, I believe he's in Moscow at one o'clock, Pepe Escobar, at two o'clock, Aaron Mate, at three o'clock, Karen Kwatkowski, at 3:45.
Also in Moscow, Scott Ritter.
Take a look at our newest offering, Judge Napolitano Weekly.
It's audio only.
It's me defending personal liberty in a free society.
You'll get a new one of these every week.
You can catch it on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, iHeart Podcasts, or Amazon Music.
It's my understanding of the case for personal freedom.
I hope you enjoy it.
Thank you for watching Justin Paul Center for Judging