A debate with John Mearsheimer about the US-Israeli relationship via ‘Judging Freedom’

Yesterday afternoon, on my first day ‘back on the job’ following a two week vacation, I appeared on two of the widely viewed interview programs to which I have been privileged to be invited these past several months:  ‘Dialogue Works’ hosted by Nima Alkhorshid and ‘Judging Freedom’ hosted by Judge Andrew Napolitano. 

My discussion with Alkhorshid was an hour long and dealt with many issues. However, the key issue was how to understand the relationship between Joe Biden’s America and Benjamin Netanyahu’s Israel in the developing regional war in West Asia. This is what I focused attention on in my article on these pages yesterday presenting the link to the show.

It is commonplace to say that U.S. policy is being guided by the Israeli lobby and that Netanyahu is leading Collective Biden around by the nose.  My counter-intuitive argument was that the reverse is true, and that this is not the result of arbitrary factors of their respective personalities or of the alleged Israeli AIPAC control of U.S. foreign policy. No, what we are witnessing is a second current example of U.S. striving to maintain its global hegemony by provoking and fueling proxy wars against its main adversaries with the help of nominal allies who are being destroyed in the process. 

Case Number One of such a proxy war has for the past two years been U.S. assistance to Kiev in its delusional pursuit of a war to reconquer the Crimea and Donbas, which are now in Russian hands. This war was fueled by Washington to deal a humiliating strategic defeat on the Kremlin and, hopefully, to so stoke domestic discontent as to bring down the ‘Putin regime.’  So far, the war has only strengthened Russia, as its military has become battle hardened and victorious, suffering casualties that are most likely one fifth to one tenth those that Russia has inflicted on the Ukrainian forces and their NATO advisers. This war has cost the United States well over one hundred billion dollars in financial and military equipment deliveries to Kiev. On the positive side of the ledger, the proxy war approach has kept Washington at arm’s length from what is in effect a war on the state leading the Global South in opposition to U.S. worldwide hegemony.

Now we see same game plan being pursued by Washington in West Asia/the Middle East, to hammer at Iran and its Axis of Resistance allies, who pose the greatest regional challenge to U.S. dominance there and to retaliate for the series of humiliations that Washington has experienced in the region over the last two decades. Israeli claims following their successful attack on Hezbollah headquarters in Lebanon last week that they now see a once in fifty years opportunity to reshape the politics of the entire Middle East reflect precisely the delusional thinking of Dick Cheney, George Bush and others responsible for unleashing the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

The present day U.S. proxy in the Middle East is the state of Israel and Washington is providing its most advanced defensive (anti-missile systems) and offensive (mega-bombs) weapons plus essential real-time satellite and AWACS reconnaissance data enabling Israel’s genocide in Gaza and its assassination bombings in Lebanon. Now the United States is about to enable some kind of escalatory attack by Israel on Iran itself that may lead to all-out regional war.

My appearance on ‘Judging Freedom’ a few hours later yesterday also devoted a lot of attention to this question of dog wagging the tail or tail wagging the dog to describe Israel-US relations today.

See

The Judge was surprised and skeptical about my reversing the usual reading of leader-follower between Biden and Netanyahu.  He hinted before the program’s close that he would take this up with a guest scheduled to appear later on his channel, Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago who came to national prominence back in 2007 when he and Professor Stephen Walt published their ground-breaking study entitled The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. Their fame was well earned because the subject was then tabu, and their publication resulted in a stormy controversy that for a time threatened their academic careers before it died down. Now, of course, what they wrote is taken as mainstream by whoever looks into the subject.

Judge Napolitano duly raised the question with Professor Mearsheimer. as you can see starting on minute 14 of their chat:

It is interesting to see how an idea like the Israeli direction of U.S. policy in the Middle East moves from being a scorned dissident notion to becoming the guiding thinking of mainstream. As always, mainstream is intolerant of new nonconformist modeling of state-to-state relationships. That is clearly what has happened to Mearsheimer and his AIPAC certainties. In this interview, Mearsheimer says that Doctorow’s reading is nothing new, that it was set out by Noam Chomsky more than a decade ago and is simply wrong-headed.

What Mearsheimer is missing is an understanding that the world does not stand still. It moves on from what was true seventeen years ago. Other actors come onto the stage and relationships can reverse themselves. I believe that Mearsheimer did not listen to my arguments on air, not to mention my more detailed arguments on paper in my presentation on these pages yesterday evening. When he does so, he will appreciate that it takes more than a flick of the wrist to dismiss what I am saying.

I stand ready at any time to defend my concept of U.S. proxy wars as a necessary analytical tool for understanding what is happening in the Middle East today.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2024

Transcript below by a reader

Napolitano: 0:30
Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Thursday, October 3rd, 2024. Professor Gilbert Doctorow joins us now. Professor Doctorow, always a pleasure, my dear friend, and I thank you for your time. And before we do it, for allowing me to pick your brain.

Before we get into our usual topic, which is the state of affairs, military and political, vis-a-vis the war in Ukraine, I must address issues in the Middle East. Two events caused me to do that. One is an apparent warning reported by TASS by the Kremlin to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu not to invade Lebanon, and another is an apparent warning by the Russian ambassador to Tel Aviv encouraging Russian citizens in Israel to come home and leave Israel. What can you tell us about both of these events?

Doctorow: 1:40
The second one is the easier to address. The Russian ambassador telling Russian passport holders to come back. I wouldn't read any change in Russian policy towards Israel in that. I think it's in line with what the British did today when they told their passport holders to take the first plane out from Lebanon. The area is now entering the war, a hot war, and nobody's safety can be assured.

As for come back home, let's be open about it. There are a fair number of high-level Russians, high-level in the sense of high net equity, and people with rather clearly defined criminal pasts who don't dare accept what the ambassador was saying because they'll be arrested upon arrival. Mr. Nevzlin, for example, is an outstanding case. These people who are multi-billionaires, who took their fortunes and ran to Israel, there are a lot of them. Every scoundrel in Russia got a free pass, so long as he had enough money to contribute to the state's general welfare. So, the overriding answer is no, it does not indicate a change of policy.

2:58
However, Russia's policy towards Israel has definitely changed. Russia has changed sides. And the warning to Netanyahu about invading Lebanon is symptomatic of that. The fact-- well, it's not a fact, but it's an observation that Scott Ritter made in the last few days, that Russian jets that have been given to Iran, advanced jets to make up for their lack of air force, have most likely been piloted by Russians, because those planes require a good training and there's no time for that. The Russian S-400 air defense systems that have been delivered to Iran and will be further delivered to Iran, because they need a lot of them, will most likely be manned by Russians because they require a great deal of training, just as the Patriot systems in Kiev are being manned by Americans or by other technicians supplied by the manufacturer, since the Ukrainians themselves don't have the time and the competent people to do that.

4:09
So it is not impossible to foresee that if Israel were to send jet fighters into Iran to strike various targets, they would be shot down by more advanced Russian jet fighters manned by Russians.

Napolitano:
So the "Times of India" is reporting that Russian naval, Russian ships in the Mediterranean A: were fired at by Israeli missiles, it's obviously a mistake, but maybe you can correct that, what I think is obvious; and B: that they fired back and that they downed 13 missiles. Is this true or is this consistent with your understanding, Professor?

Doctorow: 4:57
No, I would not have an answer to this using the sources that I use. As you are aware, I'm mostly using Russian state news and also Russian talk shows. Russian state news is only talking these days about the war in Ukraine and how they are taking this settlement and that settlement, moving westward and so forth. They give no coverage, almost no coverage to the Middle East, not to mention the kind of event that you just described. Russian talk shows are less restricted in what they're saying, but what you just mentioned has not yet, to my knowledge, been broached on Russian state television by either news service or the talk shows. So I can't comment on it. I would--

Napolitano:
Do you, are you in a position to give credibility to a report this morning that Prime Minister Netanyahu quote desperately close quote, sought a phone call with President Putin, which President Putin declined to take.

Doctorow:

I would find that entirely credible. But I'd like to put this again outside the details. though the details are important. I don't deny it.

Napolitano:
Sure, sure, please do.

Doctorow:
The big picture of this is that it fits entirely into line with the thinking that explains the Russia's changed nuclear doctrine, the lowering of the threshold for using nuclear weapons, and more specifically the readiness to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state that is being supported in its attack on Russia by a nuclear state. The first half of that, what I just said, is in violation of conventions regarding the use of nuclear weapons by nuclear states. And what this is all about is a changed understanding by the Russians of American nuclear doctrine and of American strategic doctrine from being use of its triads, of its triad to make a global strike against an adversary like Russia that would be decapitating and possibly utterly devastating.

7:12
That policy has been dropped as Putin sees it. The reason why it would be dropped, one reason is that the Russians have vastly superior strike weapons now, so that a decapitating strike would not spare the United States from utter destruction. That realization has surely explained why the United States has changed its policy to proxy wars. Proxy wars. What we are seeing in the Middle East-- and nobody to my knowledge has said it yet-- is a US proxy war using Israel to do America's bidding. Not as Colonel McGregor said not long ago, that the United States is lost at sea, acting on autopilot. No, no, no. The United States is not acting on autopilot. The United States is directing the Israeli war, enabling the Israeli war, as the United States wants it to go.

Napolitano: 8:15
Why would the United States want to commit genocide in Gaza and obliterate South Lebanon? What possible American interest is there in that?

Doctorow:
To make up for the humiliation of the last few years in which every war the United States sparked or joined was lost by the United States, often in the most humiliating ways, as an Afghanistan. The answer to your question was given yesterday when Kamala Harris commented-- and not just she, others in the administration said the same thing-- it's a good thing that the 30-years-long leader of Hezbollah has just been killed by the Israelis because he had American blood on his hands. Is that an answer?

Napolitano:
No, that's a political answer. It's not a realistic answer.

Doctorow:
But does-- realism is not part of US foreign policy. Politics is. That's why politics is saying, "Oh, Israel, you can't blow up the Iranian oil refineries. You can't touch their nuclear installations, because that will harm Kamala Harris's election bid." Isn't that politics over reality?

Napolitano: 9:38
Yes, that is. Yes, that is politics over reality. I want to play for you a clip yesterday from John Bolton. He is, of course, the former United States ambassador to the UN under George W. Bush and was the national security advisor to Donald Trump for about a year until Trump fired him for being-- in Trump's view, and in mine, I wasn't involved in the firing, but I agree with this-- far too bellicose. He's suggesting in this clip, which is dated yesterday, that Israel should attack Iran's nuclear program. I want you to listen to what he says, listen to his rationale, and then I'll ask you what you think of it. Chris, cut number six.

Bolton:
It's very likely that the nuclear program could be a target for several reasons. First, this is something that Prime Minister Netanyahu, beyond any other Israeli politician, has recognized as the existential threat for Israel. And I think the people should understand that with now 300-some ballistic missiles having been fired at Israel since April, they have to worry that the next time they see a ballistic missile aimed at them, it could contain a nuclear weapon under a nose cone. So that is a motivation to solve the nuclear problem now.

Napolitano: 11:00
First of all, do you think that that is a realistic probability that the Iranians would use nuclear material in one of their ballistic missiles? I don't even know if they have the capability to do that. And secondly, what would happen if Israel attacked Iran's nuclear facilities, which heretofore have not-- as I understand it, correct me if you have a superior understanding-- heretofore have not yet been weaponized?

Doctorow:

Well, I think you have to look at it again in the same exact way as Washington is instructing Zelensky that he cannot use long-range missiles to attack the Russian heartland. The American administration, Mr. Biden, is telling the, according to all Western media, is telling Netanyahu that he cannot strike the nuclear installations and that he cannot strike the oil rigs and the refineries. Why-- doesn't this sound a lot the same as what we hear in Ukraine? Because it's all the policy of the same people in Washington.

They want to remain one remove from the destruction of Washington's adversaries by its allies. In the case of Ukraine, the ally is Ukraine. In the case of the Middle East, the ally is Israel. So they're calling the shots on what can-- but in the case of Israel, well, the Mr. Netanyahu has been fixed for 15 or 20 years on the nuclear threat that Iran could pose if it ever got a bomb.

That's one thing. But the Israeli interest in destroying the economy by destroying its hydrocarbon production, that would be very much in Israel's interests. Washington is saying no. Washington is saying no, because it is very jealous of its interests. And Israel is being used. Let's get this straight. Mr. Netanyahu is not steering Joe Biden around by the nose. The American administration is steering Netanyahu around by the nose, to the destruction of the state of Israel.

Napolitano: 13:30
Does-- what would Russia do if Israel struck Iran in a meaningful way? Are not Russia and Iran about to sign a mutual defense pact?

Doctorow:
They are. The deadline is during, the expected signing is during the summit of BRICS countries in Kazan, October 24th, October 26th. That will certainly include further shipments of Russian defense systems, as primarily the air defense and possibly also more of these jets which American jets are no more capable and are likely less capable than Russia's fifth generation jets, which they can make available to Iran. In other words, in a dogfight, the Russian jets will down the Israeli jets. And--

Napolitano: 14:25
Russian jets obviously piloted by Russian pilots.

Doctorow:
Right. But that's nothing new. Russia was doing the same thing in the Vietnam War, so that by itself is not a changed posture for Russia, to have its people engaged in war on behalf of their allies.

Napolitano:
Isn't the last thing Prime Minister Netanyahu wants, is Russia as an adversary, as a military adversary?

Doctorow: 14:57
That is certainly true, if he were a rational being. There are a lot of signs that he's not a rational being. So what he really thinks about the Russians, maybe he thinks, maybe he believes what a great many former Soviets were saying, going back 10, 15 years ago, that all the Russian military developments are Potemkin Village, that all of them are ineffective, don't worry about it. It's possible that he gets that kind of advice. But if he gets serious advice from people-- and yes, he would be worried about the Russians, but he's got the Americans on side, so he thinks.

Napollitano: 15:36
Here's the most bellicose and in my view least credible member of the American Congress when it comes to encouraging Israel to attack Iran. South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham is often mocked on this show because of the absurd statements he makes, but here's one of them, cut number four.

Graham:
Well, we're one missile away from civilians getting killed in Israel and maybe Israel having to hit Iran. Blinken said the Iranian nuclear program was weeks away from having a weapon, potentially.I think what Iran's learning from all this: it's probably better to have a nuclear weapon than not.

Napolitano: 16:18
He's encouraging the United States to attack Iran. To me that's inconceivable. What do you think?

Doctorow:
I think that the way the administration is handling it, they might just be drawn into the conflict, but they will try like hell to say that they are not co-belligerents. The Russians, on the other hand, will probably be co-belligerents with Iran, with whom they have, are about to sign this comprehensive defense pact or general cooperation pact, including detailed defense provisions. The Russians would be able to declare the Americans as co-belligerents on the Israeli side if indeed-- because this mission against the nuclear plants in Iran could never be realized without American technical assistance. And everyone-

Napolitano: 17:15
Say that again. The development of nuclear weaponry in Iran could not be realized without American technical assistance?

Doctorow:
No, no, no. I, perhaps I wasn't clear what I was saying. I'm saying that the Americans are able to provide to Israel the necessary support for a strike on installations in Iran that are used for developing their nuclear program. Without that American support, it will not happen.

Napolitano:
I want to get back to your statement earlier that Netanyahu is not leading Biden. Biden is leading Netanyahu, and Israel is a surrogate for America, much as we have argued that Ukraine is a surrogate for America. What possible national security threat does Iran pose to America and what possible reason would America have ... morally or even practically, for attacking Iran, directly or through its surrogate?

Doctorow: 18:26
A rising Iran is a threat to American interests in the whole Middle East. That has been the case for the last, what, 40 years? Iran is a big country, a large population, with a big industrial base, and it has been hanging in the balance between pro-Western and anti-Western political factions domestically. For me, it is amazing that the United States has destroyed its last chance to reach an accommodation with Iran by enabling the Israeli strike on the Hezbollah headquarters in Beirut. The new prime minister of Iran two weeks ago made it plain in his statements to Western reporters that he wanted to open negotiations with the signatory countries of the general comprehensive agreement that was to control or prevent Iran getting nuclear weapons and was to rescind the economic sanctions on Iran.

19:39
He wanted to make a new approach to the West. And then comes this bombing of Hezbollah, top leadership in Beirut, which forced him to turn on his heel and to go-- and to make this rather impressive strike of 180 ballistic missiles against Israel and to be ready for a lot more. He's ready for a lot more, because he has the Russians at his back. Let's get something straight. This takes us to the bigger question within Russia: why has Mr. Putin been so slow? Why didn't he-- why did he turn the other cheek when Russia [was] slapped? Why did it take till now for Mr. Putin to roll out the hard line and to declare the new nuclear doctrine?

Napolitano:
All good questions.

Doctorow:
He was acting in concert with India and China. Russia could never in 2022, [have] expected to survive US sanctions if it did not have on board China and India and other countries of the global south. They're all moving in tandem. They've all had it up to their necks with American domination and American-sponsored terrorism.

Napolitano: 21:00
Are you telling me that he's about to get more aggressive?

Doctorow:
He is, he's gotten more aggressive. And this would be in line with what you asked me two minutes ago. Did Putin take this phone call from Netanyahu? He said he didn't. Did Netanyahu feel desperate and want to reach out to Putin? He did, because somehow or other he got the message that the Russians have changed sides.

Napolitano: 21:29
What is the state of affairs in Kursk now, Professor Doctorow?

Doctorow:
Well, it's more than 16,000 Ukrainian casualties in Kursk since this month-long incursion or invasion of the Russian Federation. That's a big number. The Russians remain concentrated on the border, that is to make it impossible for Ukraine to substantially reinforce the manpower and the supplies needed to keep what is left of their military forces going, within Kursk. So they-- it is really just a bedraggled group that is left in Kursk.

And The Russians are in no great hurry to mop that up, because every action that is dramatic and makes good news costs many lives of their soldiers. This was said two weeks ago by General Alaudunov, the commander of the Chechen troops who has forces active now in Kursk to fight the Ukrainian invaders. The Russians are winning on the Donbas front. They are making significant progress in capturing the logistical centers that are essential for Ukraine to maintain its front in the Donetsk region. That is the capture of Vuhledar, which took place yesterday, and is acknowledged by the Ukrainians as well as the Russians, and the impending capture of Pokrovsk. So the Russians are very happy to concentrate their mind and their manpower where the Ukrainians are weakest and where they are making steady gains of several kilometers a day.

Napolitano: 23:23
Does President Putin have all the time in the world, or is there pressure on him from within the Kremlin and from without?

Doctorow:
This question is very timely. I'm engaged in a public discussion with a journalist who's well known in Russia, to Russia followers, John Helmer, who was saying just what you were asking about, that he is under great pressure and that Putin's backbone, his willingness to defend Russian state interests is called into question by some military commanders and that there was a kind of standoff between civilian and military leadership in Russia, with Mr. Putin being, of course, on the civilian side and being on the side of those baddies, the oligarchs.

24:11
I do not accept this as a workable explanation of what is going on in Russian politics today. I think Mr. Putin has certainly turned the corner and has given satisfaction to those who have been most critical among my peers of his ability to defend Russian interests, like Paul Craig Roberts. They are satisfied. I think that the new Russian nuclear doctrine shows that Russia is toughened up and that the time when one could be mistaken, will they just give us rhetoric or will they give us kinetic war? That moment is long past.

Napolitano: 25:01
Is there any consensus on the part of the people with whom you confer or whose views you respect as to when the military operation will have achieved its goal and the fighting can stop?

Doctorow:
Well, nobody knows, but I think that we're all looking at the same date. We're looking at November 5th. That is the most obvious date for the possible end of this war. Not because Mr. Trump, if he wins, will use his superior negotiating skills and the art of the deal to knock heads together and to solve this in one day. I think in Moscow that's just laughable. And I think the reality is he would end it in two weeks, doing exactly what Kamala Harris has said by stopping the flow of weapons and money to Kiev. And in two weeks, it all dries up and they capitulate.

26:02
I think, indeed, this is not a criticism of Mr. Trump. It's a statement of the obvious fact. His policy will lead to a capitulation, which will be a great moral benefit to the Ukrainian nation, which is being bled white right now.

Napolitano:
Professor Doctorow, thank you very much for your comments, your views on Israel and Russia and the relationship of President Biden to Prime Minister Netanyahu are fascinating and I think newsworthy, and I'm sure we'll revisit them with you soon. Thanks for coming to the show. I hope we can see you again next week.

Doctorow
Thank you.

Napolitano:
Of course. Coming up later today at 12 noon Eastern on all of these topics, Ambassador Charles Freeman; at 1 o'clock, Max Blumenthal; at 2 o'clock, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson; at 3 o'clock, Professor John Mearsheimer.