Prof. John Mearsheimer: Why Israel's War Against Iran BACKFIRED

Summary

In this insightful conversation, the focus is on the geopolitical dynamics surrounding Israel, Iran, and the broader Middle East. The discussion highlights Israel’s military dominance in the region, its alliance with the U.S., and its strategy of destabilizing rival nations. It also critiques the efficacy of air strikes in achieving regime change, using Iran and Libya as key examples. The conversation questions the long-term effects of foreign intervention and the potential for Iran to pursue nuclear weapons as a deterrent. It emphasizes the complexities and risks of regime change and challenges the notion of a 'happy ending' in such interventions.

Takeaways

• 😀 Israel views Iran as a significant threat, primarily due to concerns over nuclear weapons, fearing the shift in regional power balance.
• 😀 The main concern for both Israel and the United States about Iran becoming a nuclear state is the potential loss of Israel's dominance in the region.
• 😀 Israel's regional dominance has been facilitated by its military superiority, supported by the United States, enabling Israel to intervene in neighboring countries like Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen.
• 😀 The Israeli goal is not only to maintain military superiority but also to break apart rival countries in the region, such as Iraq, Iran, and Syria, through a 'divide and conquer' strategy.
• 😀 Israel's strategy includes leveraging its alliance with the U.S. to remain the most powerful state in the region and the only nuclear power in the Middle East.
• 😀 The bombing campaign against Iran, starting in June, has failed to destabilize the Iranian regime, instead strengthening hardliners within Iran and increasing domestic unity.
• 😀 Historical evidence suggests that bombing campaigns alone do not lead to regime change and often cause countries to rally around their leaders.
• 😀 Critics point to Libya as an example of successful regime change via bombing, but the difference is that in Libya, a ground war and rebellion had already begun before air strikes were implemented.
• 😀 While the U.S. and Israel have supported factions and proxies to destabilize Iran, there is currently no evidence of an uprising, and the regime remains stable.
• 😀 Even if regime change were achieved, the outcome would likely not align with Western interests, as it’s unlikely that any new regime would abandon nuclear ambitions or align with Israel's policies.

Q & A

What is Israel's main concern regarding Iran acquiring nuclear weapons?

Israel is primarily concerned that if Iran becomes a nuclear state, it would no longer be able to maintain its military superiority in the region, which it has enjoyed for years, and that this would hinder Israel's ability to dominate the region.

How has Israel's military superiority affected its actions in the region?

Israel has used its military superiority to conduct military actions across the region, including bombing Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and Iran, often without significant repercussions. This dominance has been maintained with the support of the United States.

What is Israel's strategy in the Middle East according to the speaker?

Israel's strategy involves maintaining military superiority, being the only nuclear-armed state in the region, and using its alliance with the United States to influence regional dynamics. They also aim to break apart rival states, such as Iran, by creating instability within these countries.

What role does the United States play in Israel's regional strategy?

The United States acts as a key ally to Israel, providing military and economic support. This relationship significantly enhances Israel's power in the region and enables them to maintain dominance, with the U.S. also helping to stabilize Israel's position by pressuring neighboring countries like Egypt and Jordan.

How effective have Israel's bombing campaigns in Iran been in terms of destabilizing the regime?

The bombing campaigns by Israel against Iran have not weakened the regime as intended. Instead, they have strengthened the hardliners and the Revolutionary Guards, with the general population rallying behind the government, which has made regime change less likely.

What historical trend does the speaker mention regarding bombing campaigns and regime change?

The speaker points out that historically, bombing campaigns alone have never led to regime change. Instead, such campaigns typically lead to a 'rally around the flag' effect, where the population unites in support of the government under attack.

What is the significance of Libya in the context of regime change discussions?

Libya is often cited as a counterexample where military intervention, including airstrikes, led to regime change. However, the speaker argues that the situation in Libya was different, as it involved both air power and a ground war, whereas the current campaign in Iran lacks a similar ground war to prompt regime change.

What does the speaker believe is the primary reason why air power alone cannot lead to regime change?

The speaker believes that air power alone cannot bring about regime change because it does not foster the conditions for an internal revolution. Instead, it merely exacerbates existing tensions, without leading to meaningful change in the government.

How does the speaker view the potential for a new regime in Iran if the current one were overthrown?

The speaker is skeptical that a new regime would be more cooperative with Israel or the United States. They argue that even if a regime change occurred, it is unlikely that a new government would abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons or adopt a policy aligned with Western interests.

What does the speaker think about the idea of reinstalling the Shah's son in Iran?

The speaker dismisses the idea of reinstating the Shah's son as a viable solution, suggesting that Iranians would not welcome such a move. They compare this plan to the failed attempts to install exiled figures in other countries, such as Juan Guaidó in Venezuela, noting that such efforts rarely succeed.