John Mearsheimer: "Iran Holds All the Cards" - The Strategic Defeat of the U.S.

Welcome back. We are joined again by Professor John Merchimer. So, thank you very much for coming on the program. I

um I was hoping today we can uh yeah maybe first take a step back and look at the wider strategy of uh the United States under Trump because uh I was

quite optimistic about his reelection.

that is he seemed to be capable of breaking from you know narratives and ideologies which I think the political west followed blindly over the past decades and this seemed to be a

requirement to navigate uh or adjust at least to the new realities of the world which was that the unipolar distribution of power was gone. So he recognized the US couldn't

gone. So he recognized the US couldn't be everywhere. So he's more or less

be everywhere. So he's more or less suggested you know we have to go to the western hemisphere and east Asia which means we have to pivot out of the Middle East and Europe and uh that meant ending the war with Russia. This trapped US

resource in Europe and it pushed the Russians towards China and also in the Middle East he was quite consistent on ending the forever war. So uh overall

what I'm trying to say is although you know he's you know a man who's not very civilized in his demeanor what he said was a lot more rational than what I

heard from other politicians. So uh

that's why I wanted to hear from you.

What do you make of his direct his direction now? What's going to happen to

direction now? What's going to happen to the pivot to Asia and this wider strategy which we saw outlined in the uh national security strategy of December

25?

I think Glenn uh the best evidence of what you're talking about regarding how people like us thought about Trump uh initially in terms of foreign policy uh

and what people think now is uh reflected in the lineup of people uh on judging freedom judge Npalitano show and

of course both you and I are regulars on the judges show I think if you go back to the first maybe six, seven months after President Trump was elected,

uh, virtually everybody who appeared on that show was quite optimistic that Trump would represent positive movement

in terms of American foreign policy. Uh,

that there would be no more forever wars. Uh, he wouldn't start any new wars

wars. Uh, he wouldn't start any new wars period.

uh and there would be much le much much less emphasis on a militarized foreign policy and I think most importantly at the time I think we all thought that there was a reasonable chance he would

shut down the Ukraine Russia war so there was a lot of optimism about him and of course a lot of the people on the show the Americans didn't vote for Trump

some did but everybody I think was generally pretty enthusiastic about the direction that he was going to take the United States. I think now if you watch

United States. I think now if you watch uh Judging Freedom, almost everybody on that show is uh and I'm choosing my

words carefully here, very critical of President Trump. Uh that he is seen to

President Trump. Uh that he is seen to have blown it uh to missed a terrific opportunity uh to change the direction

that American foreign policy was going in. And if anything, he's on the old

in. And if anything, he's on the old path. Uh I think the key issue today

path. Uh I think the key issue today uh is the Iran war. And

all I can say is it's truly remarkable that he allowed himself to fall into this trap. Uh this is much worse than

this trap. Uh this is much worse than Afghanistan, much worse than Iraq. Uh I

mean if you think about the Iraq war in 2003 at least in the initial stages uh George W. Bush could land on the aircraft

W. Bush could land on the aircraft carrier and effectively declare mission accomplished which is another way of saying we won.

Trump can't do that. It's been clear almost from the beginning uh that this is the lost cause. Uh but more

importantly uh the potential for really serious damage here uh is enormous. Uh

and here we're talking mainly about the international economy but not only the international economy. So, he's entered

international economy. So, he's entered a war that he can't win and could have and one could argue is likely to have catastrophic consequences

uh for the world uh not just for him and his presidency. So, it's really quite

his presidency. So, it's really quite remarkable when you think about it where he has ended up in a in in a in a quite

short period of time. uh you know he was put in office January 20th of 2025 and the war started against Iran on

February 28th, 2026. That's effectively

13 months after he's in office. So he

starts off looking like he has a winning strategy. Uh but 13 months later, uh

strategy. Uh but 13 months later, uh he's jumped into a huge quagmire that he

can't get out of. uh truly amazing.

>> Well, regarding the optimism though, it's I wouldn't say that it was rooted in being naive because if you look, he did have a first term and unlike all his predecessors uh you know, going back to

World War II, he didn't start any new wars. So, he seemed to follow through on

wars. So, he seemed to follow through on his uh rhetoric. So that that's why this has come as a bit of a surprise how many you know his his foreign policy in the

second uh time around why he went down this path. But how how do you make sense

this path. But how how do you make sense of the demands he's making now? Because

you said he can't really get out of this. But if you listen to his language,

this. But if you listen to his language, he suggests that the Iranians are now begging for a deal. They're offering him all these ships full of oil if they just uh you know he will be so kind to give

them a deal. and the Iranians are simply saying they're not even talking to the US at the moment. So, how how do you make sense of it? Because the demands he put for the Iranians, it was essentially

full capitulation. It was uh no nuclear

full capitulation. It was uh no nuclear enrichment. Uh it's no ballistic

enrichment. Uh it's no ballistic missiles, no partnership with regional allies. It's uh yeah, capitulation, I

allies. It's uh yeah, capitulation, I think, would be a good description.

Well, I think the words that he used that always stick in my head, Glenn, are unconditional surrender, right? And by

the way, if you look at the 15point plan that he's now putting forward to the Iranians uh as the basis for working out a deal, it looks like unconditional

surrender. And when I first saw the

surrender. And when I first saw the 15point plan, I thought it was a joke. I

I thought that, you know, uh this was disinformation that the Iranians or the Israelis had put out. I couldn't believe

this was a serious plan. Uh but as you know, some days, President Trump thinks uh that we've won a great victory, that

the war is over with, and we just have to uh sign the documents of surrender.

Uh other days, you can tell he's quite desperate. uh and uh he understands that

desperate. uh and uh he understands that he has made a huge mistake and that he's got to find an exit strategy and he

really can't. So he goes back and forth.

really can't. So he goes back and forth.

Uh his rhetoric just changes all the time. It's quite remarkable. But the

time. It's quite remarkable. But the

fact is Glenn, he is and we are in profound trouble. Now what's going on

profound trouble. Now what's going on here? We started this war thinking that

here? We started this war thinking that we would win a quick and decisive victory. When I say we, I'm talking

victory. When I say we, I'm talking about the Trump administration because people like us of course understood that this was a cockami strategy from the get-go. But the West, the United States

get-go. But the West, the United States and Israel started this war thinking that they could employ a shock and awe

strategy uh built around decapitation.

We decapitate the regime. we'd shock and awe the uh Iranians and people would rise up in the streets, they'd overthrow the regime and we would live happily

ever after. This was the basic strategy.

ever after. This was the basic strategy.

We had to win a quick and decisive victory for this to work and it failed.

Uh and by the way, uh anybody who has a basic understanding of international relations unders should have understood that this would fail from the get-go. it

was just not going to work. And it

didn't work. But then we found ourselves in a protracted war. Here we are. And I

don't think most people fully realize it, but the Iranians hold almost all the cards in a protracted war. Uh first of

all, there's no real good exit strategy for Trump. And if he goes up the

for Trump. And if he goes up the escalation ladder, which is the other alternative, the Iranians beat him at almost every step of the ladder. Uh I

think it's very hard for most Americans to understand this, especially people who watch Fox News and are loyal supporters of the president. They think

that we're winning. They listen to him say that, you know, we've already won.

Why haven't the Iranians signed the surrender papers? But if you look

surrender papers? But if you look carefully at what's going on here and you have a basic understanding of military history and military strategy,

you see very quickly that we are in terrible shape as you go up the escalation ladder. So again, the point

escalation ladder. So again, the point I'm making to you is he has no exit strategy. He can't he can't find the

strategy. He can't he can't find the exit ramp now. And if he thinks about going up the escalation ladder, he he

gets stymied uh on every rung. Now, why

do I say that? First of all, Iran can wreck the international economy. It can

wreck the international economy. And one

could argue that we're sort of heading in that direction. I like to say there's an iceberg out there in the water and we're heading towards that iceberg. We

are the Titanic. And I think President Trump basically understands that and I think his advisers understand that and they're trying to turn the ship so that we don't hit the iceberg. But anyway, my

point is my first point is that Iran can wreck the international economy.

Furthermore, it can destroy literally destroy most of the Gulf states because those states depend on desalination

plants uh and they depend on oil infrastructure and those targets are easy for the Iranians to hit. And if the Iranians decided that they were going to

go after a country like Saudi Arabia and take out all their desalination plants and take out their oil or energy infrastructure, they basically wrecked

Saudi Arabia as a functioning society.

Uh then there's the whole question of the Israelis. The Israelis are running

the Israelis. The Israelis are running out of defensive missiles. The Iranians

obviously have lots of missiles. They

can do enormous damage to Israel. I

don't think they can do to Israel what they could do to countries like Saudi Arabia or the UAE, but there's no question that they can do enormous

damage uh to uh to Israel. Uh then there's the whole question of uh ground forces. We

should talk more about this. We don't

have any serious ground forces option.

This is this is a joke, right? there's

just no ground forces option there. And

in fact, if we go down that road, uh we're just going to make a bad situation even worse. Then to take it a step

even worse. Then to take it a step further, what we have to do, what President Trump has to do to avoid a

catastrophe in the international economy is he's got to make sure there's a lot of oil out there in the global market.

There's got to be a lot of oil. This is

why he took economic sanctions off of the Russians. Just think about that. We

the Russians. Just think about that. We

have taken sanctions off the Russians so that their oil can get out into the market. More importantly for what we're

market. More importantly for what we're talking about here, we've taken sanctions off the Iranians and we're allowing, just think about this, we're

allowing Iranian ships to go through the straight of Hormuz because we want that Iranian oil out there in the market

uh the global market. So what's

happening here is although we are bombing the Iranians and doing significant damage to their country and murdering innocent people uh at the same time the Iranians are not suffering

economically.

Uh so what this tells you is that President Trump has to be extremely careful that

he doesn't go up the escalation ladder because if he goes up the escalation ladder, the end result is that the

Iranians will win and we will lose in a truly serious way. So we're in deep, deep trouble.

Yeah, that's a good point with the escalation ladder because like the Iranians have a lot of cards to play here. That is not just to have shut down

here. That is not just to have shut down the straight of Hermoose, but if they use Yemen to shut down the Red Sea as you mentioned with Saudi Arabia, now they're cut off from all axis. If you

destroy their disselination plants, easy, no water hit their energy fields, the no energy. And in places like Qatar where 85 to 90% of the population are

foreigners, they would begin to leave and it would only be a desert left which is how they found it. So it is it's probably one of the most vulnerable

countries of the world uh this uh this state. So it is uh but you would have

state. So it is uh but you would have thought they would have considered this before going into this war because the Iranians were quite open about what they could do and what they would likely do.

I know Trump said, you know, who would have ever ever have thought that they would strike US bases around the region.

You know, they they kept saying though, this is what we're going to do. We're

going to shut down the straight moose.

We're going to attack your bases. And uh

even now in Iraq, I'm not sure if there's Americans left, but the Europeans are pretty much all out. So

after 23 years, so they they seem to be able to at least so far achieve some of the objectives they set out. Um, but you often made the point that in Ukraine a

political settlement is unlikely because the different sides they're, you know, they're too far apart. There's nothing

to agree on. But in this instance though, um, you know, even if this would only be Trump's opening position, you know, demanding full unconditional surrender, uh, the Iranians also have

their own conditions which makes it very difficult even for, you know, Trump to declare victory and go home. So, how how do you see this playing out then? Is is

there any solution to this war at all? I

mean, can Trump go home?

Uh, here's the problem. I think, Glenn, it's twofold. First of all, as you noted, the

twofold. First of all, as you noted, the two sides are miles apart uh on in terms of their demands, right? There's no

bargaining space here. And of course, you and I have made this same argument regarding the Ukrainians and the West on one side and the Russians on the other

side. There's just no bargaining space.

side. There's just no bargaining space.

The demands of each side are so in uh so at odds with the demands of the other side, you just kind of can't see how you get a deal. That's point number

one.

Uh the second point I'd make is that if you're playing Iran's hand, you have no interest in cutting a deal. Now you have

huge leverage now.

Uh for the reasons I described before, and the longer the war goes on, the more leverage you have. The longer the war goes on, the more desperate President

Trump is going to get. uh he has to you know the Titanic is heading toward the iceberg and you have got to start

changing course now otherwise you're going to hit the iceberg. That's where

we are. Uh all you have to look at is the yields on 10-year Treasury bonds in the United States. uh which

many people view as being in a danger zone and uh in a situation where it's only going to get worse, right? This is

really uh potentially disastrous, right?

We have to do something to fix this problem. Uh this is why President Trump

problem. Uh this is why President Trump said on Monday uh that he was not going

to attack Iran that evening. Remember he

had promised that he was going to attack uh Monday evening. I think that was the 23rd, March 23rd. And the day of March

23rd in the morning, he called it off.

Uh and he said, "I'll give him five days." and he's just said, "Now I'll

days." and he's just said, "Now I'll give them 10 days." What's going on here? It would be suicidal for President

here? It would be suicidal for President Trump to launch an allout attack on Iranian energy infrastructure. This would be

energy infrastructure. This would be nuts. Again, as I said before, we have a

nuts. Again, as I said before, we have a deep-seated interest in making sure there's as much Iranian oil out in global markets as possible.

By the way, just parenthetically, you know, there's all this talk about us conquering Car Island and uh people say, "You want to understand that 90% of

Iranian oil goes through Car Island and we can conquer it?" I don't think we can conquer it, but let's assume we conquer it. What are we going to do? Conquer Car

it. What are we going to do? Conquer Car

Island and cut off the flow of oil into global markets? We're not going to do

global markets? We're not going to do that. You remember when President Trump

that. You remember when President Trump said that we bombed Car Island? He

emphasized very clearly that he only hit military targets. Why did he do that?

military targets. Why did he do that?

Because he understands again that you have to get uh you have to get that Iranian oil and you have to get that Russian oil. You have to get all the oil

Russian oil. You have to get all the oil you can out into global markets because if you look at what's happening in the straight, right? Remember about 20% of

straight, right? Remember about 20% of the world's oil comes through the straight.

I would argue that today it's been reduced what comes through the straight has been reduced to about 5% of

what it was before February 28th. Just

think about that. 20% of the world's oil comes through the straight. And we're

not even talking about fertilizers here, which is another huge problem, but just oil.

20% comes through the straight. And at

this point in time, only 5% of what was going through the straight on February 27th is now going through the straight.

This is a huge problem. So this tells you that we cannot go after Iranian oil and wreck their energy infrastructure.

And that means the Iranians have huge leverage over us. And the longer this goes on, when you think about the consequences for the world's food supply

of all these fertilizers not making it through the straight, and then you think about the consequences of only 5% of the

pre-war flow of tankers through the strait is now taking place. You see that the

potential for disaster is huge. And the

Iranians have a vested interest in stringing this out because the more they string it out, the more desperate President Trump gets. And the more desperate President Trump gets, the more

leverage they have. What's really going to cause President Trump to cave in a major way is when he comes to understand that if he doesn't shift course, the

Titanic is going to hit the iceberg and the pressure is already there. Again,

that is why I believe he did not attack this past Monday, gave them five more days and has now given them 10 more days. And what happens at the end of 10

days. And what happens at the end of 10 days if the Iranians don't cave to his preposter preposterous 15point plan? Is

he going to bomb Iran? Is he going to bomb their energy infrastructure? I

don't think so.

uh he he has no option here. You know,

just getting back to your original point about five minutes ago to how we got into this situation, how we could have allowed ourselves to be put in such a

vulnerable position. The fact is again,

vulnerable position. The fact is again, Glenn, they thought they were going to win a quick and decisive victory. Uh

I've studied a lot of military history.

You see this in so many cases. Countries

go to war and they go to war because they're optimistic about their chances.

It makes perfect sense. You don't go to war if you think you're going to lose.

President Trump didn't go to war thinking he was going to end up in the situation that he is in now. He went to war thinking he was going to do another Venezuela operation. Float like a

Venezuela operation. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee, bring the Iranians down, be able to proclaim victory, have a parade in New York or something like that. That's what he

thought. Uh but once that doesn't happen

thought. Uh but once that doesn't happen and you're in a war of attrition, oh, you are in deep trouble. And you are especially in deep trouble in this case

because the Iranians hold so many of the cards. And again, the point I'm making

cards. And again, the point I'm making to you is we want a deal. Now, Trump

wants a deal, but he wants a deal on his terms, but he can't get a deal on his terms. And in fact, again, just to repeat myself because I think it's such an important point, the Iranians have a

vested interest in just letting this one go and at some point down the road when they have much more leverage then they do now then trying to work out a deal on

that's favorable to them.

I think that's an important point which um important that people also understand that the idea that time is on the Iranian side because if you look at the military component the Iranians can

continue to just uh pump out these very cheap drones you know you can it is easy to manufacture they're cheap the industrial potential can remain and uh

and these you know $5,000 drones are sent and the US has to use this million dollar interceptive missile so they they continue to pump them drones while the

US diminishes its potential. So again,

time is on their side and also as you suggest no suggest said uh in the economic era they they're actually making more money now that the prices

are going up. So while the US is uh you know going somewhere very dark and dangerous. So it it does I can see you

dangerous. So it it does I can see you know if you were advising the Iranians you know you would say you know you're not in a rush to to wrap this one up especially when these are the deals or

the terms they're putting on the table but um but I was wondering when he started this countdown first 48 hours and 5 days then 10 days it reminded me a little bit about what he did with the

Russians he was also putting I think 50 days then this went down to 12 days you know when the countdown was over uh they were Russia was going to be hit by the toughest sanctions ever and when the

clock finally ran out instead, you know, he's called Putin and they agreed to meet in Alaska. Uh so, you know, he just pushed the whole thing aside. But is

this something similar that can happen here? Because I guess the difference is

here? Because I guess the difference is that the Russians really wanted a deal.

But for the Iranians, it's unclear what Trump can actually deliver because if they hold on to Hormuz, they can they can, you know, essentially put up a toll booth. They can get reparations from the

booth. They can get reparations from the Gulf states for this attack. They can

demand that they expel the US bases which have already been many of them blown up. And they can even compel them

blown up. And they can even compel them to ditch the dollar in their energy trade. So which links the US financially

trade. So which links the US financially to the region so they can get everything they want with military means which means Trump really has to have something else to offer if he wants to get them to

the table. I'm just wondering what is it

the table. I'm just wondering what is it if again Trump calls you, how do we, you know, avoid the iceberg? How do we get out of here? What can he do at this

point in time?

The truth is he is going to have to make major concessions to the Iranians.

Uh, and it will be clear when he makes those major concessions that the Iranians won a clear victory. It will be

a humiliating defeat for the United States. Um, if he wants to end this,

States. Um, if he wants to end this, given what you and I have been saying about what happens is you go up the escalation ladder and the fact that

there is no easy uh exit strategy here.

uh he really has no choice in the final analysis uh but to cave in to most of Iran's demands and accept a humiliating

defeat and uh that will be extremely hard to do. U and it'll be extremely hard to do in part because of Israel. Uh

the Israelis will not want us to make any concessions. The Israelis will want

any concessions. The Israelis will want us to continue the war. Uh but I think this will be a case where we will be so

desperate to avoid a global catastrophe that Trump will ignore the Israelis uh and do what he has to do. Now he may not

do that, right? He he may feel that he just can't make the necessary concessions that the Iranian demands are

just too outrageous. And those Iranian demands would be hard for anyone to swallow. Anybody in the White House,

swallow. Anybody in the White House, whether it's President Trump, President George HW Bush, uh Ronald Reagan, Franklin D. Roosevelt, uh the demands

Franklin D. Roosevelt, uh the demands that the Iranians are making are really quite amazing. Uh so even if you accept

quite amazing. Uh so even if you accept uh only, you know, 75% of them or even 50% of them, uh that would be very

difficult to do. And this is this is the enormous problem that he faces. And one

can easily imagine uh let me take away the word easily. One can imagine him not accepting a deal and just thinking that

he can stick it out uh and the end result is will basically go off a cliff uh economically. uh uh you know I think

uh economically. uh uh you know I think a lot of people don't see that as a serious possibility at this point in time but I think if you look um at you

know newspapers like the Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal carefully you look at the business section u the articles that are written about the

economy uh and uh about fertilizers and food and so forth and so on. you see

that we could very easily go off a cliff here. We're talking about a serious

here. We're talking about a serious situation and uh and it's not clear what President Trump will do. Uh as I like to

say, Glenn, I think that when you study international history, there there are these handful of cases that stand out where policymakers get into desperate

situations.

And when policymakers get into desperate situations, they sometimes roll the dice, they do things that lead to catastrophe. And my favorite example

catastrophe. And my favorite example here uh is the Japanese decision-making process that led to Pearl Harbor. Uh the

United States was squeezing Japan economically uh between actually between uh the summer of 1940 and uh Pearl Harbor,

which was December 7th, 1941.

And we really began to squeeze starting July 25th, 1941.

Uh this is shortly after the Vermacht invaded the Soviet Union and we were really putting pressure on Japan after that. And the Japanese were desperate

that. And the Japanese were desperate because they were heavily dependent on the United States. They were remarkably dependent on the United States for oil,

scrap iron, and scrap steel. and we had basically uh made it impossible for them to import those things from the United States. We had frozen their absets,

States. We had frozen their absets, their economic assets, and they they were just desperate. And they understood full well that attacking the United

States at Pearl Harbor was likely to end in catastrophe. It's very important to

in catastrophe. It's very important to understand this. The Japanese understood

understand this. The Japanese understood that they were attacking Godzilla and that it was likely to end in disaster,

but they did it anyway because they were desperate. And when the level of

desperate. And when the level of desperation reaches a certain point, states, countries, leaders sometimes do

uh remarkably foolish things that end up with uh catastrophic consequences. And

this of course is what happened with the Japanese. So the question you have to

Japanese. So the question you have to ask yourself is what is President Trump going to do uh as his level of desperation increases? And by the way,

desperation increases? And by the way, you you catch glimpses of how desperate he is on occasion when you sort of watch

his body language and you watch what he's saying about the war against Iran.

He he understands full well that he's in deep trouble and I'm sure his adviserss are telling him that if we don't shut this one down, we could go off a cliff.

uh his adviserss, especially his economic adviserss, are not fools. They

understand what's going on here and they're looking for an exit ramp and they can't find one. And they understand full well that the Iranians are playing

hard ball with them. And I'm sure they understand full well that the Iranians have powerful cards to play. And what's

happening, I'm sure, behind closed doors, I I'm sure that behind closed doors, the level of desperation is increasing every day. And they're

searching, you know, they're they're looking for a solution here. Uh, but as you and I were saying before, where is the solution? Where's the exit strategy?

the solution? Where's the exit strategy?

You know, a number of my friends who I talked to about this say, what President Trump should do is declare victory and get out. He can't do that.

get out. He can't do that.

Who's going to believe that uh uh that he achieved a victory? Furthermore, the

other side gets a vote in this one and the other side's not going to quit, right? Uh they're going to continue to

right? Uh they're going to continue to put pressure on the United States and they're going to continue to put pressure on Israel even if we say we won. Uh they want us completely out of

won. Uh they want us completely out of the Middle East. This is truly remarkable. One of their demands is they

remarkable. One of their demands is they just want us to go home. Uh, is

President Trump going to declare victory and go home? I don't think so. He may

declare victory, but he's going to stay there militarily. Maybe not employ

there militarily. Maybe not employ military force against Iran, but we'll be there and the Iranians will continue to attack us. So, declaring victory and

getting out, so to speak. Where does

that leave you? Nowhere. So, he's got to figure out a way to shut this one down.

And that means reaching some sort of modus motus for then die with uh Iran.

How does that happen? You know, again, this goes back to our earlier discussion of those that 15point plan that Trump put forward and then the various demands

that the uh Iranians are putting forward. Uh you know h how do you find

forward. Uh you know h how do you find some bargaining space there? And again,

I don't see how you do it. Uh it, you know, the Iranians have no incentive.

No, the well, Iranian demands, they seem uh excessive. However, they they're also

uh excessive. However, they they're also achievable, it appears, because not only can they strike the bases, but as I mentioned, as long as they control the straight of moose, they can squeeze the

Gulf States to decouple in terms of either, you know, not rebuilding the bases or hosting the troops. they can,

you know, decouple from the petro dollar. There's a lot of things they can

dollar. There's a lot of things they can do which, uh, you know, they can continue to do even if Trump goes home and declares victory. So, it is a difficult position. But in terms of the

difficult position. But in terms of the pressure though, I think this is also a problem with all the pressure which has been put on Iran cuz not only do they have a lot of cards to play if they decide to go up the escalation ladder,

but also they they can't really afford though to go back to this status quo either. I mean, they've been living

either. I mean, they've been living decades under this crippling sanctions.

they had two surprise attacks on their country only a few months in between they don't want another one and also if even if they get an agreement saying oh we promise not to attack you know there

was just these surprise attacks happen during negotiations there's no trust anymore so so I think they are in a position where not they only have a lot of cards to play but they're willing to

absorb an immense amount of pain in order to to to put a final end to this which as as you said would be to expel the US bases. And again, it sounds

excessive, but they're already pulling out of Iraq and this is after 23 years.

So, it's not um inconceivable. Uh again,

they as we, as you said, they can shut down the Gulf States as well if they don't fall in line. So, it's just hard to see except you know, if he's reaching for a nuclear weapon, what else he can

possibly do to to push this one back? Uh

but sorry you were >> yeah I just want to I want to make two points just to piggyback on what you said. One

thing we haven't talked about which is enormously important is the Houthis and the Saudis, I mean the Houthis and the Iranians together can shut down the Red

Sea and about 20% of the world's oil and gas comes through uh uh the Persian Gulf and through the straight or but another

12% comes through the Red Sea. And if

the Houthis join in with the Iranians, which is a serious possibility, and they shut down the Red Sea as well, that will further exacerbate

uh the situation. So, we don't want to lose sight of that. Uh but also, Glenn, just building on what you said a minute ago, and of course, I agree completely

with what you said, it is important to emphasize that Iran is dealing with an existential threat here. the the

Israelis especially, but also the Americans want to wreck their state.

They talk about regime change, but the Israelis are interested in more than regime change. They want to destroy

regime change. They want to destroy Iran. They want to do to Iran what

Iran. They want to do to Iran what happened to Syria. They want to break it into pieces. They want to make Iran a

into pieces. They want to make Iran a number of states or one single state that is remarkably weak. This is an existential threat. And when you face an

existential threat. And when you face an existential threat, and as you pointed out, they've faced this existential threat for a long period of time. They

know they can't trust the Americans and the Israelis. Given that

the Israelis. Given that given that dimension of the equation, they have a deep-seated interest in

continuing this war and pushing the Americans and the Israelis to make huge concessions to them. So, if you look at

their incentives and you marry that to their capabilities going up the escalation ladder, which we've talked about and which you were just talking about, again, you just say to yourself,

how do you end this one quickly? It just

it doesn't make sense from an Iranian point of view. And given that they get a vote, he can't get a deal.

Well, this is why it's so dangerous when a strategic situation boils down to all or nothing. Uh this is when countries

or nothing. Uh this is when countries are willing to do a lot of crazy things.

But uh it seems if if there was a possibility though for example if the US realized it can't dislodge Iran from Hermuse if it realizes the difficult position if there was a situation where

you know Trump could offer the Iranians you know you can co-manage the straight of Hermoose with the Gulf states in return we remove the sanctions you know Trump can say this you know I'm bringing

our home troops our troops home from the Middle East according to our grand strategy you know the the Iranians now have peace with the Gulf States. You

know, he sold the Shia Sununa problem. I

mean, it it could come as a victory, but uh it seems hard to achieve now that he keeps doubling down on this very dangerous rhetoric that you know, I even

watch Sean Hannity on Fox News arguing that the Iranians should also pay for uh the war, you know, for all the bombs we had to drop on them. It's just um I think his rhetoric is becoming a key

problem though by overselling this victory he proclaimed. Um I

>> if I can just say something very quickly here, Glenn, I think what happens in situations like this is that when uh

when the war goes south, the people who got you into the war don't want to retreat. They don't want to say, "We

retreat. They don't want to say, "We were wrong. let's uh pull back. That

were wrong. let's uh pull back. That

that's not their response almost always.

The response is instead let's double down. So the Wall Street Journal, Sean

down. So the Wall Street Journal, Sean Hannity, Lindsey Graham, General Jack Keane, that whole crowd that helped uh

produce this disaster fully understand what's happened and they don't want to retreat now and concede defeat. What

they want to do is double down and they are putting pressure on President Trump to up the ante and they are making arguments that we can win. We have cards

to play. We can go up the escalation

to play. We can go up the escalation ladder. So the problem that Trump faces

ladder. So the problem that Trump faces is that he and his adviserss surely understand that there is a great deal of

truth and what pe in what people like you Glenn Dies and me John Mir Shimemer think they understand that but at the same time they have all these people on

the other side and these are their close supporters. These are their compadres

supporters. These are their compadres who helped get him into this mess who are telling them that we can get out of it. And they're of course spinning all

it. And they're of course spinning all sorts of stories about how we do it. And

this will go this this means that the war will probably go on for, you know, a couple more weeks before uh we're on the

verge of falling off a cliff. And at

that point, it may just be too late. So,

this is why we shouldn't be too optimistic about President Trump figuring out that he's in a desperate

situation. And in that case, what he

situation. And in that case, what he ought to do is back off and try to work out a deal.

Well, an important component of this war though is um of course Israel. They're

the ones who launched the first strike here. And uh you you often make the

here. And uh you you often make the point that uh you know if uh US and Israeli interests and security was you know completely aligned uh then there

wouldn't be a need for the lobby but again there is a lobby which suggests that these differences have to be you know ironed out. Uh how do you see this

being impacted by when the US has to get out of this war? Because uh you know the the Israelis have been lobbing for this war now for what 30 plus years for an

attack on Iran. They finally got it. If

the US leaves now, Iran's going to probably end up in a much much more favorable position. So do you see a

favorable position. So do you see a break or further break at least in USIsraeli relations as a consequence of this war? I know it's not over yet and

this war? I know it's not over yet and you know it can still some unknown directions this war can take but what are the risks you think of the US and Israel I guess parting ways to some

extent well as you know I think that in almost all cases certainly in the past when Israel's interests and America's

interests pointed in opposite directions uh the United States always did what was in Israel's interest in large part because of the power of the lobby Um, and I've argued or I should say Steve

Walt and I have argued for long for a long time that this is not in America's national interest obviously, but it's also not in Israel's interest either. Uh

but this could be a very different case because if we're in a situation where it looks like the global economy is going to crash, uh I think that would lead

President Trump to just tell the Israelis and to tell the lobby he doesn't care what they think. He's going

to do everything he can to avoid going off the cliff. This sort of thing. Uh so

this could be uh a different case. This

could be a case that in in a sense contradicts the basic argument that Steve Walt and I lay out in our work on the lobby. Uh there's another dimension

the lobby. Uh there's another dimension this dimension to this that bears mentioning. It's a very sensitive

mentioning. It's a very sensitive subject but almost everybody I know believes that

Israel and the lobby led us into this war. And if it's a catastrophe,

war. And if it's a catastrophe, uh there is a great danger that people will say that the Jews are responsible

for causing this war, which is simply not true because huge numbers of Jews oppose this war. And the Israel lobby is

comprised of Christian Zionists as well as Jews. And by no means do all Jews

as Jews. And by no means do all Jews belong to the lobby. So it's just very important to understand that. But

nevertheless, there is a real danger here that if this war goes south in a serious way, we go off a cliff, we hit

the iceberg, whatever phrase you want to use, uh, and people see it as a war that Israel and the lobby is principally

responsible for, that would cause, uh, a wave of anti-semitism, not just in the United States, but outside the United States as well. And I actually think

that a lot of people inside of the lobby uh and a lot of Israelis and certainly a lot of American Jews understand this danger here. So I think if it looks like

danger here. So I think if it looks like we're going off a cliff u I think the lobby would not put much pressure on Trump uh to cut a deal with the Iranians

because of the potential uh threat of massive a massive increase in anti-semitism.

uh as a result of a lost war, a catastrophic war that's blamed on uh Israel and Malbi.

I think you're probably correct in this and uh but it also has to be said that a lot of the leading critics within the US of Israel uh are American Jews though.

It's uh so it's not as if uh and you know a lot of the hardcore scientists are actually Christians. So to to just say you know everything Israel's do is to to compare to to Judaism I think

would be a wrong direction to take and um but of course the racist are rarely you know purely rational of course in their

rhetoric. So um but no I I see that

rhetoric. So um but no I I see that danger as well. Um how do you see though the the Europeans in this because uh

they played a very strange role. Uh they

you know they initially they well they weren't invited and then they suggested that they would send weapons. Trump

didn't want their weapons cuz he already won. Now he wants them to open up the

won. Now he wants them to open up the straight of her moose. They don't want to because you know it's too late. It's,

you know, it's I think since you used the iceberg and the Titanic metaphor, I think it was a French general who said that uh, you know, the

Titanic already hit the iceberg and now Trump invites us to join, you know, like he says he should have invited us before at least this is more or less the argument. Uh, how do you explain the

argument. Uh, how do you explain the European position on this? And how I guess to widen it further, do you think this would affect NATO? Because Trump

already on more than one occasion argued you know uh NATO now is a paper tiger.

Mark my words because he will remember this in a few months time. Uh we will remember you betrayed us. You know you didn't come to help us. We do everything for NATO. Marco Rubio said you know

for NATO. Marco Rubio said you know Ukraine is not America's war. It's a

European Europe's war and we helped you and you don't help us. So it looks like they're building up a case against the Europeans and against NATO. I was just wondering how how do you see this dimension of the war because it is an

important you know it would have further ripple effects is my point.

Yeah, there are a lot of points to be made here. One thing that you know gets

made here. One thing that you know gets lost in the discourse today because the focus is laser-like on Iran is the

Ukraine war. And uh if the Ukraine war

Ukraine war. And uh if the Ukraine war were to go south this summer, uh the Ukrainian military were to start losing

in a serious way on the battlefield.

uh this would have disastrous consequences uh for Trump uh for NATO uh and for transatlantic relations. So we want to

transatlantic relations. So we want to keep in the back of our mind that there is this other I would say impending

disaster out there that could make a bad situation worse. But just focusing on

situation worse. But just focusing on the Iran situation, uh, you know, here we are again with the

Americans doing something, not consulting the Europeans, getting into trouble, and then asking the Europeans for help. Uh, and the Europeans of

for help. Uh, and the Europeans of course uh, understand full well that this is a lost cause. Uh, and they don't

want to get involved. I mean the idea that you know European countries should send their navies uh uh to join the American Navy as they try and push

through the straight of Hormuz with naval power alone. Uh this is you know crazy uh the American Navy the most powerful navy in the world won't even go

near the straight of Hormuz right for fear that uh Iranian cruise missiles will sink those American naval vessels.

uh the idea that the French Navy or the British Navy is going to uh be this huge force multiplier that allows our navy

plus their navies uh to forged through the straight is kind of crazy. Who

believes that? You know, we're talking about 1915 all over again when the British Navy tried to push its way through the dinels

uh and ran into mines and had to turn around. I mean, just not going to

around. I mean, just not going to happen. Uh and you know, there's all

happen. Uh and you know, there's all this talk about maybe using ground forces. This is not a serious argument.

forces. This is not a serious argument.

ground forces uh and uh European ground forces few few in number

uh do you really think the European armies are ready to invade Iran or conquer you know Car Island or any other

island? I mean this is just not in the

island? I mean this is just not in the cards. And of course, what's happening

cards. And of course, what's happening here is Trump is desperate and now he's blaming the Europeans, right? He he

understands is he he's going to lose and he's got to blame somebody else. It

can't be him. After all, he's a genius, right? He he's one of the great

right? He he's one of the great strategists of all time. So, this

disaster can't be his fault. So, whose

fault is it? Well, it has to be the Europeans's fault. Uh all we needed was

Europeans's fault. Uh all we needed was for them to come into the fight and we would have won. But they didn't come into the fight because they're useless.

They're just free riders and that's why we lost. It wasn't my fault. Uh so

we lost. It wasn't my fault. Uh so

that's what's going on here. And the

Europeans play right into his hands because the Europeans hardly ever stand up to him. And as the Iranians, the North Koreans, the Chinese, and the

Russians have demonstrated, there's only one way you deal with President Trump, and that is you stand up to him. If you

behave like Mark Ruda, he's going to walk all over you. He's a classic bully.

Everybody should have figured that out by now. If you show weakness, as the

by now. If you show weakness, as the Europeans consistently do, with the exception of the Spanish prime minister, uh if you show weakness, if you behave

like Mark Ruda, uh President Trump is just going to slap you around and continue to slap you around because again, he's a bully.

So I guess uh yeah, the US will blame uh Europeans for Iran. The the Europeans seemingly planning to plan to blame the US for Ukraine. So you know there will

be a big blame game going around but it is a it's an interesting dynamic because as you suggest there's a you know if the Iran war which can't be contained it's spreading everywhere. If that was the

spreading everywhere. If that was the only thing uh it would be one thing but there's so many other variables at play which won't stay constant at any point we could have an unrivaling global

economy. The Ukraine war can go

economy. The Ukraine war can go spiraling into a collapse. So it's very difficult to I guess to bet on a wider strategic

stability as things in Iran goes uh terribly wrong. Uh but

terribly wrong. Uh but at this point though do you see any final you know if Trump decides to go up the escalation ladder is is there any

possible final solution he can go to you you were dismissive of the ground the ground operation sending in you know boots on the ground because this appears to be you know no matter how foolish it

is and leaders often double down on you know foolishness but uh but the troops are on their way uh thousands of uh US soldiers. Uh it's unclear how they're

soldiers. Uh it's unclear how they're going to use them. I thought

the way they would the most what would make most sense I guess would be to invade Yemen or something to make sure that their Red Sea wouldn't be closed off but anything else and that as well

by the way sounds like a disaster. Uh

I'm not sure what do you see the possibility of uh using these troops for?

I would just point out to you that when we did Desert Storm back in 1991, uh remember we invaded uh or we attacked with ground forces on February 24th of

1991.

Uh the attacking forces uh comprised about 700,000 troops. And of that 700,000 troops,

troops. And of that 700,000 troops, 540,000 were American. 540,000.

were American. 540,000.

And a lot of those forces were uh mechanized infantry divisions, armored divisions.

Uh then in 2003 when we invaded Iraq, uh the total force was about 300,000.

Uh I would estimate about 190,000 were US troops and probably about 45,000

so were British troops. Uh and uh again, many of those units that went into Iraq in 2003, like in 1991,

uh were uh mechanized infantry and armored divisions.

Uh and as you know, Iraq is a much smaller country than Iran geographically, and it has a much smaller population.

Uh what are we talking about here? We're

talking about sending a couple thousand troops, maybe 10,000 at the most. I don't think the number is 10,000. I think, you know,

all total at this point, we're more or less committed to sending probably about five or 6,000. Uh when you look at, you know, what we're actually doing and just

don't listen to the rhetoric. But even

if it's 10,000, they're light infantry.

10,000. Uh just think about those numbers that I was giving you for Desert Storm in ' 91 and for the second Gulf War in 2003.

What are you going to do with light infantry? Uh then the question is where

infantry? Uh then the question is where you going to put them? You know, we have about 13 bases in the Middle East.

Almost all those bases have been evacuated because the Iranians have slammed those bases. They've done great destruction to American military bases

in the region. This tells you that our bases are vulnerable. So, where are we going to put these troops so that they don't get hit like the bases got hit?

What bases are we going to put them on?

Uh, and what kind of equipment are they going to use uh to go into places like Car Island or the Iranian mainland or what have you?

And what's going to happen when they get there? Are the Iranians just going to

there? Are the Iranians just going to say, "Uh, this is a a fatal comply. There's nothing we can do about it." Or do you think the Iranians are going to fight back? Uh, I

mean, we know the Iranians are going to fight back. So, what are you going to do

fight back. So, what are you going to do with a handful of troops? Uh, and they talk about taking these small islands in the straight of Hormuz. There are three

of them. One is bigger than the other

of them. One is bigger than the other two. Um,

two. Um, I don't think that that's going to work out very well. And the Iranians will go to great lengths to defend those islands. And if we take the islands,

islands. And if we take the islands, they'll pummel the troops on the islands. Uh and furthermore, they've

islands. Uh and furthermore, they've told the UAE that uh if that happens and they cooperate with the Americans and the UAE is bent on cooperating with the

Americans, uh they're going to basically wreck the UAE. So, uh what are we going to gain by taking those small islands?

Uh well, people might say we can open the straight of Hormuz.

I don't think that's true at all. First

of all, if you're on the verge, you the Americans are on the verge of opening the straight, they'll mine the straight.

And mines are deadly effective ways of preventing ships from coming through the straight. But let's assume that I'm

straight. But let's assume that I'm wrong and the ships come in to the Persian Gulf, they can make their way into the Persian Gulf. It'll be like a

shooting gallery, right? Those ships are be in a narrow body of water. Uh the

Iranians will be on one side of the Gulf uh facing this target-rich environment.

They have huge numbers of cruise missiles. They have all these fast

missiles. They have all these fast boats. They have additional mines they

boats. They have additional mines they can lay in the Persian Gulf. They can

wreak havoc. But let's assume I'm wrong.

Then we go to Car Island, right? Uh we

have an amphibious assault uh uh on Car Island. To put it in Lindsey Graham's

Island. To put it in Lindsey Graham's terms, we have EOima 2. What are we going to do then? As I said before, are we going to cut off the flow of oil out

of Car Island? No, we're not. Not if

we're smart, because we're letting all of this Iranian oil out on the market now because we need it. So, invading Car Island and cutting off 90% of the flow

of Iranian oil into global markets makes no sense at all. Uh, and furthermore, once you take Harg Island, let's say you take it, do you think the Iranians are going to sit there and just leave you

alone? They're not going to do that.

alone? They're not going to do that.

They're going to bomb the island.

They're going to bomb your troops with ballistic missiles, with drones, uh, and make life miserable for you. And

furthermore, what's the story as to how taking Car Island or taking those three islands in the straight actually produces uh a lasting settlement here?

Again, the Iranians, you don't want to forget, are facing an existential threat. And when you're facing an

threat. And when you're facing an existential threat, you have to fight to the death. You have to fight to the

the death. You have to fight to the death. That's the way this works. You're

death. That's the way this works. You're

dealing with an existential threat.

uh and uh they have lots of cards to play. Again, we were prepared to win a

play. Again, we were prepared to win a quick and decisive victory. We had this cockami strategy that didn't work out.

We ended up in a war of attrition. And

once you're in a war of attrition, they hold, I would argue, almost all the cards. And if you don't think they hold

cards. And if you don't think they hold almost all the cards, uh they hold many cards. And they have the ability to cause enormous trouble.

uh as we've talked about on the show here. So, you know, the ground forces

here. So, you know, the ground forces option I it's I don't know what people are talking about. And by the way, Glenn, just to you know, beat a dead

horse here. You remember how long we

horse here. You remember how long we prepared the troops uh for Desert Storm?

When did Saddam invade Iraq? I think it was August 2nd of 1990. August 2nd of 1990.

And when did we launch those ground troops against the Iraqi army? It was

February 24th, 1991.

So you went from August of 90, early August of 90 to late February of 1991.

That was the time it took to build up the force, train the force, uh, and then launch the offensive. That's a long

time. And as I said before, it was a

time. And as I said before, it was a huge army, 540,000 troops, right? And

the same thing is true with the 2003 offensive. We just didn't do that

offensive. We just didn't do that overnight. President Trump made no

overnight. President Trump made no preparations for a ground war uh for February 28th. This is something

that he and his adviserss have recently invented as a way to deal with this problem. They just sort of pulled it out

problem. They just sort of pulled it out of their back pocket. Oh, we'll do ground forces that let's see what we can do to invade Iranian held territory. So

that that's what they're talking about doing now. There was no planning for

doing now. There was no planning for this. Uh there's no no strategy there.

this. Uh there's no no strategy there.

Uh we're basically screwed.

And as you said, uh Iran is about four times as large as Iraq. It's uh

mountainous. It's facing down on the other Gulf states which are essentially flat deserts. Uh they've they have the

flat deserts. Uh they've they have the whole coastline. I mean it's a fortress

whole coastline. I mean it's a fortress and populated by more than 90 million people and uh they've been preparing for this ever since Bush called them uh they

put them in the axis of evil. So it is and yeah so you're right to put together a few thousand troops and uh you know ship them down there with a you know make up the plan as to sail down there.

It it does sound very cartoonish. Uh not

the way uh one one fights a war. So

yeah, it's it's not reassuring though when you have this kind of desperation, this much at stake and um yeah, it seems like someone's going to do something

very rush uh when things start to go very wrong. Uh I don't know. I'm just

very wrong. Uh I don't know. I'm just

very Yeah, pray that no one's reaching for the nuclear weapons for a quick fix.

But um >> yeah, but that's another chapter we can look at a different time. Do you have any final thoughts before we wrap up?

>> Just one final thought. You know, people like us are frequently um critical of the deep state and uh people on both sides of the political spectrum are

critical of the deep state. But the

reason that you have a powerful state uh the reason you have powerful institutions like the CIA and the Pentagon and analogous institutions in

Russia, China and so forth and so on is because you need a lot of expertise.

You need a lot of people who can help you staff problems. In other words, if you decide that you're going to invade

um Iraq in 2003, you just can't do it by yourself if you're the president and with a handful of advisors. You have to have lots of

of advisors. You have to have lots of experts. You have to have lots of help

experts. You have to have lots of help uh thinking about how to deal with the problem and how to execute the right strategy and so forth and so on. And the

problem with President Trump is he doesn't have any respect whatsoever for institutions and certainly for the deep state which he views as a mortal enemy

because he thinks the deep state opposed him in all sorts of ways during his first term.

So you have this actually very interesting situation where he does not rely on experts at all. He relies on Steve Witoff and Jared Kushner and

Lindsey Graham.

These people are not serious strategists. These are not people who

strategists. These are not people who are capable of thinking through how to deal with major foreign policy issues or questions of war and peace. They can't

do that. And again, the reason that you have a deep state is because inside that deep state is all sorts of expertise. I

don't want to paint too post rosy a picture of the deep state here, but there is an upside to having a deep state.

And Glenn, it is very important to understand that all of the evidence that's in the public record now says that the deep state was

was at least very doubtful as to whether this would work, this war, and maybe was even opposed to it. I if you listen to what

uh General Kaine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was saying before the war and what he's been saying since the war started, and you listen to what the Pentagon was saying, absent Pete

Hexath, of course. Um and you look at what the intelligence community was saying, especially the National Intelligence Council, it's quite clear

that the deep state was highly skeptical of this operation. And for good reason, because as you and I know, anybody who

understands basic military history knows that the idea that you're going to get regime change with air power alone is a delusional perspective. Right? So the

delusional perspective. Right? So the

deep state in this case was not consulted, did not provide any expertise. Right? And instead, what

expertise. Right? And instead, what President Trump did was he relied on himself because of course he thinks he's a genius. And he to the extent he relied

a genius. And he to the extent he relied on anybody, he relied on people like Jared Kushner and Steve Witco

uh and Lindsey Graham and uh Rupert Murdoch who was calling him all the time and so forth and so on and you know people on Fox News and you name it. it.

But you don't go to war relying on people like that. You need experts. You

you have to really think these things through. Uh as we know very well, you

through. Uh as we know very well, you and I, when you go to war, the potential for disaster is great. It

it is the realm of unintended consequences. Right? This is one of the

consequences. Right? This is one of the central messages in Clausvitz. For

anybody who's read Clausvet, you understand very quickly. Well, going to war is in many ways a giant crapshoot.

And you want to do everything you can to maximize the chances that you'll be successful. And the way you do that is

successful. And the way you do that is you rely on smart people. You tell smart people to turn their critical faculties on and to think about what's the best

strategy for pursuing a particular goal and ask people at the same time is this goal worthwhile pursuing. you know, can we come up with a strategy that will

allow us to achieve the goal and so forth and so on. But he just had none of that with President Trump in his

decision-making that led up to uh the war that's now ongoing. And on

top of all that, not to get too carried away here, but he relied on the Israelis who were selling him a bill of goods. Uh

really quite remarkable. he was

bamboozled by uh Prime Minister Netanyahu.

So here we are and uh and again which I just want to say one more time what happened here was foreseeable. It was

foreseeable. You did not have to be a strategic genius to understand what was going to happen. And again, the deep state, I believe, understood this.

>> Understand why Trump would have been uh distrustful though of the intelligence agencies and the permanent bureaucracy due to the whole Russia gate affair in his first uh presidential term. But

again, I couldn't agree with you more.

That being said, you still need those guys. And uh the fact that the idea that

guys. And uh the fact that the idea that you can replace them with a crew of people you trust which consists of your friends from the real estate business, your family members, some people from

the media, from Fox News and uh yeah, that this will be the replacement. I

mean, that sets up a whole new category of problems. So, no, I it's uh yeah, no, it's a real mess. Uh

anyways uh it's uh whenever we talk about the Ukraine war ends on a very dark note. I

don't think uh well it's any positive spin one can put on this war. It's uh

going to be a real mess. So uh thank you very much for taking the time.

>> Welcome Glenn. All I will say is I hope that before I die, you and I have a conversation where we can have an optimistic conclusion to what we say

over the course of the show. Uh it does seem like we're a long way up from that point however.

>> Yeah, I look forward to that. Hopefully

that opportunity. So, thanks.

>> You're welcome.