John Mearsheimer: The Palestinian Genocide and How the West Has Been Deceived Into Supporting It

Professor, thank you for doing this. The arc of  and it's not the topic of today's conversation, but the arc of your career as someone who's  just watched it pretty carefully all of these. years. You've wound up where I think all of  us want to be, which is universally respected, regarded as an oracle. It must be sort of nice  to look back and uh be vindicated. Uh so anyway, so I'm honored to have you. Where  are we in Ukraine right now? Well, we're in deep trouble if you mean  the United States. That's rain.

[Music] [Applause] [Music] [Applause] [Music]. You talk about we uh the fact is that the Russians  are winning the war. uh and there's no way that. Ukraine can rescue the situation. If you look at  the balance of power uh in terms of weaponry and.

in terms of manpower, the number of soldiers  that each side has uh the Ukrainians are in. a hopeless situation. And furthermore, they're  heavily dependent on the West for support. And. President Trump has made it clear that he's not  going to refill the Biden pipeline uh once all. the weaponry in that pipeline runs out. So the  Ukrainians are doomed. And if you look at what's. happening on the battlefield, it's quite clear  that the Ukrainians understand that their defenses.

are slowly but steadily collapsing. Now, one might  say, well, can't we get a negotiated settlement? Can't we bring this war to an end? And the fact  is that neither the Ukrainians nor the West, and here we're talking mainly about the Europeans,  is willing to cut a deal that's acceptable to the. Russians. Uh so there's no way you're going  to have a diplomatic settlement to this war. It's going to be settled on the battlefield and  the Russians are going to win an ugly victory.

and you're going to have a frozen conflict. Why  can't you have a negotiated settlement? Because. Russia has a set of demands. There are three main  demands and I'll spell them out in a second, but. they are unacceptable to the Ukrainians. They're  unacceptable to the West. Uh Donald Trump may find. them acceptable, but he's surrounded by people in  his administration and uh certainly true in the.

American foreign policy establishment who wouldn't  accept those demands. And the big three demands. are number one uh that Ukraine has to be a neutral  state. It cannot be a NATO and it cannot have a. security guarantee from the United States or from  the west more generally. So it has to be neutral. Second is that Ukraine cannot have a significant  offensive military capability. Ukraine has to.

be demilitarized to the point where it doesn't  present a threat to Russia. And then third and. maybe most important of all, uh the Ukrainians and  the West have to accept the fact that Russia has. annexed Crimea and those four oblass uh in eastern  1/5if of Ukraine that they now almost occupy. So in other words, you're asking Ukraine to give  up about 20% of its territory, and the Ukrainians.

won't do that. And they won't agree not to be  in NATO. Uh and they will not agree to disarm in. some meaningful way. So there's no way you get a  settlement. So there will be a settlement by your. description because there will be a victory.  So there will just be it's not an official. settlement, but there will be a new status  quo in which Russia controls a fifth of what. was Ukraine and that's just going to happen. So  why wouldn't you want to get out of that with as.

little destruction as possible? Well, you're going  to get an armistice in all likelihood. And this is. why we say you'll have a a frozen conflict that  will present all sorts of problems moving down. the road. I have long argued that the Ukrainians  should cut a deal now. Uh because what's going to. happen is the Russians are going to end up taking  more territory and the Russians have made it clear. that any territory they take they'll keep. Uh and  furthermore, more Ukrainians are going to die the.

longer the war goes on. So if you believe like  I do and many people do that Ukraine is losing, the smart thing to do is cut a deal now uh  and minimize your losses both in terms of. territory and people killed on the battlefield.  But you just can't sell that argument. And why. why can't you sell that argument? I think  it's probably nationalism in the case of the. Ukrainians. The Ukrainians view the Russians as  existential threat and they're willing to fight.

and die in huge numbers. They're willing to make  incredible sacrifices to do everything they can. to win this war and they just won't quit. And in  terms of the West, it's easy for the West. So, I just want to say I understand that and respect  that person. I think they're wrong, but I I think. it's self-defeating, but I certainly think it's  honorable those impulses, but I don't understand. the West's stake in this. Exactly. Well, I don't  believe the West has a strategic stake in this for.

one second, but uh the Russophobia in the West is  so powerful at this point in time that especially. among the elites uh in Europe and in the United  States that getting them to concede that the. Russians have uh won this war or going to win this  war is just unacceptable and have legitimate cons. security concerns on their border. order. I mean  that they're not allowed. The Russians are not. allowed to have legitimate security concerns in  the minds of most Western elites. Why? I don't.

know. It it befuddles me. Uh if you look at the  Russian reaction to NATO expansion into Ukraine, which I believe is the taproot of this war, it's  analogous to America's Monroe Doctrine. The United. States under no circumstances would allow the  Soviet Union to put missiles in Cuba or to locate.

a naval base at Cen Fueos in Cuba. That was just  unacceptable. This is what the Monroe doctrine. is all about. We'd never allow China to station  military forces uh in Mexico or in Canada. Uh but. yet we think we have the right to move NATO far  enough eastward to include Ukraine and then put. uh NATO assets including American military  assets in Ukraine. And this is not of concern.

to the Russians. They shouldn't care. Uh they  should recognize that Ukraine has the right to. do whatever it wants. NATO has the right to expand  wherever it wants and Russia has no say in the. matter. The Russians of course don't accept this  uh because they have a Monroe doctrine of their. own. But we can't get it through our thick skulls  that uh uh this is foolish thinking on our part. and is destined to lead to trouble as it has.  It's it's interesting that the standard that US.

foreign policy makers apply to Russia is different  from a standard that apply to any other country. including China and even North Korea. They just  they don't have the same level of emotion about. any other place. It's Russia, Ukraine. And I I  find it baffling because on on some level this is, as you said at the outset, this is not about  America's strategic interest. We don't really have. many there. This is about an almost overwhelming  emotional response from our leadership class to.

this conflict, to this region. I think it's  weird. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I think also at this. point in time, we have convinced ourselves, both  the Europeans and the Americans, that Russia is a. mortal threat to dominate all of Europe. This is  a ridiculous argument. Of course, do you think it. is ridiculous? It's a ridiculous argument.  As you have seen, the war started in 2022. We're well over five years into this war and the  Russians have had a very difficult time conquering.

the eastern 15th of Ukraine. Just think about  that. Over three plus years, they have been unable. to conquer all the territory in those four oblasts  that they've enexed. Please tell me how this army. is going to overrun all of Ukraine, then overrun  Eastern Europe, and then overrun Western Europe. This is a laughable argument. Furthermore, if  the Russians are foolish enough to try to occupy.

western Ukraine, they're going to find themselves  in uh a quagmire. They're going to find themselves. dealing with a huge amount of resistance from  all of those ethnic Ukrainians in the western. part of Ukraine who hate Russians. This is why I  don't think Putin is going to even try to conquer. the western half, much less Poland and Romania and  the rest. Exactly. Their view on that, by the way, in terms of occupying Eastern Europe, is we've  been there, done that, and it did not work out.

very well. Remember, they occupied Eastern Europe  roughly from 1945 to the early 1990s when they. pulled out after the Cold War ended. They had  to invade Hungary in 56. They had to invade. Czechoslovakia in ' 68. They had to put down a  major insurrection in in East Germany in 1953. They almost went into Poland three times. They had  their hands full dealing with the Romanians and. the Albanians and the Yugoslavs. I mean, the  idea that a country like Russia is going to,

you know, invade and occupy and run the politics  of countries in Eastern Europe is a remarkably. foolish idea. And again, they don't even have  the military capability to do that. But that is. the idea. And when you talk to Europeans about  it, as I often do, they say that Putin's aim is. to restore the Soviet Empire. And he said that and  you know, just listen to what he says. He wants he.

pines for the Soviet era and he wants to restore  it. He's never said that. In fact, he said that, you know, he can understand why someone in his or  her heart pines for the Soviet Union, but in his. or her head it makes absolutely no sense. He said  that uh the idea that you can recreate the Soviet. Union number one and then two recreate the Soviet  Empire is a pipe dream and you might not like. Vladimir Putin but he is a very smart man. He is  a first class strategist and he surely understands.

that you know the idea of recreating the Soviet  Union or the Soviet Empire makes no sense at all. If it ain't broke, don't fix it is a cliche  for a reason cuz it's pretty good advice. But. sometimes it's not true. Cell phones are a glaring  exception. You've got your cell phone, you've had. it for years, you don't change. Sometimes your  cell phone battery life fades or maybe your. processor can't keep up. But your phone is bound  to run into trouble eventually, no matter what the.

problem is. And replacing it early is much better  and often far cheaper than replacing it too late. Enter Pure Talk. This month, if you switch to  a qualifying $35 plan, 35 bucks, Pure Talk will. give you a Samsung Galaxy A36 completely free.  Literally free. Just 35 bucks a month for talk, text, and data. And you get to restart your phone  life cycle without paying for a brand new device. So, it's a scamfree deal. All on America's most  dependable 5G network. It's like a cell phone that.

works as well as any other. It's just way cheaper  and they're not scamming you. So switching is a. win for everybody. You save money on your cell  phone bill bill bill bill bill. Pureet talk grows. to hire more Americans to support more veterans,  which it does. So go to puretalk.com/tucker to get. your free phone today. That's puretalk.com/tucker  to switch to our wireless company. It's America's. wireless company. It's Pure Talk. You spent 10  years in the US military, graduated West Point.

um during the Cold War. Yes. So your life for 10  years was focused on the Soviets, of course. No. question. No question. So that's 10 years. That's  a long time in your young life. How were you able. to transition mentally from viewing Russia as  an enemy to viewing them as, you know, another. country? It's an interesting question. Why weren't  others able to do that? Well, a lot were, uh, but. a lot weren't. Uh I think uh that what happened  was that during the cold war when I started to.

think about the US Soviet competition the subject  that I got interested in was the conventional. balance of forces in Europe. It was the NATO  Warsaw packed balance and I wrote my dissertation. on the subject of conventional deterrence and it  focused on the NATO Warsaw packed balance and my. argument was which was very controversial at  the time was that the Soviets were not 10 ft.

tall and actually if a war did break out in  central Europe the West or NATO would do very. well that we would hold off the Soviets that they  would not win a quick and decisive victory which. is the conventional was the conventional wisdom at  the time. So in a very important way I was engaged. in threat deflation. I always thought when you  looked at the Soviet Union this is during the.

latter part of the cold war when I was coming  of age that we greatly overestimated the threat. uh and that the Soviet Union was not 10 feet tall.  So once the cold war ends and then we segue into. the unipolar moment, uh I'm already moving  in that direction. And then during the 1990s, the Soviet Union, which has become Russia, is a  total basket case. I mean, it's the only threat. that it represents is to itself. Yes. Doesn't  represent a threat to the West. And in fact,

Tucker, NATO expansion, which really gets going in  1994, that's when Bill Clinton decides to expand. NATO, is not designed to contain Russia because  there is no Russian threat. So then Putin comes to. power. And what happens from about 2000 up until  the present is that the West uh and here we're. talking about the United States as well of course  uh becomes increasingly russophobic and hostile.

to Putin. And I think it's in large part because  Putin stands up to us. Uh I think that we get used. to the idea certainly in the 1990s that we call  the shots. It's the unipolar moment. And when we. tell countries to jump, their only question is how  high. And we get away with that uh to some extent. with Putin to begin with. But then he begins to  play hard ball with us. And he gives a very famous. speech in Munich in 2007 where he throws down  the gauntlet. And from 2007 forward, uh relations.

really deteriorate. And as they deteriorate,  the Russophobia comes racing to the four. uh and remains firmly in place today. What what  is the point of NATO now? Like why do we still. have NATO? What's its objective? Well, I think if  you asked most Europeans and even many Americans. in the American foreign policy establishment, the  argument would be that NATO serves as a pacifier.

Uh in other words, it keeps the peace in Europe.  Uh the United States is the most powerful state. in NATO and the United States sits on top of all  the European countries. It provides security for. them. It provides a nuclear umbrella for them  and that prevents the European countries from.

engaging in security competition with each  other. So we are a pacifying force and this. is the reason that the Europeans today to prevent  intrauropean conflict. Intra European conflict. Right. Interesting. Well, if you think about  it, uh up until uh 1945 when World War II ends, you would had two world wars in the first half of  the 20th century. And then if you go back in time, European countries had been fighting against each  other uh almost since the beginning of time. Well,

that's why there are so many European countries  and so many languages and different distinct. cultures. I mean, you might also make the argument  that's why Europe was so successful because they. were You can certainly make that argument and you  can make the argument that that's why they were. able to conquer uh huge chunks of the planet and  create these empires because they were very good. at projecting military power. These were Marshall  societies before they became tourist destinations. Yes. But but anyway, what happens during the Cold  War is the Soviets dominate one side of Europe and.

we dominate the other side of Europe. And as long  as those two great powers are dominating those. two halves of Europe, the countries located below  them cannot fight among themselves. Okay? So what. happens when the Cold War ends in 1989 and then  into the 1990s is that we decide that we're going. to expand NATO eastward. And as I said to you,  it's very important to understand that when we.

expand NATO eastward in the '9s and then the early  2000s, we're not aiming at containing Russia. What we're interested in do is doing is taking  the pacifier, the American pacifier that sits over. Western Europe and putting it over Eastern Europe  and making Europe one giant zone of peace. And the. Europeans liked that idea. You want to remember  after 1989 lots of Europeans were very worried.

about Germany which reunified when the cold war  ended. And you can understand why Europeans were. very nervous. Yes. But as long as the Americans  stay in Europe, as long as NATO remains intact, the pacifier is there. You know, most people  don't realize this, but the Soviets and then. the Russians were perfectly content to see the  United States remain in Europe and for NATO to.

remain intact after the Cold War because the  Soviets/Russians understood that we served as. a pacifier. What they didn't want, and they made  this very clear, was NATO expansion. And of course. what we did starting in 1994 was to expand NATO  eastward again to move the pacifier from over just. Western Europe to over all of Europe. And that is  what that is what has produced the catastrophe in.

Ukraine. By the time NATO gets to the Baltics  and then we start talking openly, as the Biden. administration did, just openly, like at press  conferences, about moving NATO into Ukraine, it's very obvious that that's going to trigger  a conflict with Russia at some point. You know, how could it not? Why didn't anyone pause  and say, "Okay, NATO's great. Obviously, there's a massive budget. We're all getting  richer from NATO also." But is it let's.

balance that against like a war with Russia. We  don't want that. Did anyone raise that point? Couple points just to get the dates right. Uh the  second big trunch of NATO expansion which brings. the Baltic states in is 2004. Yep. The first big  trunch is 1999. That's Poland, Hungary, and the. Czech Republic. 99. Then 2004 is when the Baltic  states come in. 2008 is when the critical decision. is made. April 2008 to bring Ukraine into NATO.  Okay. But to get to the heart of your question,

what's very interesting is if you go back and  look at many of the planning documents from the. '9s about NATO expansion, people recognize at  the time that Ukraine is a special case and it. will be a huge source of trouble if we move NATO  into Ukraine. So you can get away with Poland. You.

can even get away with the Baltic states, but  Ukraine is a different matter. And it's very. important to understand that we understood that  from the get-go. So the question then becomes what. you're asking is why did we do it, right? What's  going on here? Why didn't we just back off? And I. think the answer is we thought we could shove  it down their throat. You want to understand, they opposed the 99 expansion, the first trunch.  We just shoved it down their throat. Yeah. What's. Boris Yelson going to do about it? That's right.  That's exactly right. What's he going to do about.

it? And then 2004, Putin's in control now. We  shove it down their face down their throat again. So in 2008, immediately after NATO says at the  Bucharest, April 2008 NATO Bucharest summit, immediately after he says that NATO says  that uh Ukraine will be brought into NATO, Putin makes it manifestly clear that this is  unacceptable, that this is an existential threat.

and that Russia will not let it happen. And by  the way, at that April 2008 NATO summit, they said. they were not only going to bring Ukraine into  NATO, they're going to bring Georgia into NATO. That's April 2008. A war breaks out in Georgia in  August of 2008 over this very issue. So, you would. expect us to back off at that point, but we don't  back off. In fact, we double down. And then when.

the crisis first starts, this is in 2014, February  22nd, 2014. That's when the crisis starts. That's. when the Russians take Crimea. This is when you  understand or should understand the Russians mean. business. Do we back off? Do we try to accommodate  the Russians in any way? Absolutely not. We plow. forward and then of course we get the war in 2022.  And you ask yourself, why did we do this? And. by the way, if you look at the process, uh, the  decision-making process after Joe Biden moves into.

the White House in January 2021, January 2021,  and then 13 months later, the war breaks out, Biden makes no effort whatsoever to accommodate  the Russians. So again, the question is why? What's going on here? Yes, we're just going  to shove it down their throat. We think we're. Godzilla. We think it's still the unipolar moment.  We're sorry to say it, but this is not a very safe.

country. Walk through Oakland or Philadelphia.  Yeah, good luck. So, most people when they think. about this want to carry a firearm, and a lot  of us do. The problem is there can be massive. consequences for that. Ask Kyle Writtenhouse.  Kyle Writtenhouse got off in the end, but he. was innocent from the first moment. It was obvious  on video and he was facing life in prison anyway. That's what the anti-gun movement will do. They'll  throw you in prison for defending yourself with. a firearm. And that's why a lot of Americans are  turning to Burna. It's a proudly American company.

Burna makes self-defense launchers that hundreds  of law enforcement departments trust. They've sold. over 600,000 pistols mostly to private citizens  who refuse to be empty-handed. These pistols, and I have one, fire rockard kinetic rounds  or tear gas rounds and pepper projectiles, and they stop a threat from up to 60 feet away.  There are no background checks. There are no. waiting periods. Burna can ship it directly to  your door. You can't be arrested for defending. yourself with a burn pistol. Visit burnab yrna.com  or your local sportsman's warehouse to get yours.

today. Burna.com. But why would you want to?  Even if you have absolute power, which of course. doesn't exist, but let's say you believed  you had it. Why would you want to do that? I believe that once the decision is made in 2008  that you're going to bring NATO to Ukraine, you're. going to bring Ukraine into the alliance. That the  idea of backing off is unacceptable to the United.

States and to the West. You just don't do that.  That would be a sign of weakness and we cannot. show weakness. And I think a lot of this thinking  has to do with why we won't quit. Now, one should. say to him or herself at this point, it's time to  put an end to this war and accept the fact that. the Russians have won an ugly victory. But we  can't bring ourselves to do that. That would be. showing weakness. So instead, we continue to plow  on. But in, you know, attempting to show strength,

we reveal weakness. I mean, that's my concern is,  you know, once you project force and it doesn't. work, then you're revealed to the world is weak.  The limits of your power are obvious to everybody. It's better to to threaten and have, you know,  your true power concealed. People can guess at. what you can do. But now there's no guessing. We  couldn't be Russia. And that's correct. Right. So, we lost a war to Russia. It's a proxy war,  but it was a war. And so, what does that mean?

Well, it is uh you know a devastating defeat  for NATO because we have invested so much in. this war. Right. Uh the other problem that we face  is that the United States and this is true of both. the Biden and Trump administration consider China  to be the principal threat to the United States. China is a pure competitor. Russia is not a pure  competitor. Russia is not a threat to dominate.

Europe. Russia is not the Soviet Union. China  is a peer competitor. It's a threat to dominate. Asia. And what we've been trying to do since 2011  when Hillary Clinton announced it when she was. Secretary of State is we've been trying to pivot  to Asia. Uh but what's happened here is we've got. bogged down in Ukraine and now we're bogged down  in the Middle East. And this makes it difficult. to fully pivot to Asia. And this is not in the  American national interest. But to make matters.

even worse, what we have done is we have driven  the Russians into the arms of the Chinese. Yes. If. you think about it, we live in a world where there  are three great powers. The United States, China, and Russia. If the United States views China as  its principal competitor and the United States. is interested in containing China in East Asia, it  would make eminently good sense to have Russia on. its side of the equation. Instead, what we've done  with the Ukraine war is we've driven the Russians.

and the army, the Russians and the Chinese  closer together. So that's so obvious even to. me a non-speist just like it's obvious just look  at a map that it had to have been obvious to the. previous administration but they did it anyway.  So you have to kind of wonder did they want that. I think you're underestimating uh how much  strategic sense the American foreign policy.

establishment has. So they're just so incompetent  they didn't see that coming. Yes. I mean, I'll take it a step further. I mean, come on.  Let's talk about China. This is an even bigger. issue. The Cold War ends and as you well remember,  at the end of the Cold War, China and the United. States were basically allied together against the  Soviet Union. Of course, that was the whole point. Yeah. Right. So the Soviet Union uh cold war ends,  Soviet Union disappears and there's no longer any.

need for us to have a close relationship with  China. We don't need them to help contain the. Soviet Union. So the question is what do we do  with the Chinese moving forward? And economically. China is a backwards country in the early 1990s.  What we do is we adopt a policy of engagement. with China. Engagement is explicitly designed to  turn China into a very wealthy country. This is a.

country that has over four times the population  of the United States and you're talking about. making it very rich. For a realist like me, this  is lunacy. you are in effect creating a peer. competitor. In fact, you may be creating a country  that is more powerful than the United States. But. the foreign policy establishment in the United  States almost to a person including hawks like big.

new Brjinski and Henry Kissinger said that China  can grow economically. we can integrate it into. institutions like the World Trade Organization and  so forth and so on and it will become a democracy. and we will all live happily ever after. Right?  So what we did is that we helped fuel China's.

phenomenal growth between 1990 and 2017 when  it became a great power. You want to remember. that when the Cold War ends and then the Soviet  Union collapses in December of 1991, we enter the. unipolar moment, which by definition means there's  one great power on the planet. Yeah, that's the. United States of America. By 2017, there are three  great powers on the planet. And one of those three. great powers is a peer competitor. And we helped  create that peer competitor on the foolish belief.

that if we turned China into a rich country, it  would become a liberal democracy and it would. become a friend of the United States and it would  allow us to run international politics the way. we did during unipolarity. This is a remarkably  catastrophic decision. It must be strange for you. having spent your life in this one field um both  in the military effectively and then in academia.

and you've had tenure at Chicago since ' 82.  Is that right? I went to Chicago in ' 82. I got. tenure in 1987. So you've been there over 40 years  working on this suite of topics, this group of. topics. When you look around and everybody, even  the most famous people in your field are buying. into something that stupid, how does that make  you feel? Bjinsky and Kissinger are saying things. that are just like obviously dumb. That must  be weird. It's very weird. I remember I debated.

uh in the early 2000s at Carnegie in Washington  DC uh on whether China could rise peacefully. And there's actually a big story in foreign  policy the magazine that has an abbreviated. transcript of our debate. And uh I remember Zigg  was arguing that China can rise peacefully and I. was arguing that China could not rise peacefully  and that our policy of engagement was foolish. And.

as he was speaking and I was sitting on the dis I  was saying to myself, I don't get what's going on. here. Spignjinski, who's about 10 notches to the  right of me on almost all foreign policy issues, shouldn't be making this argument, but he's making  this argument. Yes. And I'm the one who looks. like a super hawk. Uh when at the end of the cold  war, I was more uh on the dovish side arguing the. Soviets were not 10 feet tall. And of course, Big  was always arguing the Soviets were 10 feet tall.

So, it was really perplexing. And throughout the  '9s and throughout the early 2000s when I argued. China could not rise peacefully. Uh I could not  get a hearing in the United States. People just. didn't take me seriously. They'd say John's a very  smart guy. He's very entertaining. He's amusing, but he's basically crazy when it comes to  China. That was the view. Now, of course, I think everybody understands that I was basically  right and they were wrong. And your identity is.

constantly under attack. In just the last year,  Americans lost over $16 billion dollar to scammers. online. Anyone can fall victim to this. Your  social security number, your bank account, your. credit profile can be exposed and you won't even  know it. And the second they are exposed, thieves. can take out loans in your name, open credit  cards, wreck your life financially. Identity. Guard can save you. Identity Guard monitors  everything from your credit card to your bank. accounts to your social security number, looking  for early signs of fraud before damage is done.

If something weird happens, you get an instant  alert. If someone does steal your identity, Identity Guard's expert team works directly  with banks, credit card companies, and lenders. to shut it down quickly. End the scam. Having  your identity stolen is a nightmare. Someone. in this country becomes a victim of identity  theft every 6 seconds. Identity Guard protects. you. 30-day free trial and exclusive discount at  identityguard.com/tucker. Protect yourself before. it's too late. identity.com/ducker. It's just but  there hasn't I mean if you had a field just pick.

some other field structural engineering and if  you had America's sort of corpus of structural. engineers you know they all sort of know each  other the eminent ones are friends and all the. bridges they built started to fall down there  would be an immediate reorganization of the. field you would say this just what you know you  don't know what you're doing look look at the. results I don't understand how you could have  this many decades of backto-back foreign policy.

disasters and not have a wholesale reorganization  of like the brain trust. I agree. Let me just. tell let me I I let me just tell you one other  story. Let's go back to the 1990s. Talk about. NATO expansion. As I said to you, the Clinton  administration made the decision in 94. One might. think that there was overwhelming support for NATO  expansion in the foreign policy establishment. There actually was not. Bill Perry, who was  Clinton's Secretary of Defense, was adamantly.

opposed to any NATO expansion and thought about  resigning as Secretary of Defense over the issue. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs was opposed. Jean  Kirkpatre, Paul Nitsa, George Kennan, there's a. laundry list of prominent people who were opposed  to NATO expansion. Anyway, the decision is made. in '94. The first tranch is in 1999. And then the  opposition disappears. There's no more opposition.

Disappears. Disappears. And as this situation  regarding NATO expansion deteriorates over time, especially once the decision is made to bring  Ukraine into NATO, you would think that we. would begin to do an about face that more and  more people would begin to appear who make the. argument that NATO expansion into Ukraine is a bad  idea. Again, in the 1990s, people were making that. argument. But that doesn't happen at all. And  I become in many ways the principal person who.

argues that we're responsible for the 2014 crisis.  I wrote a piece in foreign affairs after the. crisis broke out in February of 2014. But there  are remarkably few people who are questioning. whether further uh pushing down the road to  bring Ukraine into NATO makes sense. Right. No, they're doubling down. They're doubling down. And  then you're getting people at the Atlantic Council.

say, you know, well, I guess we have to use nukes  now. I mean, you see people get not just refuse to. reflect or repent, but become like actively crazy.  Just crazy. Like, no tactical nukes. I mean, you know, we're not going to win without them.  People are saying that, as you know. What is that? Well, it will be a devastating blow for us to lose  the war in Ukraine. And when foreign policy elites.

get desperate, they do reckless things or they  talk in reckless ways. Right. Right. This is why, by the way, the Ukraine war uh even once it's  settled and becomes a frozen conflict will be. so dangerous. Right. Because it the fact that it  is a defeat for the West and that we have been. humiliated uh and that we lost this major war that  we were so deeply committed to will give people.

incentives to try to reverse the tide to rescue  the situation. And when people are desperate, they. sometimes pursue very risky strategies. So once  this war becomes a frozen conflict, we're going to. have to worry about it reescalating. It seems very  easy for um you know a reckless government in Kiev. to provoke Moscow basically. I mean you've seen it  you know sending drone swarms onto air bases or in.

you know setting the Kremlin on fire which they  did and got no publicity but they have done that. It's just it's it's this weird asymmetrical  arrangement where they Ukraine actually has. quite a bit of power to stoke a global conflict  and incentive to do it, don't they? Mhm. That's. exactly right. What they want to do is they want  to see the war escalate because they want to bring. us in. If if the Ukrainians have any hope of  rescuing the situation, it's to bring NATO into.

the fight. Exactly. Actually doing the fighting.  Uh and uh we've seen this in other regions. It's. it's a bad idea to get allow other countries an  incentive to suck in the United States because. they will. Yeah. Well, I mean, you see this with  the Israelis in Iran, right? In 2024, the Israelis. tried to bait us into the war into a war against  Iran on two separate occasions. And the Biden.

administration, much to its credit, did not uh  take the bait. But Donald Trump did take the bait, right? The Israelis have long had a deep-seated  interest in getting us uh involved against Iran. because they understand they can't defeat Iran by  themselves and they can do it uh they think with. us. Uh so this is analogous to the situation with  regard to Ukraine. The Ukrainians, as you said, have a deep-seated interest in getting us into  the fight. So, as long as we're tied to Ukraine,

um, if there's an implicit security guarantee,  which there kind of is at this point, I mean, there has been, why don't we have an interest in  like controlling the government of Ukraine? So, you can't, in other words, why do we have  Zilinski running Ukraine, this unelected. lunatic running Ukraine, when we have skin in  the game? Like, why why do we allow that? Well, we've been content with Zilinski up to now. Uh  and the Europeans love Silinski. Why? Because.

he's committed to continuing the war and uh he is  very good at public relations in the West. Uh he. has excellent advisers. He's a former actor. He  knows how to play the game. Uh so he's good at. dealing with the West and uh and he does what we  want. I mean, it's not like he's doing things that. we don't want him to do. No, that's right. uh he  he he is our man and once he ceases to be our man,

we'll go to great lengths to put somebody else  in his place. But both Europe and the United. States have become poorer and weaker during  the course of the Ukraine war, partly as a. result of the Ukraine war. So I don't really see  how we're winning. How is the US benefiting from. this? How is how is Western Europe benefiting  from this? Well, I think that uh it's Europe, Western Europe in particular, that's been hurt  economically by this war, not so much us. And. one could argue that we've uh we've benefited on  the margins at the expense of the Europeans. Well,

the US dollar kind of is I mean it's no it's  obviously not a safe haven anymore. So I mean. it's just a matter of time I would say. Well the  question is how much of that is due to the Ukraine. war versus other American policies. I'm sure  that there are a million factors, but kicking. Russia out of Swift, just stealing the personal  property of the so-called oligarchs, behavior, lawless, crazy behavior like that sends a message  to the world that like don't keep your wealth and.

dollars because it can become an instrument of  war. I mean, that's my view on it anyway. Yeah, there's no question about that. Yeah, there's  no question about that. that uh but we the. problem is that we're now so deeply committed  that we we just can't turn the ship around. Do. we have any leverage at all left? I notice the  administration is threatening today that in 12. days we're going to do something with sanctions  then secondary sanctions against China and India.

if they buy Russian oil. I mean is that any  of that meaningful? I don't think secondary. the threat of secondary sanctions is meaningful. I  mean, the economic consequences for the world and. for the United States would be disastrous if they  actually were put into effect and worked. Uh I. think the Chinese and Indians would just blow them  off at this point. So, I don't think that they'll. work. We have no cards to play. If we had cards to  play, Biden would have played those cards. I mean,

one fundamental difference between Biden and  Trump is that Biden was fully committed to. the war and wanted to do everything he could to  make sure the United States stayed in the game. uh and continued to support uh Ukraine no matter  what. Trump definitely wanted to end the war. He's. been unsuccessful. He really doesn't know what  he's doing. He doesn't know how to end the war,

but he does want to end it. Uh, and the question  you really have to ask yourself is what is. he going to put into the pipeline, the Biden  pipeline, once the weaponry dries up? Uh, and, uh, I don't think that Trump is going to end up  giving the Ukrainians a lot more weaponry. Uh, so I think he's going to basically allow the  Ukrainians to be defeated on the battlefield. This. is going to be a huge problem for Trump because  he's going to be blamed for losing Ukraine. The.

problem that Trump runs into is the same problem  that Biden ran into with Afghanistan. Remember, Trump was the one who wisely decided we're getting  out of Afghanistan. Yes, he was smart to do that. But it was Biden who actually took us out of  Afghanistan and that was a disaster. And he got. all sorts of mud spilled on him uh for taking us  out of Afghanistan. Well, what's going to happen.

in Ukraine at some point is the Russians are  going to win and Trump is going to get blamed. for that. Yeah. And I think one of the reasons  that Trump is so hesitant uh on Ukraine is not. simply because he's surrounded by advisers who are  super hawks on Ukraine and want to hang on to the. bitter end. It's also because Trump understands  that when Ukraine uh loses, it will be seen. as having happened on his watch. No question.  Yeah. No question. He he doesn't want that to.

happen. This is why Trump was deeply committed to  negotiating a settlement. Why couldn't Why didn't. that work? It didn't work because Trump would  have to accept Russia's three key demands that. I spelled out to you at the start of the show.  And those three key demands are unacceptable. to almost every person in the American foreign  policy establishment and almost every uh foreign. policy elite in Europe. Trump is an outlier on the  whole issue of Ukraine. He JD Vance and a handful.

of other people and they're not in a position to  bite the bullet and say we will accept the main. Russian demands and go from there. And by the way,  even if they do accept the main Russian demands, uh the fact is that uh there will be huge  resistance from the foreign policy establishments. on both sides of the Atlantic. So sometimes when  people sell products on TV, I love this product,

I use this product, there's the question in the  mind of the viewer, does this guy really use the. product? Does he really love the product? Would he  keep the product at home? Ask my dogs. Yes. Now, we are in a garage. Uh, I'm not going to tell you  where it is because again, this is prepping, but. this is my garage. There's a gun safe. And this is  a part of my stockpile of ready hour. Completely. real. The second I put it here, the second Ready  Hour sent it to me, I felt peace of mind. Um,

because no matter what happens, we're not going  hungry in my house. I moved a lot of fishing. gear out of the way to keep it in my garage. And  ever since it's been here, I have felt the peace. of mind that comes from knowing my family's not  going hungry no matter what. Lastount supply.com. Lastountupupply.com. It can be in your garage  along with the peace of mind that comes with. having it. Well, I can't think of a group I'm less  interested in listening to than the foreign policy. establishment. I mean, again, that just seems so  totally discredited. It's like dating tips from.

Jeffrey Epstein. It's like, who cares what they  say? But I guess, well, they still wield enormous. power. Yeah, apparently this is the problem that  Trump faces, right? I mean, Trump had this problem. in spades the first time he was elected. Trump  comes into the White House and he has to pick. advisors, but it's not like he has a large number  or even a small number of foreign policy experts.

who share his foreign policy views, right? Uh  because he has to draw from the establishment, right? So you want to remember that Trump was very  interested in improving relations with Russia and. with Putin in particular the first time round and  he failed completely. Where Trump succeeded was. on China. Trump abandoned engagement. We talked  about engagement being a disastrous policy. Trump. abandoned engagement and moved to containment in  2017. He ran as a candidate in 2016 explicitly.

against engagement. Got rid of it immediately. I  believe that was a smart thing to do and to pursue. containment. He also Trump wanted to improve  relations with Putin which I think made eminently. good sense. He couldn't do that in part because  of Russia gate but also because the foreign. policy establishment was so committed to NATO  expansion. So he failed on that count. But the.

problem is he was surrounded by advisors in that  first administration who were all very hawkish on. Ukraine and very hawkish about American foreign  policy in general, very hawkish about the forever. wars. Right. So, so what's I don't understand  since you raised it, what is the connection? The. same people who are telling me we need to fight a  regime change war against Iran are the same ones. who are hysterical about supporting Ukraine  in its and continuing our war against Russia,

the Mark Leven and and and then the smarter  people um but same orientation. What I what do. they have in common? I don't really understand.  Well, you have a foreign policy establishment, whether you're talking about the Republican side  or you're talking about the Democratic side, that is deeply committed to pursuing hawkish  foreign policy just for its own sake. No, no. They believed that that's what's good for  the United States. They believe we should spend.

uh exceedingly large amounts of money on defense,  that we should be willing to use military force. in a rather liberal fashion. Uh they believe that  military force can solve all sorts of problems. U. they believe that the United States, and this was  certainly true during the unipolar moment, can use. that military force to spread liberal democracy  around the world. We can spread democracy at.

the end of a rifle barrel. This is what the Bush  doctrine was all about in the Middle East. Iraq. was just the first stop on the train line, right?  We were going to do Iran, Syria, and eventually. everybody would just throw up their hands. We  were going to democratize the entire Middle. East and we were going to use military force to  do that. So, we are uh in a very important way. addicted to war. Now, it's important to emphasize  that a lot of this has to do with Israel, right? because Israel's supporters have a deep-seated  interest in making sure that the United States.

has a remarkably powerful military and is willing  to use that military in a rather liberal fashion. because they believe that if Israel ever gets into  trouble and it needs help from the United States, the ideal situation is to have a US military  that's like a cocked gun. And if you think about. the recent war between Israel and Iran, it really  wasn't just between Israel and Iran. It was Israel.

and the United States against Iran, right? Clear  clearly. Clearly, right? And the United States. had a huge number of military assets in the Middle  East, right, that were there in large part to help. the Israelis in their war against Iran. Well, if  you think about it, it makes perfectly sense if. you're a supporter of Israel to want to make sure  that the United States has a large military and.

that it is willing to use that military and that  if need be, it can help Israel if it gets into. trouble. I didn't hear any reference to American  interests in that description. Well, when it comes. to Israel, right, and what Israel needs, right,  that has little to do with American interests, right? The truth is any two countries in the  world are going to have similar interests plus.

different interests. Yes. Right. So, there's no  question that Israel and the United States have. sometimes have similar interests and sometimes  have different interests. Let me give you an. example of this. The United States has a vested  interest in making sure Iran does not have nuclear. weapons. Yes, we're against proliferation. It's in  the American national interest. It's obviously in. Israel's national interest for Iran not to have  nuclear weapons, right? So, two states can have.

similar interests. In the case of Israel and the  United States, they also happen to have different. interests. And what we have in the United States  is a situation where we have this thing called. the Israel lobby, which I of course have written  about with Steve Wald, which goes to great lengths. to push the United States to support Israel  unconditionally. In other words, no matter what. Israel does, we are supposed to support Israel.  And the lobby is so effective, it is so powerful,

it is so effective that we basically end up  supporting Israel unconditionally. What that. means, Tucker, is in those cases where Israel's  interests are not the same as America's interests, we support Israel. We support Israel's interests,  not America's interests because over and against. America's interests, of course, because the  interests clash in those specific instances,

right? Which is, as you noted at the outset,  just the nature of like sovereign countries doing. business with each other. You're going to agree  on some things and disagree on others. Absolutely. But can you think of any uh moment in the last  say 40 years where there was that clash between. non-converging interests where the United States  chose its own interests over Israel's interests? No. No. I can't think of anything that fits that  description. I mean, one could argue that Israel.

wanted us to fight against Iran in 2024. that  they tried to to bait us into attacking Iran. uh in April uh and then in July and uh as I said  before the Biden administration did not take the. bait. Can you think conversely of instances where  the US government chose the interest of a foreign.

power over and against its own interests and its  people's interests besides the Israeli case? No, no. In in the case of Israel, you know, we're  allied with Israel informally and you know, they want us to do something that is hurtful  to us, does not help our interests at all, but we do it anyway. Can you think of examples  of that? Two-state solution is the best example. Every American president since uh at least Jimmy  Carter has pushed forcefully for creating a.

Palestinian state. We have long believed that  the best solution to the Palestinian problem, which is the taproot of so many other problems  that we face in the Middle East, is to create two. states. Uh so every president has pushed hard  except for maybe Donald Trump for a two-state. solution in the Middle East. uh the Israelis have  rebuffed us uh at every turn and uh the end result.

is we now have a greater Israel and there's no  possibility of a two-state solution. How does. it hurt the United States not having a Palestinian  state? Why is it in our our interest? Why is every. president pushed for that? Because the United  States has a vested interest in having peace. in the Middle East. Uh it's not in our interest  to have wars in that region. Uh first of all, it. forces us to commit military forces. It forces us  to fight wars. Uh and that's not in our interest.

And uh we have long felt from a strategic point of  view that what you want to do is make sure uh you. have peace in that region. You want to remember  right before October 7th, Jake Sullivan, who was. then the national security adviser, was crowing  about the fact that we had not seen uh the Middle. East so peaceful in a long period of time. He  understood full well that this is in our interest. Well, if you compare the world uh you know uh  on October 6th uh 2023 with the world uh that.

exists in the Middle East today, we are much worse  off today. Uh this is not in our interest. Uh and. this is in large part because of Israel. And this  is just the strategic dimension. We're not even. talking about the moral dimension. I mean, the  Israelis are executing a genocide in Gaza. And. we are complicitists in that genocide. When you  say it's a genocide, what what do you mean? Well,

if you look at what the definition of a genocide  is, um, right? It's where one country uh tries to. destroy uh either all or a substantial portion  of another group uh another ethnic or religious. or national group uh for the purposes of basically  destroying that group identity. That's what you're. talking about here. Uh I think that uh that's the  definition of je of genocide. uh it's laid out.

in the 1948 uh convention. Uh I think that what  the Israelis are doing fits that description. Uh. and lots of people and organizations uh agree  with me on that point. It's very important to. understand here that just killing large numbers  of Palestinians is not necessarily genocide. I mean, the United States when it firebombed Japan  in World War II killed many more Japanese than the.

Israelis have killed Palestinians in Gaza.  There's no question about that. But no one. would ever accuse the United States of executing  a genocide against Japan. The United States was. killing large numbers of Japanese civilians. And  by the way, we killed large numbers of German. civilians as well. Millions. Yeah. for purposes  of ending the war. We wanted to end the war. And. if you look at how we treated the Japanese and  how we treated the Germans once the war ended,

it was very clear that we were not bent on  genocide. This is not to excuse what we did. against Japan and Germany. And I do believe  we murdered, I would use the word murdered, large numbers or millions of Japanese and Germans  together. But in the case of what's going on in. Gaza, right, what's happening here is that the  Israelis are systematically trying to destroy. the Palestinians as a national group, right?  They're they're targeting them as Palestinians.

and they're trying to destroy Palestinian  national identity in addition to murdering. huge numbers of Palestinians. And I mean, it's not  just a rage reflex. This is a strategy. Of course, at 2 and a half years later, almost 3 years later,  what is the strategy? What's what's the the goal. of this? My view on this is that the Israelis have  long been interested in expelling the Palestinian.

population from greater Israel. If you look at  greater Israel, this includes the Israel that. was created in 1948 and the occupied plus the  occupied territories. Uh this is the West Bank, Post 67, post 67, West Bank and Gaza. So West  Bank, West Bank, Gaza, and what we call green. line Israel. That's Greater Israel. Inside greater  Israel, there are about 7.3 million Jews and about.

7.3 million Palestinians. And from the get-go,  going back to the early days of Zionism, uh, and the views of people like David Bengurian, they  believed that you needed a Jewish state that was. about 80% Jewish and 20% Palestinian. In an ideal  world, you would get rid of all the Palestinians,

but the least bad alternative is 80/20. But you  actually have a situation in greater Israel where. you have 50/50. So October 7th happens and what  the Israelis see is an excellent opportunity for. ethnic cleansing. And they make this clear. In  other words, it's an excellent opportunity to go. to war in Gaza and drive the Palestinians out of  Gaza and solve that demographic problem that they. face. That's such a uh a dark thing and therefore  that's a very strong allegation. On what basis are.

you making it? Oh, there's just a huge amount of  uh data that supports this in the Israeli press. that they have they have been perfectly willing to  make this argument loudly and clearly. The issue. of genocide, which I'll get to in a second, is a  different issue. I'm separating ethnic cleansing. from genocide. So, what happens after October  7th is that the Israelis see an opportunity to.

drive the Palestinians out of Gaza. And you want  to remember that you had massive ethnic cleansing. in 1948 when the state is created. Virtually all  of those people in Gaza are descendants of the. ethnic cleansing of 1948. Kicked out of another  place and sent to Gaza. Yeah. And by the way, there was another massive ethnic cleansing after  the 67 war in the West Bank. So this is the third. attempt at a massive ethnic cleansing in Gaza.  So this is hardly surprising at all. And in fact,

if you go back and read the literature uh  on the creation of Israel, uh this is all. thoroughly de documented. Ethnic cleansing was  a subject that the Zionists talked about from. the get-go. And they talked about extensively  because there was no way they could create a. greater Israel without doing massive ethnic  cleansing. You want to remember that when. the Zionists come to Israel starting in the late  1800s, early 1900s, they're remarkably few Jews.

in Palestine. And those Jews are not Zionists.  The Zionists are the Jews who come from Europe, right? And they understand that they're moving  into a territory that's filled with Palestinian. villages and Palestinian people. And the question  you have to ask yourself is, how can you create a. Jewish state on a piece of territory that's filled  with Palestinians without doing ethnic cleansing, massive ethnic cleansing? And the answer is you  can't. So they're talking about and thinking about.

ethnic cleansing from the get-go. So the idea  that they wouldn't think of what the situation. looks like after October 7th as an opportunity to  do ethnic cleansing, you know, it belies. So it. wasn't really a land without people for a people  without land. Absolutely not. Absolutely not. and and and David Bengurian, Vladimir Jabbatinsky,  all these key Zionist leaders understood that full.

well and they understood that they were going to  have to do horrible things to the Palestinians. They understood that and they were explicit in  saying that they did not blame the Palestinians. one second for resisting what the Jews from Europe  were going to do to them. They fully understood. that they were stealing their land and they fully  understood that it made perfect sense for the. Palestinians to resist, which of course they did.  But anyway, just to fast forward to October 7th,

what happens after October 7th is that  the Israelis see an excellent opportunity. to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians in Gaza.  You have about 2.3 million Palestinians in Gaza. Just to be clear, you have about 2.3 million  Palestinians in Gaza, about 3.2 million. uh in um West Bank, West Bank, and about 1.8 in  great in uh green line Israel. Okay. So, this is.

an opportunity to get rid of those Palestinians.  And the way to do it is to turn the IDF, the Israeli military loose, and let them tear the  place apart. And the idea is that that will just. drive the Palestinians out. But the problem that  the Israelis face is the Palestinians don't leave. Both the Egyptians and the Jordanians, which  are the two countries that the Israelis would.

like to drive the Palestinians into, make it, you  know, unequivocally clear that that's not going. to happen. That's Jordan is just a giant refugee  camp already. It already is from all these other. wars that have been inspired for the same reason.  So, um I mean I think Jordan is what percentage. Jordanian is Jordan? I mean tiny percentage  Jordan. Well, it's definitely less than 50%. Way. less. Way less. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean Egypt has  100 million people already. So, but here's what.

happens, Tucker. And it I think it makes sense  if you listen to the logic. They start with the. goal of ethnic cleansing. They I don't believe  they want to murder all of the Palestinians in. uh Gaza. They just simply want to drive them  out. But the problem is they don't leave. And. then the question is what do you do? And what  they do is they continue to up the attacks, increase the attacks, kill more and more people  in the hope that they will drive them out. And.

I'm sorry, I should have asked this. Why do they  want Gaza in the first place? There seems a lot. of trouble killing all these people committing,  you know, atrocities on camera. I mean, the press. are barred, but we're still getting a lot of  video out of the area. That's a big hit. Why. do you Why would you be willing to go through all  of that to get Gaza? Why do they want it? Well, the Zionists from the beginning have wanted  a greater Israel. And David Bengurian wrote.

a piece in 1918. And David Bengorian, of course,  is the founding father of Israel. Wrote a piece. in 1918. I don't think it's ever been published in  English. It's just in Yiddish where he describes. what his goals are for a greater Israel, right?  And it obviously includes green line Israel, Gaza, the West Bank. It includes parts of the  East Bank. It includes parts of southern Syria.

It includes parts of southern Lebanon and it  includes uh the Sinai Peninsula. Just think about. that. That was Bengurian's vision. And this was  a vision that was shared by almost all the early. Zionist leaders. And there are still many people  in Israel who are in favor of a greater Israel. They don't want a tiny Israel. The Israel that was  created in 1948 is a tiny state. Yes. E even with.

Gaza and the West Bank, it's quite small. It's a  postage stamp-like state, right? They want more. territory and they believe they have a historical  right to that territory. Israel has never said. these are our final borders. What are Israel's  final borders? They've never been articulated. And. the reason is the Israelis don't want to say out  loud. The early Zionists did not say out loud what.

their intentions were. David Bengurian didn't get  up on a soap box and say we are going to create a. greater Israel and it's going to include southern  Lebanon, southern Syria, the occupied territories, Green Line Israel, the Sinai and so forth and so  on. It's just a little um I mean irony doesn't. isn't powerful enough a word. I can't think  of one. It's odd that the very same people who. were saying we need to consider tactical nukes in  order to preserve the territorial integrity of the.

sovereign nation Ukraine because national borders  are sacrianked. You know that's our our sacred. norms are violated when those borders are violated  are saying it's totally okay for this one country. to like take over other countries. But this gets  back to my point to you. We s yes we I agree. completely. We support Israel unconditionally.  Right? In other words, whatever Israel does, especially visav the Palestinians, the United  States backs them to the hilt. And the fact that.

they're changing borders. I mean, I look at what  they're doing in Lebanon and Syria, and you would. think that the United States would have a vested  interest in trying to put pressure on the Israelis. uh to stop causing murder and mayhem in Lebanon  and in Syria. But we do hardly anything at all. And those are real countries. Those are ancient  countries and beautiful, beautiful countries with. sophisticated, intelligent people. And like that  the roots of Christianity are there. And like it's.

not, in other words, I mean there's a sense if  you're fighting over Sinai or something, it's. one thing, but like Lebanon, I mean, that's like  one of the great countries in the world. Syria, same thing. And they're being destroyed. I don't  understand why people allow that to happen. Well, let me explain to you what Israel's goal is  here. F. First of all, Israel's goal is to. create Laban's realm. That's what I was describing  to you when I said uh what Bengurian's vision was.

regarding borders. So, can you define the word?  Laben's realm means living room. You you want. you want a big country. You want lots of space  for your people. Yes. Strategic depth. Strategic. depth. Yeah. And uh so that's one goal. The second  goal that the Israelis have is they want to make. sure that their neighbors are weak. And that means  breaking them apart if you can, right? And keeping. them broken. So the Israelis were thrilled that  mainly the United States and the Turks broke apart.

Syria. One could argue that Syria was even broken  before Assad fell. But the Israelis want Syria to. be a fractured state. They want Lebanon to be a  fractured state. what they want in Iran. You know, we talk about the nuclear program, the nuclear  enrichment program, and the argument is sometimes. made that the principal goal, the only goal  is to go in and uh and eliminate their nuclear.

capability. That's a lie. Well, it's just part of  the story. You could call it a lie. What what the. Israelis want to do is they want to break Iran  apart. They want to make it look like Syria, right? You want neighbors that are not powerful.  you want them to be fractured. Jordan and Egypt, they have a different solution there. And  what's happened is because those countries. are economically backwards, the United States  gives them huge amounts of economic aid, I've.

noticed. Yep. And and that's done for a purpose.  And anytime the Egyptian And what's the purpose? Because anytime the Egyptians or the Jordanians  get uppety about Israel, the United States reminds. them, "You better behave yourself because we have  huge economic leverage over you. You have to be. friendly to Israel." So Jordan and Egypt never  caused the Israelis any problem. It sounds like. our entire foreign policy, at least in the Western  Hemisphere, is based on this one country. Well,

I would say in the Middle East, well, yeah, in  the Middle East, uh, there is no question. People. now call it West Asia, I believe, but I call it  the Middle East. In the Middle East, our policy. is profoundly influenced by Israel. We give, as I  said to you before, we have a special relationship. with Israel that has no parallel in recorded  history. Just very important to understand it.

There is no single case in recorded history that  comes even close to looking like the relationship. that we have with Israel. Because again, as I  said, states sometimes have similar interests and. this includes the United States and Israel, but  they also have conflicting interests. And when a. great power like the United States has conflicting  interests with another country, it almost always, except in the case of Israel, acts in terms of  its own interests. America first. But when it.

comes to Israel, it's Israel first. And if you go  to the Middle East and look at our policy there, there's just abundant evidence to support that. So  then the question I mean there's so many questions. but um the question is why like what is that?  And it's I think it's really um causing serious. problems in the current ruling coalition because  it's the contradiction is too obvious. It's not.

America first and people can see that because  it's so so evident. But what are the causes of it? Like why would for the first time as you said in  recorded history a nation spend you know whatever. it is a trillion dollars a year in effect to serve  the interest of another country like why well I. believe there's one simple answer the Israel  lobby uh I I think the lobby is an incredibly.

powerful interest group. Uh and I'm choosing  my words carefully. Uh it has awesome power and. uh it uh basically is in a position where it can  uh profoundly influence uh US foreign policy in. the Middle East and indeed it affects foreign  policy outside of the Middle East. But when it. comes to the Middle East and again the Palestinian  issue in particular, it it has awesome power and.

there's no president uh who is willing to buck the  lobby. What sort of power is it? Because it's not. it's not rhetorical. It's not, you know, the most  powerful movements in history are fueled by an. idea. It's usually the most powerful fueled by an  idea that it's like true, right? But I never hear. anybody make a detailed case for why the United  States benefits from the current arrangement.

Never. No one ever. Nikki Haley came as close as  anyone by saying the United States gets a lot more. out of the relationship than Israel does, but then  never explained how exactly that works. So it's. not a matter of like convincing people clearly. So  what is it a matter of? Where does that power come. from? Well, let me put this in a broader context.  Uh I think that uh in the past when I was younger. uh the lobby operated on two levels. One was the  policy level and two was the popular discourse.

Yes. And I think in terms of the popular discourse  for a long long time, right? And and this would be. well into the 2000s. The Israel lobby, the Israel  lobby basically influenced the discourse in ways. that made the Israelis look like the good guys  and it made it look like every time the United.

States supported Israel, it was because it was in  our national interest. Right? So the discourse was. not at odds with what was happening at the policy  level. right now. The situation you described, which I think is a perfect description of the  situation that we face today, is that the lobby. has lost control of the discourse. And people now  understand that the United States is doing things.

for Israel that are not in the American national  interest. Furthermore, they see the lobby out in. the open engaging in smashmouth politics. People  are now fully aware that there is a lobby out. there that it's trying to control the discourse  and in fact it basically does control maybe. that's a bit too strong a word but it's close. It  basically does control the policy makers. So now. you have this real dis controls the policy makers.  I mean we just that's demonstrable you know I.

think it's measurable. Yeah. So yes but you so you  have what you were describing is the disconnect. between the discourse and the policy world that  now exists. But what I'm saying to you is you. want to remember that the lobby was immensely  successful for a long period of time because the. disc the discourse and the policy process looked  like they were in sync. so successful that just. basic historical facts about the creation of this  nation state in 1948 are like unknown to people.

and it's shocking to hear them uh and you think  well that can't be right that's like so far from. what I heard as a child that that's obviously  what all the Christians were kicked out all. these Christians were kicked out of their historic  homelands there and of course many more Muslims. and did that really happen I mean people just have  no idea what the facts are kind of interesting yes. will the lobby went to great lengths to make sure  that you didn't know the facts. And anyone who.

said the facts out loud was like a like a lunatic  or a jihadist or or a you know hater of some kind. An anti-semite. Yeah. Self-hating Jews. You know,  it's very interesting. I often think about my own. um evolution in this regard. When I grew up as  a kid, I was heavily influenced by Leon Urus's. book Exodus and then the subsequent movie  with I think Paul Newman and Eva Marie Saint. uh and that of course that Exodus story portrayed  the Israelis in the most favorable light and the.

Arabs or Palestinians in the most negative light.  So for much of my life, uh, you know, up until the. late 80s, early 90s, I thought the Israelis were  without a doubt the good guys up against the bad. guys. And it was really David versus Goliath as  well. And the Israelis were David up against an. Arab Goliath. That was the picture I had in my  head. But then in the late 80s, early 90s, a group.

of historians in Israel called the new historians  came on the scene. Benny Morris, Benny Morris, Avi. Schlime, Elon P. Uh, some of them were amazing.  Amazing. Yeah, I agree. And and what they did was. they had access to the archives. Yes. And they  told the real story. And that was a moment where. I think the country felt Israel felt confident  enough to allow that conversation internally and. that honesty. I think that's exactly right. The  lobby had been so successful. Israel had been so.

successful. Yes. I went there. I was amazed. What  a beautiful place. Great people. It was great. Yeah. Yeah. They thought they controlled. They had  things under control. They did. That's right. And. that they could allow these historians to tell the  truth. Now, I believe they could have gotten away. with it if they had stopped expanding or if they  had agreed to a two-state solution. The problem is.

that after the early 1990s, when this literature  came out, the Israelis continued to act in. barbaric ways towards the Palestinians. And well,  they had a prime minister who tried to reverse. the trend and then guess he was shot to death. He  was moving in that direction. I think there were. a number of Israeli leaders who understood that  the course that Israel was on was unsustainable.

You often heard them say that. Yeah. There was a  robust debate within the country about this. Well, whether they would have agreed to a Palestinian  state ultimately is an open question. But the fact. is Rabin was killed. Ahood Barack who made moves  towards a two-state solution ultimately couldn't. pull it off and we are where we are today and the  problem is that something else occurred in the. late 90s early 2000s which fundamentally affected  Israel's position and that's the internet because.

once you get the internet and once you get social  media and the mainstream media is not the sole. source of information on these issues. The story  about the real creation of Israel and what Israel. is doing today is available to the vast majority  and it's shock it's shocking to people. Um so you.

have to shut down the internet. You can't allow  that. Yeah, you can try to shut down the internet. but you know there are limits to what you can  do. Uh but it does seem like um you so you you. you were describing the two separate tiers, the  policy and the discourse about the policy and. that one remains basically the same, but the other  has changed just so radically, so radically and so. fast that it's gone off in some dark directions  that I just want to say on the record I totally.

disapprove of. I don't think you should hate  anybody period, especially groups of people. It's immoral and I mean it. But that's happened  because there's been like a ma an avalanche of. new information, a lot of which is totally real.  People haven't seen it before and their minds. are exploding. And so public opinion is moving  so radically in the other direction. I feel it. all around me. Do you feel this? Of course. Yeah.  And your life I mean I should say for people who. aren't familiar with your background, you wrote  a book with Steven Walt of Harvard. You're at.

the University of Chicago. So both of you are,  you know, have tenure or famous in your world, you're not crazy, and uh you write this book in  2007 and both of you are immediately attacked. in like pretty shocking ways. Also defended u by  some of your colleagues, but but really maligned. for it. And now 18 years later, people are saying  that Marshmer guy actually he was kind of right. about everything. So that's a reflection, I think,  of the change in public opinion, but that that's.

not sustainable. You can't have in a democracy  policy that's 180 degrees from public opinion. over time. That just doesn't work. So you have to  either change the policy or change public opinion. And no one's even making any attempt at all to  change public opinion through good faith argument, through like, hey, I know you think this, but  you're wrong and here's why. There's zero, none. It's shut up Nazi. Okay. And that's not working.  So I really think the only option is to stop the.

conversation. Or maybe I'm missing something. Like  censorship is the only the only option if you want. to maintain status quo. Well, there's no question  that they're trying to stop the conversation. Yes, there's no question. I mean, they went to great  lengths to shut down Tik Tok and the evidence is. that uh the lobby played a key role just banning  one of the world's biggest social media apps cuz.

it says things you don't like. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.  Well, this is the way they've always behaved. The. lobby's always behaved this way. And uh I mean,  this is what happened to me and Steve. You know, we originally wrote an article and uh we at  one point thought the article would never be. published. Uh after we wrote the article uh and  we went through all sorts of interactions with. the Atlantic Monthly that had commissioned  the article, we put the article in the back.

closet and just so you were asked to write a  piece about the influence of a foreign lobby, the Israeli lobby in Washington, uh which is  one of many foreign lobbies in Washington, but. it's by far the most effective and the biggest.  And you write the piece and they didn't run it. Yeah. Why? because they got cold feet. I mean,  what invariably happens in these cases is that. uh down at the lower levels of a journal or or a  newspaper, people will be interested in somebody. writing something on uh the Israel lobby or  writing a piece that's critical of Israel,

but then as it filters up the chain of command  and people at the top see it, they kill it. Right. And and that happened to you. Oh, that's  definitely what happened at the lobby at the. Atlantic Monthly. They killed it. And then Steve  and I went to uh Princeton University Press and a. handful of other journals and asked if they would  be interested in either the article or turning the. article into a book. Uh and in all of those cases,  everybody at first uh exudes enthusiasm. They.

think it's a it's a great topic. Something needs  to be written on it, which of course is true. But then they think about it for a month and you  get a call back and uh they've lost interest. So. Steve and I actually put the uh the article as I  said in that closet and just said what's wild is. you're both at this point very well known in your  Can you explain who Steve is to your co-authors?

Yeah, Steve uh is a chaired professor at Harvard  University and at the time that we wrote the lobby. uh article. Uh he was the academic dean at the  Kennedy School. Okay. So, I just I I sure a lot. of people already know that, but I just want  to make it totally clear. You're not two random. guys in the internet who are like anti-semmites or  something at all. You're like the some of the most. famous people in your field and you're totally  moderate. I don't even know what your politics. are, but you're not a political activist at all.  No, as and I as I used to like to say, if Adolf.

Hitler were alive, he would have thrown Steve's  wife and his two children in a gas chamber, right? I mean, the idea that we're anti-semites,  I mean, this is a laughable argument. We're both. first order phosmites. I mean, I can't prove that,  but it's true in my humble opinion. But anyway, we we were certainly, you know, at the top of  our academic disciplines and highly respected, which is not to say people didn't disagree with  what we wrote. Uh, but you weren't crackpots at.

all. And and the other thing is I want to make  it clear that we worked very carefully with the. Atlantic to get our final draft draft up to their  standards, right? We did what they wanted. And. uh and you also want to remember that Steve and I  are both excellent writers. Many academics cannot. write clearly. Whatever you think of the substance  of our views, there's no doubt there were two of. the best writers in the business. And it's the  two of us working with the editors uh at the lower.

rungs of the Atlantic Monthly that produced what  I thought was an excellent article. But anyway, it was killed there and we couldn't get it  published. Kind of proven your point. Yes. Ex. Exactly. Exactly. And uh uh by the way, I probably  shouldn't tell this story, but I'll tell you I I. we told the editor uh at The Atlantic as we were  going through the process that uh we thought he.

was getting cold feet and he was quite offended  by that. And he said to us just to prove that. that wasn't true, he would give us a $10,000 kill  fee. That means if they didn't take the article, they'd give us $10,000. So I said to Steve, I  remember it very well, that's the fastest $10,000. we ever made. He said, "Oh, John, you're being too  cynical." Anyway, we collected the $10,000. Did. you think he paid you? Yes. Yes. I mean, but what  what he did, how ashamed was he when he because.

I'm not going to name him. I know the editor. This  is a pretty well-known editor who's just been in. magazine journalism for decades and, you know,  has a high regard for himself and good reputation, all this stuff. And he's told from somebody else  who's more powerful than he is, you can't do this. How embarrassed was he in that conversation? I  I had no evidence that he was embarrassed. Oh, so he has no soul. Okay. I No, I I I mean,  who knows, you know, what kind of face he had. to put on things. I I don't know what happened  inside the Atlantic. I've never been told. But.

uh uh uh but again, he said he'd give us a $10,000  kill fee because he thought the peace was going to. go forward. And somebody uh sat on him and told  him that that was not going to happen. I I don't. know what happened, but he I don't want to be too  harsh on him because this is the norm. Yeah. That. this was the norm. He didn't own the magazine. And  so what we did was we put it in the back closet.

And and I remember Steve and I had a conversation  and I think Steve said to me, "This is why we have. tenure so that you can spend two years of your  life writing something that never gets published. and you're not punished in terms of promotion to  tenure." Right? But anyway, what then happened. is that somebody inside the Atlantic um who was  actually involved in the original commissioning. of the article gave a copy to a very prominent  academic who uh had com uh who had um contacts.

close contacts at the London Review of Books and  uh that academic who I knew very well uh sent me. a note and said that Mary Kay Wilmer's he said I  got a hold of your manuscript and uh I sent it to. Mary Kay Wilmer's at the London Review of Books  and she'd be very interested in publishing it and. uh so I then I remember I was in H Highidleberg,  Germany. I called up Mary Kay uh and she published.

it. Uh thankfully it was like a bomb it was like a  bomb went off. I'll I'll remember that. I remember. that so vividly. So the piece The Atlantic Kill  comes out in the London Review of Books. What's. the thesis of the piece if you could just sum  it up for people who didn't read it? Well, the argument basically has four parts to it. The  first says that the United States has this special. relationship with Israel. It's unparalleled in  history. We give Israel unconditional support.

uh huge amounts of military and economic aid.  That's the first part. Then the second part says. it's not for strategic reasons that we do this.  Then the third part is not it's can you explain. what that means not for it's not in the American  national interest in in other words uh from a. geopolitical point of view right because Israel  and the United States sometime have different. interests it makes no sense for us to support  Israel unconditionally we should support Israel.

when its interests reflect our interests but  otherwise not but that's not the case so that's. another way of saying what we're doing is not in  our strategic interest. Okay. Third part is it's. not in our moral interest because when you look at  what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians, this violates basic American precepts, liberal  precepts, right? So from a moral point of view,

uh what's happening in Israel doesn't make sense.  So then the fourth part deals with the question of. why we do this, right? Fair. If we don't question,  right? If we don't do it for strategic reasons, we don't do it for moral reasons, why do we do it?  And the answer is the lobby. So that's the story, the lobby. It does. And the the lobby is a is a  very large complex informal organization of which.

Apac is a part but not the total. Absolutely. Um  and then you describe how that works. Yeah, it's a. very important to emphasize it's a loose coalition  of individuals and organizations like Apac, the Anti-Defamation League and so forth and so on  that uh work overtime to support Israel loosely. coordinated. I think your description was right  on the money. very important to understand it.

is not a Jewish lobby and it is not a Jewish lobby  because many Jews don't care much about Israel and. many Jews are opposed to what Israel or the Israel  lobby is doing including many religious Jews Torah. Jews sincere sincerely Jewish Jews disagree I know  some so I know absolutely there are a large number. of Jews who are anti-Zionists I'm aware right so  so You're exactly right. So, it's not a Jewish.

lobby uh for that reason, but also there are the  Christian Zionists. Yes. Who are a core element of. that lobby? I've noticed uh you know, Christians  United for Israel, for example. So, that's why. we call it the Israel lobby. And what explains  the enthusiasm of Christian groups for policies. that kill Christians in the Middle East? Well,  they have this belief that until Israel controls.

uh all of greater Israel, right? Uh it gets back  all the territory uh that is rightfully theirs. Uh you won't have the second coming. Uh so they  are deeply committed, these Christians, ionists, to supporting Israel's conquest. uh and supporting  Israeli expansion for religious reasons. And are.

there defined borders that when reached will  trigger the second coming? No. No. Do when. we say greater Israel, do we have a clear map in  mind of what that will mean? Could mean? No. No. Whenever you talk about greater Israel, there's  hardly ever a real map in mind. I talk about it in. terms of the occupied territories plus green line  Israel. But obviously the Israelis themselves, most Israelis I think have uh a bigger uh map  in in mind. Do we know where that ends? I mean.

it doesn't go to Cairo I assume. No. No. I think  the Sinai what they take of Egypt I think will if. they can will be the Sinai. Uh and I don't think  they would take all of Syria or all of Lebanon but. they would take big chunks of the south of those  two countries. uh but uh but but the idea behind. the Christian Zionists is that to facilitate the  second coming uh you know for religious reasons we.

should support Israel but this does as you say uh  cut against the fact that the Israelis often time. uh treat Christians as badly as they do Muslims.  Uh there was recently a case where they bombed a. Catholic church in northern Gaza. Uh and Trump  was infuriated when he heard this and he called. up Netanyahu and told him this is recently like  within the past two weeks told Netanyahu that he.

had to apologize. Uh and uh the Pope even spoke  out on this but even there the criticism is quite. muted. Uh because again, hardly anybody in the  West really criticizes Israel in a meaningful. way. It is just a little bit odd that you could  on Christian grounds support the bombing of a. Christian church. I mean, there are lots  of theological differences between sex and. Christianity. But if you're getting to the point  like where Mike Johnson, the speaker of the house, is where you think Jesus is commanding  you to support the murder of Christians,

you don't need to be like a theologian to  think maybe I've gone off course. No. Yeah, you're not going to get any argument from me on  that. Yeah. So, um where does it go from here now. that things that you know everyone was afraid to  talk about any of this to the extent that people. understood it because they don't want to be called  names and because those names are it's horrible to. be called that and it's almost sometimes it's true  but for most people it's not true at all. They're.

not hateful. That's not why they have these views.  So once those slurs lose their power, as I think. they quickly are, in the same way the word racist  lost its power from overuse, like where are we? What where do we what happens next? It's hard to  tell a happy story, but here's how I think about. it. U the first question you might ask yourself  is what are the Israelis likely to do moving. forward? In other words, if the Israelis all of a  sudden got reasonable, uh a lot of these problems.

would go away. But there is no sign the Israelis  are going to get more reasonable. If anything, the political center of gravity is moving further  and further to the right in Israel as the years. go by. So Israeli behavior in the Middle East, if  anything, is likely to be even more aggressive and. more offensive to people around the world. So  what does that mean here in the United States?

It means that the lobby is going to have to work  even harder than it's now working. And again, you want to remember the lobby's now out in the  open and it's engaging in smashmouth politics, but. it's going to have to work harder. Now, you say to  yourself, most vicious people I've ever dealt with. ever. Yeah. Yeah. Anybody who's dealt with them,  and I've dealt with them for longer than you have, understands full well what you're talking about.  But see, here's the problem, Tucker. The problem.

is that support among younger people for Israel  is much weaker than it is among older people. People including Jews. Including Jews. Yes. Yes.  Very important to emphasize that. Very important. Uh so the problem is that inside of American  society, you're moving towards a situation where. increasing numbers of people in the body politic  are critical of Israel, extremely critical of.

Israel because older people are dying off and  those younger people are turning into older. people. So the body populace in the United States  is going to be more critical of Israel over time, not less critical. At the same time, Israel  continues to behave that way. And the question is, how long can we go on with the lobby operating  out in the open and engaging in smashmouth. politics? And I attacking Americans in the most  vicious way, who have no animist toward anyone,

but just want to help their own country, they're  somehow criminals. Like that that that can't go on. long. That's too stupid to work over time. No,  I agree. Look at what's happening on campuses, right? Uh here you have these students out  there protesting, protesting a genocide, right? Many of the students who are out there  protesting are Jewish. This cannot be emphasized.

enough. Many of them are Jewish. And all of a  sudden, they're turned into raving anti-semites. This is all about anti-semitism. It has nothing  to do with the genocide that's taking place in. Palestine. This is crazy, right? And and I talk  to people on campuses. Everybody understands this. Everybody understands that th this has nothing to  do with anti-semitism. I've been in academia for.

decades. I've been at the University of Chicago  for 44 years. Before October 7th, nobody at. Chicago or Harvard talked about an anti-semitism  problem. It was just unheard of. Huge numbers of. administrators, including provos and presidents,  were Jewish. Huge numbers of deans and faculty. members were Jewish. Huge numbers of students,  graduate and undergraduate, were Jewish. This is. a wonderful thing. Nobody was ever critical of it.  Was there an anti-semitism problem? I never heard.

about it and I don't know anybody who was talking  about it. But all of a sudden after October 7th, what we discover is that these college campuses  are hotbeds of anti-semitism. This makes no sense. at all because of course they were not hotbeds  of anti-semitism. What they were were hot beds. of criticism of Israel and what it was doing  to the Palestinians. But you can't say that.

Why? because you are in effect bringing attention  to the genocide that's taking place in Gaza and. that is unacceptable. I mean newspapers like  the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, they never even use the word genocide or anything  approximating that. It's just verboten. Uh and. the idea is to make Israel look like if anything  it's the victim. That's the Wall Street Journal's.

principal mission, right? to make Israel look  like it's the victim. Wall Street Journal is so. discredited as a newspaper. It's like I wouldn't  I' I' I'd rather read the Guardian. I mean, I'd rather read anything other than the Wall  Street Journal. Well, I like to argue that the. Wall Street Journal is two newspapers in one.  Uh the news and then uh the opinion. It's all. been corrupted. It changed leadership and it's  just the whole thing is total. I I know some. great people who work there still and they're  honest people. Um, but the paper is the most.

dishonest I would say of all papers. That's just  my view and I used to write for them. So, well, you'll get no argument from me. Uh, as bad as  the New York Times and Washington Post are, they. pale in comparison to the Wall Street J. I totally  agree. And at least the New York Times and the and. especially the New York the Washington Post are  just like liberal papers. Okay, there's Democratic. Party papers. I know exactly what you are. I'm  not like the Guardian, just a leftwing paper, socialist paper. I'm not shocked by anything.  They're pretty upfront about it. The Wall Street.

Journal is uniquely offensive to me because of the  deception involved. They pretend to be one thing, but they're very much not that thing. They're  something entirely different. And uh they're. stealthy and incredibly dishonest. And uh I look  forward to their demise with with uncchristian. enthusiasm. Um excuse me. Uh but anyway, can  I just ask you like a question I should have. asked before? You have this population of over 2  million people. How many remain in Gaza now? Do. we know there no there's no news coverage allowed  so we don't I guess maybe we don't know but well.

there are 2.3 million to start. Yes. That's  that's the approximate number who are there. Uh it appears that some have gotten out. Uh it's  hard to gauge how many. Uh there was one person. who told me he thought that about 100,000 uh had  gotten out. Another person told me 50,000. I'm. not sure. But not a million. Oh, no, no, no, no.  The question is how many have been killed? Right.

Do we have any idea? Not really. Uh, they're, you  know, the estimates are around 60 million. I mean, 60 million, excuse me, 60,000. Um, do you think  it's weird that in 2025 we can measure everything. from your heart rate to sunspots that we don't  know how many people were killed in Russia, Ukraine, or Palestine? We can't even get I've  never met anybody who can give me a hard number.

on Russian casualties, Ukrainian casualties, or  dead Palestinians in Gaza. That's weird. It's. weird. They're they're two different cases. Uh, I  mean, the uh uh the Ukrainians have a deep-seated. interest, for example, in not revealing how  many people have been killed. Of course, and so do the Russians, by the way. Yeah. Uh, and  uh with regard to the uh case of Israel Palestine, uh the the real problem here is that so many  people are buried. Uh they're missing. Uh there.

was a study that uh somebody did recently. It was  a legitimate study that said that they believe or. the study concludes that there are about 400,000  missing people in 400,000. 400,000. Yeah. Now, I'm not saying that's true. I'm just saying that  there obviously lots of missing people, right? Well, if you look at what the Israelis have done  in Israel, excuse me, what the Israelis have done.

in Gaza, I wouldn't be surprised if the number is  uh, you know, 400,000 dead. Uh, but who knows? Uh, but I I think, you know, 60,000 roughly 60,000 is  the number uh that a lots of people use on debt. So, of the remaining, you know, probably less than  two million, but close to two million people, it's. a lot of people. Where do they go? I mean, this is  a great question. Can there actually be in 2025 a.

transfer of people like that? I mean, the Second  World War wasn't that long ago. Like, people have. memories or impressions of what it looks like  to move that many people. Well, it's just not. that's not good. Well, the news reports say that  the Israelis and the Americans are talking to the. Libyans uh and the Ethiopians and the Indonesians  about ex accepting the Palestinians or at least a.

substantial portion of that, let's say 2 million  that are left. Uh, but if they actually tried. that, um, I mean that's so grotesque that you'd  think I mean, wouldn't the world just blow up if. they tried to do that? Move hundreds of thousands  of people against their will from one from their.

land, which they've been on for thousands of  years into some foreign country and just like, "That's cool. We're doing this. It's for  their safety." Could you actually do that? Well, I didn't actually think that the Israelis  could execute a genocide in Gaza. I didn't think. they'd be able to do what they have done since  October 7th. There are no rules. You just do. what you can do. And yeah, we're we're at a point  where you want to say that that is a possibility.

I'm like you. I find it hard to imagine. I'm  sickened by this the whole process of the whole. thing. I just I don't they all get on boats or  something and like people have iPhones they can. I mean well also I think there'll be resistance  right I mean Hamas is still there the Israelis. have not defeated Hamas right? Yeah I mean so  but your question is a great one. The question. is where do we end up here? What the hell? Where  do we end up? You know, just to go back a bit,

uh, when the war starts on October 7th and then  the fighting goes on into 2024, the Israeli. military is asking Netanyahu to tell them what  the uh final political plan is. In other words, once the war ends, what's the plan for dealing  with the Palestinians? And Netanyahu refuses to. give the military a plan. And the military says,  "We can't his own military, his own military,

the IDF. He The military says that we can't wage  the campaign without knowing what the endgame is, right?" Okay. But Netanyahu won't tell them  what the endgame is because the end game is. to drive all the Palestinians out. The reason that  Netanyahu has no plan, right, for dealing with the. Palestinians at the end of the fighting is because  he expect them to he expects them to all be gone.

Okay? Now, what we're saying here is that hasn't  happened. It's hard to imagine that happening, right? And although the Israelis have been  murdering huge numbers of Palestinian, at some point a substantial number are going to  be left. So, the question is, what does that look. like? And they probably won't be more moderate  by that point. No, but what they're going to end. up in is a giant ghetto, right? Or concentration  camp. That's what they're building now. And again, this gets back to our earlier discussion of what  this means for Israel's reputation in the United.

States and in the West more generally. You're  going to build a ghetto. You're going to put, you know, 2 million people in a ghetto and  continue to starve them. Is this sustainable? uh what it does tend to affect your moral  authority when you do that. I also think. it has a terribly corrupting influence on your  society at large. Yeah. I I think once this war.

comes to a conclusion, hopefully that will be  sooner rather than later and the Israelis take. stock of what they have done uh this is going  to have a deeply corrosive effect. Well, yeah, because I mean I mean the things that are going  on to Jewish Israelis at the hands of their own. government right now are I'm not an expert  on Israel, but I've been uh multiple times. and I've always really loved it. I mean, it's  such a amazing place, but it was liberal in a.

fundamental way. That's why I always liked it. I  mean, not liberal like Democratic Party liberal, but just like civil liberties liberal. if you  were Jewish. Of course, that's a totally fair. point that kind of went over my head on my trips  there, but I You're absolutely right. And it was. designed to go over your head. Yeah. And it did.  You're absolutely right. Um but my point is the. things that are happening now to Israeli citizens  are so shocking to me that total elimination of.

free speech. You say certain things, you go right  to jail. Question like what the hell happened on. October 7th, which is a completely fair question.  any in any free society that should be allowed, not allowed. Banning people from leaving the  country, your right to travel, especially to leave. is a foundational right. They're telling Israeli  citizens you're not allowed to leave. I don't know. why is that not a big story. I don't really get  it. And then the treatment of Christians, which. is is disgusting. Um those are all signs that the  society is becoming illiberal. Really is becoming.

authoritarian. Very I mean that's authoritarian.  you're not allowed to leave the country. You can't. say what you think. That's not a free country. And  those are all downstream of the military response. post October 7th. So I think it makes your point.  This is corrupting to their society as the stuff. always is. 9/11 is totally corrupting to our  society. I agree. Just add a couple points to. that. The uh Israeli military has a huge PTSD  problem. Oh, I bet. Uh and really Yeah. Yeah.

And the Jerusalem Post had a piece, I think it was  the Jerusalem Post had a piece the other day, uh, that said there have been five suicides after the  P during the past two weeks. Uh, so they're having. a significant problem with suicide, significant  problem with PTSD, and they're having huge. problems uh, getting reser to report for duty. I  bet. Uh because the Israeli military is heavily.

dependent on reservists and the reserveists  have basically had it. Uh and uh so this war. is having a corrosive effect. And the thing you  want to understand is there's no end in sight, right? There really isn't. Yeah. And now they're  in southern Lebanon. Now they're in southern. Syria. Wouldn't the United States shut this down  tomorrow? Like not one more dollar for this stuff? You blew up a church? No more money for you. The  fact that the Israelis are so dependent on us,

as we were talking about before, and we were just,  you know, hitting on the tip of the iceberg, they. are so dependent on us means we have tremendous  coercive leverage over them. This is why the this. is why the lobby has to work so hard, right? We  have tremendous coercive leverage on them. So, we could shut this down. We could fundamentally  this afternoon. I don't want to go that far, but we'd need a couple days, but yeah. No  more money for you if you do one more. Well, we could also punish them in in significant ways.  We could easily bring Israel to its knees. And by.

the way, I have long argued that that would be in  Israel's interest. It is not in Israel's interest. It is not interesting Jew in the interest of  Jews around the world for this craziness to. continue. This craziness should end right away  for the good of Israel, for the good of Jews, for the good of the United States. It makes no  sense at all. To what extent is this uh Netanyahu?

Like you often see him singled out as you know the  guy who's pushing this whose vision this is. If. Netanyahu retired tomorrow, would this continue?  Yes. The fact is that he is not unrepresentative. of the larger society. There are surely people on  let's use the word left for lack of a better term. There are certainly people on the left who oppose  what he's doing and would be more amunable to a. political solution, but their numbers are small  and dwindling. And I think the overwhelming.

majority of uh Israelis support Netanyahu. That's  why he's still in office despite the fact he was. responsible for what happened on October 7th. Of  course, he was in charge. the buck is supposed. to stop at his desk, but he's not been held  accountable because the Israelis want him. uh in charge. So, it's not like uh you know, he's  the odd man out here. Furthermore, if you look at.

the political spectrum in Israel, there are many  people who are to the right of him. Yes. Who are. growing in political importance. when you and  I were young, people like Smootrich, right, and Ben Gir, right, who were far to the right  of Netanyahu, you know, well, there weren't that. many of or at least that I was. I mean, again, I'm  not an expert. I don't speak Hebrew, but I mean, I, you know, been around it a lot and I felt  like, again, it was a pretty liberal European.

type society. That was my impression of it. Well,  those days are gone. Yes. No, I know those days. are gone. And my point to you is it's only going  to get worse. So the argument that Netanyahu is. the problem, it's an argument that many liberal  Jews here in the United States like to make the. web like to make. If we only we can get rid of  Netanyahu, our troubles will go away and we'll get. some sort of moderate leadership and work out a  motus uh uh vendai with the United States. But uh.

I don't think that's going to happen. What happens  on the Temple Mount, do you think? So there's a um. the second temple was obviously built in on the  mountain in Jerusalem. It was knocked down by. the Romans in AD.70 and a few hundred years later  the Muslims built the third holiest site in Islam, the Alexa mosque there and beneath it is the  foundation of the temple. That's the western wall. So that's the geography. But there is this push  to rebuild the third temple but there's a mosque.

on the site. My sense is that's coming to a head.  Do you have any feeling about that? I think you're. right. I think the further right Israel moves or  the more hawkish it becomes uh the more likely it. is that will come to a head. There's no question  that uh uh certainly the religious right in Israel. uh is deeply committed to building a third temple.  But you'd have to blow up the mosque to do it.

Yes. And what would happen if someone blew up  the third holiest site in Islam in the middle. of Jerusalem? Well, the Israelis are very powerful  visav uh the Palestinian population and they would. I guess uh go to great lengths to suppress any  insurrection. Uh, and if they had to kill lots of.

people, they'd kill lots of people. Look at what  they're doing in Gaza. The Israelis are incredibly. ruthless. There's just no question about that.  And, uh, they believe that Palestinians are. subhumans, uh, two-legged animals, grasshoppers.  They use those kind of words. And uh you take what. they've been doing in Gaza, it's easy to imagine  them doing horrible things to the Palestinians. if they were to rise up over what's happening uh  with regard to the Temple Mount. And uh in terms.

of the Jordanians or the Egyptians or the Saudis,  are they going to do anything? I doubt it. I mean, they'll make a lot of noise verbally, but in  terms of actually doing anything to Israel, the Israelis basically calculate in all these  instances that what they can do is horrible things. and then with the passage of time, people will  forget and not only will they forget, but we'll. go to great lengths to help them forget. You know,  we'll rewrite the history. That's the idea. Uh so,

I think that uh your assessment of what we should  expect with the Temple Mount is probably correct. feels like that's a I mean that's a you know  they're a billion Muslims so but they have a. huge collective action problem what are those  billion Muslims going to do I mean they can't. organize themselves into armored divisions  and strike into Israel no but they could I. mean I think we learned from 911 a small group  of determined people can have a big effect on.

events oh yeah well that's all coming too right  I mean this is one of the problems s that uh many. western Jews worry about that you know payback is  going to come not in the form of attacks on Israel. but on in the form of attacks on western Jews in  places like the United States or Europe uh and uh. I think that is a real possibility let's hope it  doesn't happen but uh the number of people who are.

in the in in the Arab and Islamic world who are  absolutely enraged by what is going on in Gaza. is not to be underestimated and they have a second  strike capability as you point out. You know, I was talking about building armor divisions.  That's foolish. They're not going to build armor. divisions. But there are other ways to deal with  this. Again, you want to go back to 911. This gets. back to the whole question whether Israel is a  uh strategic liability or a strategic asset. uh.

Khaled Shik Muhammad who is the principal planner  of 911 now in Guantanamo and Osama bin Laden both. explicitly said that their principal reason for  attacking the United States on 9/11 was the United. States's support of Israel's policies against the  Palestinians. You just want to think about that. The conventional wisdom in the United States  is that Israel had nothing to do with 911 and.

these Muslims attacked us because they hate who  we are. Nothing could be further from the truth. Uh Obama Obama uh Osama bin Laden and KSM again  have both explicitly said that it was US policy. toward Israel that caused 9/11. Why do you suppose  that so many 9/11 documents are still classified. almost 25 years after the fact? I don't know. I  mean, why are so many Jeffrey Epstein documents.

uh effectively classified? Why are so many Kennedy  assassination documents still not released? Still. not released. That's correct. You know, you really  do wonder. They obviously have something to hide. uh in most cases it's very hard to define what  it is that they're trying to hide and that's. certainly true with regard to 9/11 but uh but  we just don't know. We don't know and it and it.

does make everybody into a into a wacko thinking  about it. I mean if you want to end con so-called. conspiracy theories tell the truth and then you  know no one has to theorize would be my view. Uh so you just you have a piece out is my last  question to you. Thank you for spending all this. time. Um, uh, you have a piece out that describes  what you believe the world will look like in 50. years. And I should say, just to toot your horn  since you're not going to do it, that you've been.

right on some of the big big big questions and  you've stood essentially alone in your field um, in your predictions and have been vindicated on  them, not just about the power of foreign lobbies, but about China, about NATO, and um, so I do think  your opinion on this matters. Can you just give us. a sense of like 10 years hence what's America's  place in the world? Well, I think if you look. out 10 years, even if you were to look out 20 or  30 years, I think in all likelihood the system,

the international system will continue to be  dominated by three countries, the United States, China, and Russia. And I think the United  States and China will remain the two most. powerful countries on the planet. and the US China  competition over the next 10 years and even beyond. that will influence international politics more  than any other relationship. Uh I think that once. you begin to project out past 10 20 years uh the  United States's position visav China I think will.

improve for demographic reasons. uh I think the  Chinese population is going to drop off at a much. more rapid rate than the American population. Uh  and moreover the Americans can rely on immigration. to rectify the problem. Uh so if you look at  population which is one of the two building. blocks population size one of the two building  blocks of military power the other is wealth.

uh the United States looking out 20, 30, 40  years looks like it's in quite good shape right. now. What's happened since 2017 and really even  before that is that with the rise of China, the. United States lost its position as the unipole,  as the clearly dominant power in the international. system. and we now have a peer competitor. So  when people talk about American decline, they're.

correct that we have had decline, let's say since  2017 when China became a great power, although it. started before that. That's the second time you  made reference to 2017 as the threshold for China. What is the definition? How does a country go from  being a big power to a great power? It develops. enough military capability to put up a serious  fight against the most powerful state in the.

system. Thank you. Right. So, you want to remember  the two main building blocks of military power are. wealth and population size. You take that wealth,  you take that population size, and that's what. allows you to build a powerful military. That  affects your position in the balance of power. And remember when I talked about engagement, we  made China rich. We made China wealthy. So, China. always had that huge population and as a result  of engagement during the unipolar moment from. roughly let's say 1992 to 2017 we helped China get  rich and that rich that wealth coupled with that.

population side China becomes a great power okay  so we are losing relative power over that entire. time period and that's when China then becomes  a power and we now have a competition where the. United States is still more powerful than China  overall, but the Chinese are closing the gap. So,

we're still losing relative power to the Chinese.  And I would bet over the next 10 years, we will. lose relative power. Not a substantial amount, but  some. But still, the United States will probably. remain 10 years from now the most powerful state  in the system. and the Chinese will be right. behind us. The Russians will remain the weakest of  those three great powers. But if you project out, you know, 30, 40 years, that's when I think  the United States will widen the gap with China.

because populationwise, the Chinese population  as a result of the one child policy will decline. significantly. And our population size without  immigration will not decline as significantly as. the Chinese population will. But we also have  immigration as our ace in the hole. So we can. bring in immigrants as we have done in the past  and we will remain in quite good shape. So I think.

the long-term future for the United States in  terms of raw power looks quite good. That's not to. say our policies will be wise because as you and I  know the United States has used that massive power. that it's had in the past in oftentimes foolish  ways. Yeah. And is is that power worth having? I. mean I don't know. Oh, it's more complicated  than it sounds. I mean, do people's lives. improve? Which seems like an important measure.  Not the only measure, but certainly one. Well,

this is the realist in me, Tucker. In the  international system, in international politics, because there's no higher authority that can  protect you if you get into trouble. It's very. important to be powerful, right? You can't dial  911 in the international system and have someone. come and rescue you. And in a world where another  state might be powerful and might attack you, it's very important to be the most powerful state  in the system. And the last thing you want to do.

is be weak. But remember, the Chinese refer to  the period from the late 1840s to the late 1940s. as the century of national humiliation. Yes, it  was too. Yes. And why did they suffer a century. of national humiliation? Because they were weak.  Because they were divided. Right? And remember, we talked earlier in the show about NATO  expansion. We talked about why we continued to. push and push and push even though the Russians  said it was unacceptable. And I said to you,

we were going to shove it down their throat.  And why we were going to shove it down their. throat? Because we thought they were weak. You'd  never want to be weak. You want to be powerful. The problem with making that argument today, for  me to make that argument to you and to many people. I know is that we all understand that the United  States has been incredibly powerful and it's used. that power in foolish ways in ways that don't make  us happy. And therefore, the idea of having all.

this power leads us to think or leads many people  to think that we'll use that power foolishly. And. I fully understand that. But my argument is you  still want to be powerful just because it's the. best way to survive in the international system.  It's the way to maximize your security. But. hopefully you'll use that power smartly. Although  given America's performance in recent decades,

there's not a lot of cause for hope. Do we wind  up in a war with China over Taiwan? Uh I think. it's possible. Uh I don't think it's likely in  the foreseeable future. Uh the problem is it's. an incredibly difficult military operation for the  Chinese because it involves an amphibious assault. They have to go across the Taiwan straight which  is a large body of water and amphibious assaults.

are very difficult and in all likelihood the  Americans will come to the aid of the Taiwanese. Uh the other thing is the Taiwan I mean the  Chinese unlike the Americans don't fight wars. all the time. The last time China fought a war was  in 1979. Just think about that. 1979 in Vietnam. Yeah. Where they they were foolish enough to  follow in our footsteps. Y and we were foolish. enough to follow in the French footsteps and go  in there. So they went in in 79 and got whacked.

But they've not fought a war since then. So, they  don't have a highly trained uh military that has. lots of combat experience that would be capable  of launching one of the most difficult military. operations imaginable, which is an amphibious  assault across the Taiwan Strait into the face. of resistance from not only the Taiwanese but  the Americans. So, I think that uh will keep a. lid on things for the foreseeable future. I don't  think the Chinese uh will attack. I think uh that.

what they'll wait for is uh the right moment. Uh  hope that the world changes in ways that makes it. feasible for them to do it. They're good at  waiting. They're good at waiting. That is I. I think that's true. So I I don't think and I  want to underline I'm using the word think. Uh. the other point just very quickly, we do live in a  nuclear world and we have nuclear weapons and they.

have nuclear weapons and the incentive for them to  avoid a war with the United States and for us to. avoid a war with them because of nuclear weapons  is very great. So that may really put a damper. on things if we ever get into a serious crisis.  Professor, thank you for spending all this time. That was wonderful. It's my pleasure, Tucker.  Thanks very much for having me on the show. Thank you uh for doing this and congratulations  on being vindicated after all these years. That.

must be nice. Whether you admit it or not, you  have been. So, thank you. I'm going to plead the. fifth amendment. Thank you again. [Music] So, it  turns out that YouTube is suppressing this show. On one level, that's not surprising. That's what  they do. But on another level, it's shocking. With. everything that's going on in the world right now,  all the change taking place in our economy and. our politics, with the wars we're on the cusp of  fighting right now, Google has decided you should.

have less information rather than more. And that  is totally wrong. It's immoral. What can you do. about it? Well, we could whine about it. That's a  waste of time. We're not in charge of Google. Or. we could find a way around it. A way that you  could actually get information that is true, not intentionally deceptive. The way to do that on  YouTube, we think, is to subscribe to our channel. Subscribe, hit the little bell icon to be notified  when we upload and share this video. That way, you'll have a much higher chance of hearing actual  news and information. So, we hope that you'll do.