John Mearsheimer: Israel lobby’s influence on US policy as powerful as ever | UpFront

As the United States comes under fire for its continued support for Israel's brutal war in Gaza and as it becomes further involved in a costly war in Ukraine, many are wondering how this is affecting Washington's global standing. Is America overloaded? Could this signal the end? of us unipolarity we will ask the renowned political scientist John Mimer in an initial special John Mir Shamer thank you very much for joining us on the UPF front. It is a pleasure for me to be here. It has been almost 20 years since you co-authored his seminal paper, titled. the Israel

lobby

, uh, dealing with the

lobby

's undue

influence

on US foreign

policy

, have there been any major political changes or any other changes or developments since you wrote the article?

Well, I think there are two things that have changed, one is that I think we helped open up the discourse on lobbying, before writing the article and then the book, not many people were talking explicitly about lobbying and the

influence

of lobbying on the U.S. foreign

policy

and I think in terms of speech, we had a significant influence on In terms of actual policy, I think we have had little influence at all. I think the lobby is still as

powerful

as

ever

and American foreign policy toward Israel and toward the Greater Middle East is still very much influenced by the lobby.

I mean, one could argue that you are being too hard on yourself and that you are falling a little short to the extent that now there is at least resistance and that resistance does matter. I mean, there is a campaign against the APAC lobby. the Israel-American Public Affairs Committee and how they influence American politics, specifically the goal of progressive Democrats according to a survey, 62% of respondents who voted for President Biden in 2020 agree that, citing, The United States should stop arms shipments to Israel until Israel stops its attacks on the people of Gaza now President Biden certainly continues to provide military aid and financial support to Israel, there is no doubt about that, but at least there is the perception that Biden is now running a risk that wouldn't have existed 20 years ago it's safe to say, well I think there's no doubt that attitudes toward Israel and toward Israel's policies toward the Palestinians have changed in the body politic, especially among the young people and especially among Democrats, and there is no doubt that this causes problems for the president.

Biden, but the fact is that the lobby is still very successful in influencing policy at the elite level. The lobby's influence in Congress and the lobby's influence in the White House remains as

powerful

as

ever

, so what you have here is something. of a disjunction between public opinion, on the one hand, and the lobby's ability to influence policy, on the other, eh, and it remains to be seen how that plays out over time, it could be the case that Biden is defeated in the fall largely because he has supported Israel in the future so far and continues to support Israel in the future and that backfires on him, that may be the case and if that happens, then attitudes toward Israel and toward the lobby and towards the I think the relationship between Israel and the United States will change even more and maybe the policy will change, but that has not happened so far fair enough.

A dissenting memo organized by US State Department staff that was leaked in early November warned that the US's failure to criticize the Israeli war crimes citation contributes to regional public perceptions that The United States is a biased and dishonest actor that, at best, fails to advance and, at worst, harms our interests around the world. Does the United States' continued support for Israel affect its global standing? No doubt about it. If the United States is indeed complicit in the genocide that is widely considered, our ability, you know, to influence people around the world has been significantly diminished as a result of this, all of this makes a joke of the concept of a rules-based order.

What we preach about all the time, this is a disaster for the United States, but I would point out to you that even though it is a disaster, the United States continues to support Israel in the future, now the retort to that retort is at least the more reasonable. That would be that this is absolutely a matter of National Security, that Israel is not only the recipient of us LR J for philanthropic or humanitarian reasons, but that there is a strategic interest in the Middle East that goes beyond money, but in reality is directly related. For us, the National Security interest is supporting Israel, vital to maintaining US National Security.

I think your comments are completely wrong. Israel is a strategic albatross around your neck, it is a liability, we get almost no benefits from our relationship with Israel, no strategic benefits and uh, its important responsibilities, as we are seeing now, furthermore, there is a powerful moral or ethical dimension to this and the idea that being united with Israel is in our moral or ethical interest is not a serious argument, as I told you before. The United States is complicit in a genocide, this is certainly not in our interest, so the idea that you know that we are supporting Israel unconditionally, because it is our strategic and moral interest, is not a serious argument in my opinion, yes, the moral.

The side said more if we put aside the argument against supporting Israel, is there still a strategic interest that outweighs that? And some people would argue if it's, if it's cautious with Iran, if it's proxy wars, that there might be something vital military. reason to be there and be so unconditionally tied to Israel, but you say there is no credible argument, no, I don't believe that argument for a second and Stephen, I make the case against that argument in both the article and in the book and, by the way, regarding Iran, I think we would have much better relations with Iran today if it weren't for the lobby.

In our chapter on Iran, in the lobby book we made it quite clear that Iran tried to improve relations with Iran. The United States on several occasions in the 80s and 90s and the lobby intervened and ended our efforts to accommodate the Iranians in any way and, furthermore, if you look at the jcpoa, which is the nuclear agreement basically between the United States. The United States and Iran I believe effectively shut down the Iranian nuclear program in the short term. It was Israel and the lobby that put enormous pressure on the United States to end that agreement, which I don't think was in our interest.

So help me understand why we end up in this place if there's no legitimate moral argument here, uh, to your point, and if there's no legitimate strategic interest and it's certainly a financial burden, we're talking about three or four billion dollars a year and We are talking after October 7 of an attempt to obtain even more tens of billions of dollars for Israel. It is certainly a financial burden. Why does the United States continue to double down in this way in the 1960s? We'd say maybe it's sales of Hawk missiles. You know, we could say it's an attempt to leverage a geopolitical position to get more access to oil, but now, in 2024, what good reason does the United States have to do this?

They are not doing it blindly. Be a reason, what is it? Well, let me point out that the United States simply does not give Israel a lot of weapons and a lot of money and supports it diplomatically, it does so unconditionally, there is no relationship between two countries in world history that It seems that in this relationship the United States again supports Israel no matter what you do. This is truly remarkable. We do not treat Israel as a normal country and we help it because it is for our strategic benefit. That's the argument you're basically making.

This is a strategic asset for the United States, it is a normal country and we take advantage of it, that is not what is happening here, so help me understand why, what is the organizing principle behind this special relationship? So, it's a fascinating argument you're making, but why? so why does the United States do it because of lobbying? The United States has a political system that is set up in a way that allows interest groups to have great influence. Just think about the National Rifle Association, when you look at the polls and the terms of how Americans think about gun control, what you see is that there are a lot of Americans who are interested in serious gun control, but it's almost It is impossible to achieve meaningful gun control because of the National Rifle Association.

The National Rifle Association is an interest group that wields enormous power. When it comes to legislation related to gun control, the Israel lobby is one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful, in the United States and does everything it can to ensure that American foreign policy supports Israel unconditionally. and it's tremendously successful, really impressive, how good the lobby is at getting US foreign policy makers to support Israel, do you have any optimism? You know it's the invincibility of APAC, that aura of invincibility that is being broken, uh, I think that's too much. strong I think it's eroding a little bit what the future looks like for sure it's hard to say let me make two points first of all the lobby now has to operate openly uh and it has to engage in what I call Smashmouth politics uh before we wrote the article in the book The lobby could operate behind closed doors and for any interest group the ideal situation is to operate behind closed doors and not outdoors, but when you are outdoors like the lobby is now. and you're involved in Smashmouth politics, uh, it's going to cause you all kinds of problems.

That is point number one, point number two, that Israel's behavior has become more outrageous over time and a good manifestation of this point is what is happening today in Gaza and this situation. It is not going to improve as time goes by, it is widely recognized that Israel is an apartheid state and, furthermore, it is immersed in a genocidal campaign at the moment, all of this indicates that the lobby has really faced a difficult task to confront. It has to working overtime these days to defend Israel and will have to work harder and harder as time goes by because more and more people are aware of what's going on in the Middle East, they see what Israel is doing, but I would never do it.

Underestimate the lobby's ability to adapt to circumstances and prevail in the long run, that may not happen, but I don't want to underestimate the lobby, that's my basic point, understood, let's move a little forward to Ukraine, and October of last year, President Biden had asked Congress to authorize $61 billion in aid to Ukraine, in addition to another $14 billion for Israel, which for now remains stalled in the US House of Representatives, the US Department of Defense .USA, and at the beginning of February declared that without us. Funding, defense of Ukraine will probably collapse, given that funding is now stagnant, what do you think the impact will be for Ukraine and for American policy?

Well, I thought Ukraine was going to lose this war to Russia if they got those more than 60 billion. Dollars or not, the fact is that the Ukrainians need weapons and, furthermore, they need manpower because they are greatly outnumbered in terms of troop levels. Well, we can't do anything to help them with troop levels and in terms of weaponry, we don't. we have the weaponry to give them, when you hear people talk about this 60 billion plus, you would think that this would allow us, as soon as this aid is provided, to take all these weapons off the shelf and send them to Ukraine and that is going to make a long way to correct the imbalance and the armament there, but that is not true, we cannot give them the weapons they need in large enough quantities because we do not have those weapons and we include the Europeans as well as the United States, so we can give them dollar or euro bills, but that will not do them much good, so, firstly, we cannot correct the imbalance of weapons and, secondly, we cannot correct the imbalance of manpower.

All of that is also what this money is. largely ineffective to the point that it is a legitimate argument for not sending any no, it is worse that what it does is encourage Ukrainians to continue fighting, which means they will lose more territory and more Ukrainians will die if we cut off the aid and let Ukraine go its own way and become a neutral country Ukraine could make a deal now and get a better deal today than tomorrow if we give it the help to keep fighting, that seems a little like not calling It's appeasement, but effectively giving up significant portions of your land because you can't win, when there's an entire global community that could offer support, seems like a tough decision to make if you're fighting Muhammad Ali and going two. rounds with him and it's pretty clear that he has the ability to kill you, what are you going to do to leave him after two rounds or continue fighting and allow himWhat killed you?

Well, if he, if I'm wearing gloves and he's not, I've been yelling at someone, hey, is there a referee there who can put some gloves on him? I feel like Russia is fighting barehanded and no, everyone is just taking a good look at the International System, there is no higher authority that can bail you out when you get in trouble and The Ukrainians are in big trouble and there is no referee or higher authority or nothing that can rescue them and what I want to say is that what the Ukrainians should do now is cut all security ties, cut all security ties with the West. bieny declare neutrality and work with the Russians to make it clear that they are a neutral state and have no interest in joining NATO and then the United States should cut off all aid to Ukraine and the Ukrainians should depend on economic aid from Europe in their place.

Former Russian President Dimitri Medv, who is now vice president of the Russian Security Council, was recently asked at what point Russia should stop its invasion and said it should probably be that way, if not now, then after some time, perhaps in some other phase of development. Of this conflict, President Putin himself also stated that Russian troops would advance into Ukraine after Russia's success in taking over the city of Abiva, do you think Putin's goal is to take over all of Ukraine? And is Russia even capable of doing this? I think that despite conventional wisdom in the West, he is not determined and has never been determined to conquer all of Ukraine and, in fact, it would be foolish to do so and furthermore, despite conventional wisdom in the West, there has never been any evidence. that he is interested in conquering other Eastern European countries, as well as the idea that he is trying to recreate the Russian Empire or create a larger Russia, is not a serious argument, but a big part of the argument is not that he is trying to take over the rest. of Europe but maybe just the rest of Ukraine no, I don't think there is evidence to support that he would be a fool if he tried to conquer all of Ukraine because the western half of the country is full of ethnic Ukrainians who would resist.

The Russian occupation could have a serious insurgency on its hands and that is the last thing it needs and as I told you before, you would be extremely foolish to try to do that, let's move on because there is something else I want to do. Ask him about, in December 2023, US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said the Russian military is greatly weakened and last year the head of the defense intelligence agency said it would take Russia 5 to 10 years to rebuild the In the Armed Forces, some argue that Western-backed Ukrainian resistance was in fact important in preventing further aggression by Russia.

What do you think of that? I think you are completely wrong. I think the Russian army today is much more formidable than when it was. The war began for the first time. Armies at the beginning of a war rarely look like armies. In the middle of a war or at the end of a war, and according to almost all reports in the Ukrainian media, this is in the UK Ukrainian media, the Russian military has improved a lot. Over time they have mobilized many troops, trained them, the equipment is much better and most importantly the tactics and strategy are smarter, which is what you would expect from any army fighting a protracted war, it improves.

In most cases it happens over time. I think the concern was the elimination of ground troops and that replenishing those troops would take 5 to 10 years, but I hear what you are saying loud and clear, which is that those numbers are inflated and that and that, they have resupplied troops much more quickly and efficiently than that. I think that is exactly right, the Russian casualty figures are inflated and, furthermore, Putin has mobilized a large number of troops, they have trained them and now they have a quite effective military fair. You recently said that the United States is in trouble regarding the Middle East and Ukraine.

In Ukraine you said, "We are committed to defeating the Russians in Ukraine. We were committed to destroying the Russians." economy and remove the Russians from the ranks of the great powers, we failed, this is a devastating defeat for the West, you said, um, from your point of view, is this the end of American unipolarity, in my opinion, the non Unipolarity ended in 2017 with the rise of China and the fact that Putin raised Russians from the dead between the period of 2000, when he took power and 2017, the unipolar moment lasted from approximately December 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed, until about 2017, we were the only great power on the planet. and it was the ideal strategic situation, but the world we live in today is not unipolar, it is multipolar, there is China, there is Russia and there is the United States, and let me back up a little on that because the United States still remains. the largest economy in the world by GDP and GDP per capita in 2023 and in 2024, the US was still ranked as the most powerful military in the world with the largest defense budget in the world, I think it is over 750 thousand millions of dollars. military bases in over 70 countries at this time.

Can other countries really threaten the unipolar strength of the United States? Well, I would point out to you that you are absolutely right that we are the most powerful state on the planet, but freeing ourselves from American orthodoxy faced the wrath of the US government. Some countries today still endure a ferocious series of sanctions, others in the past they were victims of regime change operations that were supported by the United States or other Western governments. same ability to threaten nations that go against them or that have changed things, well, I think things have changed a little, I think other countries, like Iran, for example, Le and North Korea, which were in a much lonelier position during the unipolar moment.

Now I can approach the Chinese and the Russians who are willing to do it and this only goes to tell you that the weakest countries in the system can find allies to help protect them from the United States and that is thoughtful. for a regime change, so before you go, let me ask you one more question. If I accept your argument that American unipolarity is over, what comes next? Will we see a genuinely multipolar type of political environment here or will we see a situation where China eventually takes the place of the United States and imposes a new type of imperialism, we are in a genuinely multipolar system and there is no evidence that it will end anytime soon, You can argue that for demographic reasons we will eventually return to a unipolar world and the reason I say this is that it is quite clear that the Chinese and the Russians, but especially the Chinese, have wicked demographic problems and that their populations are going to reduce significantly over time.

The United States has a bit of demographics. problem in itself, but we have a great advantage that they don't have and that is that we are an immigrant culture, so we can import all kinds of people to solve the demographic problems that we have and I think you could argue that I know that in 50 years The United States can return to unipolarity largely due to demographic reasons, because you understand that the two main pillars of military power are wealth and demographics, you have to be rich and have a lot of people and China. and Russia are in a very precarious situation in the long term because they have declining populations Johnn M.

I want to thank you for your time. Thank you so much for joining us on the front lines with your ideas. This is a pleasure for me. Thank you for inviting me to the program. I enjoyed it, thank you. It's okay everyone. That's our program from the beginning. We'll be back next week.