Trump may be on the brink of a war gamble. According to insiders, Trump informed his senior aides on the evening of June 17 that he had approved the attack plan on Iran but had not issued the final order, in order to observe whether Iran would abandon its nuclear program.
The current conflict between Israel and Iran seems to be in a "back-and-forth" state. Israel continues to bomb Iran's infrastructure, while Iran consumes Israel's air defense resources through missile attacks. As the risk of nuclear facility damage increases and the security situation deteriorates further, international concern over the spillover of the conflict grows day by day.
John Mearsheimer, a professor at the University of Chicago, recently pointed out in a program that Israel's actions against Iran are ineffective and dangerous, and that blind support from the United States damages its global strategy (especially in containing China) and reputation. He believes that the biggest beneficiary of the ongoing Middle East conflicts is Russia and China, forcing the United States to divert military forces (such as aircraft carriers) intended for East Asia to the Middle East, which is a major strategic blunder.
Special thanks to Bilibili Uploader Dong Xi Xi for authorizing the reprint, and Observer Network has compiled this dialogue into written form for readers' reference; the content of this article represents the views of the speaker.
Host: The conflict between Israel and Iran has entered its fifth day, and both sides have two seemingly irreconcilable yet completely different interpretations of the situation.
One view holds that the Israeli government is bravely defending itself alone against its neighboring country intent on destroying it, actually taking on a thorny task that the world is unwilling to handle by eliminating the nuclear capability of the Tehran regime, which poses a threat to the entire world. However, as expected, they did not receive praise but condemnation instead. Another view argues that the Israeli government acts recklessly, resorting to any means necessary for its own political survival, opening up a new front of chaos and threatening world peace on top of the already disgraceful destruction in Gaza. This behavior actually receives tacit approval from morally weak Western countries, which is another extreme view.
How should we understand all this? Today, we are not presenting an intense debate with mutual accusations, but instead, we have invited internationally renowned Professor John Mearsheimer, who calls himself a realist and is outspoken and influential in interpreting the Ukraine conflict. He also holds sharp criticism of Israeli policies. His works revolve around a theme he calls the "Israel Lobby" phenomenon, arguing that Israel's influence on the United States is too powerful. From this perspective, we believe that having him interpret this conflict would be very interesting.
Professor John Mearsheimer, what do you think Israel ultimately wants to achieve?
June 16, 2025, drone footage shows residential damage caused by Iranian missile strikes in Tel Aviv, Israel. Image source: Radio France Internationale.
John Mearsheimer: I think their ultimate goal is to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities, with the core aim being to prevent Iran from having uranium enrichment capabilities.
If they could achieve regime change, they would be satisfied. But I don't think this is the main goal; the main goal is to eliminate Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons. To achieve this, they must gain American support because they believe they cannot completely destroy Iran's uranium enrichment capabilities on their own; they need Americans to do this.
I believe they firmly believe that once they enter this war, as the fighting progresses, Americans will inevitably get involved, and then they can use Americans to achieve their goals without directly getting involved themselves.
Host: Therefore, on the nuclear issue, they cannot tolerate a neighbor openly declaring their intention to destroy them possessing nuclear weapons. Do you think this demand is reasonable?
John Mearsheimer: From Iran's strategic perspective, Israel naturally does not want Iran to have nuclear weapons. I would also like to add that the United States does not want Iran to have nuclear weapons either.
However, the key question is whether we can prevent it from happening, referring to the United States and Israel. In fact, if they are determined to obtain nuclear weapons, we cannot stop it, experts have said this repeatedly. I recently heard former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak talk about this view: If they are determined to do it, you cannot stop them. Of course, I think Israel's actions cannot significantly weaken their uranium enrichment capabilities.
Host: As a realist, you might say that the strategic goal is understandable, but you don't think they can achieve their goal through this method, so this is a meaningless attack.
John Mearsheimer: I think it is very difficult for Israel alone to achieve the goal.
Nearly everyone I know agrees with this basic point before the action: Israel cannot complete this task alone. It looks like we Americans might be able to do it, because we have massive bunker-buster bombs with a yield of 30,000 pounds, enough to deeply penetrate and destroy their nuclear enrichment facilities. But the problem is, even if we destroy their facilities now, they have the ability to rebuild them.
I should remind everyone to notice that Iran recently announced the activation of its third uranium enrichment plant. And the depth of this facility is deeper than the Fordo nuclear facility, which is precisely where we have recently focused our attention. So, in the long run, I think we cannot completely eliminate their or Iran's nuclear capabilities through military means.
Host: Do you think their strategy hinges on getting Americans directly involved? Do you think this will happen? How do you see things developing next?
John Mearsheimer: This hasn't started timing yet. Without a doubt, the United States has been providing assistance to Israel, both before and after the operation began. Trump is doing everything possible to ensure that we won't get involved. Here's the scenario: Trump sees that the Israeli military progress is minimal and starts thinking, what does this mean for the United States?
Remember, we once went to war with the Houthis, and we planned to destroy the Houthi military power. Trump made this commitment. Thirty days later, Trump backed out. He said the Houthis won, we couldn't defeat them, and we couldn't stop them from launching missiles at ships in the Red Sea or at Israel. If we can't deal with the Houthis, how can we expect to use military force to handle Iran?
Looking back at the history of air combat, although this method has some effect, it is ultimately limited in actually defeating the opponent, and on-site investigation is often necessary. We will not take ground action in Iran, nor will the Israelis.
So how can we eliminate Iran's nuclear capabilities solely through aerial power or missiles? I think the answer is no.
An engineer inside Iran's Natanz uranium enrichment facility in central Iran. Wall Street Journal.
Host: Many readers following Western media reports may draw the opposite conclusion from the past three days of coverage, that is, it seems that Israel's strike measures are quite effective, with a large number of military leaders eliminated, a top nuclear scientist removed, and part of their military capabilities weakened. The current countermeasures seem to be not very effective.
Most rockets seem to have been successfully intercepted by the "Iron Dome" defense system. At present, it appears that after three or four days, the situation is favorable for Israel and unfavorable for Iran.
John Mearsheimer: What is the ultimate goal? The goal is to eliminate Iran's uranium enrichment capabilities, and they haven't come close to achieving this goal.
I just said that they can't do it, so how does Israel win according to your story? If you look at what is happening now, both sides are launching missiles at each other, various destruction is taking place in Iran and Israel, and it's hard to see where the way out of the conflict lies, how Israel will ultimately win. Therefore, I think the claim that Israel is faring much better after this four-day tug-of-war is completely unfounded.
Host: You describe yourself as a realist in international policy issues. Do you think the current Trump administration's approach aligns with realism?
You've written many articles about the Israel lobby, and your basic view seems to be that Israel has an extraordinary influence on successive U.S. administrations, usually able to do as they please. Does the current administration show signs of a new trend, with voices of restraint within the "America First" camp gaining strength?
John Mearsheimer: No, I think Trump basically met all the demands of the lobby group, with no substantial evidence suggesting that Trump ever truly resisted the influence of the lobby group.
In fact, events such as the Gaza massacre and changes in the Iran situation confirm this.
Looking back at previous incidents, mainstream media reports clearly exposed the collusion between the Trump administration and Israel, using tricks to make Iran let down its guard and fall into a vulnerable position for an ambush. We provided Israel with a lot of bombs and various military equipment for use in the war against Iran and in the genocidal actions in Gaza. There is no evidence that Trump resisted specific interest groups, and I don't expect him to do so.
Host: He is not currently directly involved, isn't that a good thing? Maybe a week, a month, or a year from now the situation will change, but for now, although he may tacitly allow certain actions, he still chooses to keep the United States out of it.
According to news reports, he vetoed an Israeli plot to assassinate Supreme Leader Khamenei. Aren't these examples of realism or restraint?
John Mearsheimer: First, I don't know if he really told Israel not to attempt to assassinate Khamenei; who knows the truth?
The truth is never something Trump handles well; no one knows what really happened behind the scenes. But in individual cases, Trump has also shown a tough stance toward Israel, and I'm not surprised. However, in general terms, Israel always gets what it wants, and this has been going on for decades.
I have long advocated this view, and it is more true now than ever before. What the Israel lobby seeks is not in Israel's fundamental interest, and I think Israel is now mired in a quagmire.
That's why the United States can unconditionally support Israel under the push of the lobby group, allowing Israel to act as it pleases. The Israel domestic lobby and even the country itself consider this beneficial, but I don't think all of this is necessarily good. I think Israel's current situation is very difficult.
AIPAC, short for "American Israel Public Affairs Committee," is a powerful lobbying group established by Jews in the United States.
Host: What do you hope the Western world will respond to this situation?
John Mearsheimer: Respond to what?
Host: Israel's attack and retaliation on Iran? If you were the head of the United States or some Western alliance, what would you hope to see? Would there be any form of intervention in response to calls to condemn Israel's airstrikes? What measures do you think other Western countries should take?
John Mearsheimer: Now, only one country in the world calls the shots, and that is the United States.
We should have exerted tremendous pressure on Israel to prevent this attack. We should have reached an agreement with Iran similar to the nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama administration. If this fails and Israel insists on going to war, we should have done everything possible, or at this moment, we should have tried even harder to quell it. We don't want the war to escalate.
Our greatest threat is the escalation into war, leading to Iran blocking the Persian Gulf, and the Houthi forces cooperating to block the Red Sea shipping routes, which would cause catastrophic consequences for the world economy. Clearly, this does not align with our interests, so I believe we have an interest in stopping the war. But I must emphasize that we should have stifled all war rhetoric and threats before the conflict erupted.
Host: Let's assume a few scenarios. If Iran attempts to block the Strait of Hormuz or genuinely interferes with shipping channels, how should the United States respond?
John Mearsheimer: I think the United States will spare no effort to try to open up the Gulf, likely using its naval forces.
If Israel welcomes this, I wouldn't be surprised. I believe Israel will do everything possible to drag us into the war, and this will become a way to achieve their goals.
What is worth remembering in 2024 is that they tried twice to drag the Biden administration into a war with Iran, once in April 2024 and again in October 2024, but the Biden administration successfully resisted these attempts. Of course, the Trump administration is still resisting, as getting involved in a Middle Eastern war does not serve their interests. This applies not only to Trump but also to Biden, so we try to avoid such situations.
But if the war spirals out of control, causing severe disruptions in oil supplies in the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea, the United States is likely to take military intervention actions, which is not what we wish to see.
Host: If this happens, how will it affect America's standing on the international stage? I guess this is a new field. The United States is already dealing with the Ukraine situation and challenges from China. This will become another arena of fierce confrontation. Does the United States have enough strength to maintain itself in a three-front battle?
John Mearsheimer: That is beyond doubt. For a long time, I have believed that the primary threat facing the United States comes from China, and we should focus our attention on containing China.
But we cannot achieve this, primarily because we are bogged down in Ukraine.
Secondly, we are immobilized in the Persian Gulf. If a war breaks out in the Gulf and drags us in, we will need to divert more military resources from East Asia to this region—clearly not in our interest. We need to move the naval and air forces deployed in the Persian Gulf over the past few months to East Asia. This situation is not ideal. The USS Nimitz, a mainstay of the U.S. Navy's Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, is leaving East Asia for the Persian Gulf—it should remain in East Asia.
We are consuming precious ammunition—ammunition needed for future potential conflicts in East Asia—to fight the Houthi rebels, and the results are naturally negligible. This is one of the main reasons why Trump exited the war.
But the key is to understand that this is merely a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. It's not beneficial for them because China is the primary threat to the United States, and we should fully turn our attention to Asia and contain China.
Host: Don't you think Trump's performance in this conflict has a lot of John Mearsheimer's style?
Trump stated that he understands Israel has its core interests, and if they want to take action in Iran, he will step back and let them proceed. So far, the United States has not directly intervened. Trump even seems to be restraining some more radical ideas, such as the proposal to "resolve the Ayatollah." If a weakened Iran eventually yields on its nuclear program and avoids the expansion of the conflict, would this be a victory for the United States?
John Mearsheimer: Obviously not. We have deployed a large amount of resources in the Middle East, which is not what we desire. East Asia is the priority, and we do not want to involve ourselves too much in the Middle East, which is our primary principle.
Secondly, as we just discussed, the United States faces a serious risk of being drawn into war, and what we need least is another protracted war in the Middle East. Trump was elected because he promised not to get involved in these endless wars. It was Trump in his first term who initiated the process of withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan. If it weren't for him starting the withdrawal process, we might still be mired in the Afghan quagmire today.
So, we don't need more wars in the Middle East. In fact, we don't need wars anymore, and we don't need wars in East Asia either. All we want is to contain China rather than wage war against it. But if you want to contain China, you must go all-in. This means retaining as many resources as possible in East Asia. The development of the situation in the Middle East clearly does not serve our interests.
In addition, this has caused significant damage to our reputation. We support Israel—a country viewed as a rogue regime by most nations outside the West.
Moreover, regarding the Gaza issue, we are essentially complicit with Israel, assisting them in carrying out genocidal actions against Palestinians. This is a disaster for us and for anyone who believes in the liberal international order and promotes Western civilization. When people witness the situation in Gaza and the current events in Iran, they will find our stance incredibly hypocritical. This is not in our interest. We urgently want to end the war in Iran and stop the bloodshed in Gaza.
Palestinians carrying empty containers waiting to collect food. Al Jazeera.
Host: Who do you think benefits from this situation? A name involved here is Putin. Notably, within 24 hours of the outbreak of the conflict, he seemed to be the only leader who spoke with the presidents or prime ministers of the three countries, and he has taken the initiative to offer himself as a mediator in any peace solution. Do you think Russia benefits from this war?
John Mearsheimer: I think Russia indeed benefits from this war, and there is no doubt about it.
I think this will enhance Putin's position, as you said, and force us to focus on the Middle East, thereby ignoring Ukraine, which is good for Russia; this is also a favorable situation for China, and the Chinese must be very happy with our current situation.
We are bogged down in Ukraine, and now we are struggling in the Middle East. From the Chinese perspective, a prolonged war in Ukraine serves their interests because it ties up the United States in Europe and prevents it from fully turning its attention to Asia. Now that the war in the Middle East is raging, if we get involved and fight Iranians in the Persian Gulf, this is a golden opportunity for China.
This reflects the foolishness of America's strategic execution, as we have lost at almost every step to Russia and China.
Host: Professor, what do you think will happen next? Looking through the lens of prediction, what changes do you think will occur in the next two weeks?
John Mearsheimer: I'm not sure. It seems that Israel's current situation makes it impossible for them to stop. I think Iran is in a similar predicament.
Israel launched this war, promising to inflict heavy damage on Iran and achieve certain goals. If they give up after just a few days, I think this is unlikely, so I think Israel will continue to fight. The possibility of Iran withdrawing from this conflict is extremely slim; are they prepared to surrender? I think this is unlikely.
Therefore, unless the United States intervenes strongly, the war will continue. If neither side runs out of weapons, it will indeed continue, but it is possible that Iran will exhaust its missiles, or the Israeli public will be unable to endure more strikes. Also, their air force is constantly worn down during the long-distance flights to Iran, so one possible scenario is: let's call it off.
I think Iran has enough missile reserves to sustain for at least several weeks, and Israel will continue. I don't think public opinion pressure will force Netanyahu to stop, nor do I think Israel will reach a point where they are unable to effectively strike Iran.
Similarly, I think the only chance for an end is for Trump to intervene. The most likely scenario is an oil war, as we previously discussed, and I think this is one of the two nightmare scenarios, which will again have a disastrous impact on the world economy, and at some point, even consider the use of nuclear weapons.
If Israel truly believes that Iran poses an existential threat and conventional weapons cannot eliminate this threat, they may be inclined to consider using nuclear weapons to respond. If that happens, I think the United States will decisively intervene to prevent Israel from launching a nuclear strike on Iran.
On May 6, 2025, Israel conducted an airstrike on Sana'a, the capital of Yemen, destroying an airplane on the runway of Sana'a International Airport. Image source: United Morning Post.
Host: Last question, we previously discussed Iran's nuclear program and its uranium enrichment activities. What do you think about whether they are actually developing nuclear weapons? Just last March, we invited Tulsi Gabbard (current Director of National Intelligence of the United States), who said that U.S. intelligence agencies believe that Iran is not currently manufacturing nuclear weapons. She mentioned that Iran has a large stockpile of enriched uranium and nuclear ambitions, but she doesn't believe they are currently manufacturing nuclear weapons. Do you think they indeed exist and we are powerless to stop them, or do you think this is all just a fabrication?
John Mearsheimer: Somewhere in between.
I think Iran is not currently developing nuclear weapons at this stage, but their approach is to enrich uranium to 60%. Enriching uranium to 90% can provide weapon-grade material, and going from 60% to 90% is relatively easy.
Their uranium enrichment technology is so advanced that they could produce enough weapon-grade material for about 10 nuclear bombs within two weeks. But this is not a bomb. They still need to manufacture the bomb and load it onto a ballistic missile capable of delivering the bomb, and most people believe this process takes about a year, maybe 10 months, maybe 14 months, but roughly a year. So producing a deliverable nuclear bomb takes an entire year. But similarly, obtaining weapon-grade nuclear material takes about two weeks.
So the crux of the argument is not whether Iran is developing nuclear weapons, but whether they are approaching a critical point where they can easily transition to possessing nuclear weapons. Israel's true intention, of course, is to completely destroy their nuclear enrichment capabilities. Because as long as Iran's uranium enrichment capability is destroyed, they cannot make nuclear bombs.
By the way, the nuclear agreement reached in 2015 between the Obama administration and Iran and several other countries, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, was not intended to completely eliminate Iran's uranium enrichment capabilities but to prevent Iran from enriching uranium to a weapons-grade level. Of course, Israel is extremely dissatisfied with the Iran nuclear deal. They pressured the Trump administration to withdraw from the deal precisely because the deal allowed Iran to retain uranium enrichment capabilities. Therefore, even if Iran cannot enrich uranium to 90% under the framework of the Iran nuclear deal, Israel still considers the mere fact that Iran has any uranium enrichment capability unacceptable.
I completely understand why Israel finds this unacceptable, but you need to ask yourself whether they can permanently eliminate this enrichment capability. The answer is no, and I don't think we can either.
Therefore, the Obama administration advocated the most ideal solution as reaching this agreement to greatly restrict Iran's ability to purify uranium to a weapons-grade level. But simply put, Iran is not making bombs.
Host: It sounds like you hold a kind of fatalistic attitude, believing that if Iran insists, they will eventually obtain weapon-grade uranium. If they intend to mount it on a warhead, they can certainly do so.
John Mearsheimer: I want to emphasize two points: I think we could have reached another agreement similar to the Iran nuclear deal, perhaps even a better one, at that time they would not develop nuclear weapons, right?
So, I think we cannot persuade Iran to abandon uranium enrichment capabilities, which is precisely what Israel cannot accept. But I think the second-best solution, or more accurately, the least harmful solution, is to maintain the situation of the Iran nuclear agreement. But you cannot think that you can completely destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities through military strikes; this idea is overly naive, and you cannot do that.
Secondly, I need to remind everyone that under the current circumstances, it is very necessary to think about whether Iran will continue its nuclear weapons development program. I have always believed that if I were Iran's national security advisor, they would have nuclear weapons by now.
From Iran's perspective, they are incredibly foolish for not having nuclear weapons earlier. Look at Kim Jong-un and North Korea. We will not attack North Korea, South Korea will not attack North Korea, because North Korea has nuclear weapons. Iran does not have nuclear weapons, Libya does not have nuclear weapons, Iraq does not have nuclear weapons. If you don't have nuclear weapons, the United States or Israel will attack you.
So far, this conflict has taught us that Iran has more motivation than ever to acquire nuclear weapons. I hope this day will not come. But I must say, this action is more likely to prompt them to acquire nuclear weapons.
Finally, I want to say this explains why Iran should have nuclear weapons. Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak once said: I believe Iran's attempt to acquire nuclear weapons has its strategic considerations. Just think about what Barak said; he understands that from Iran's perspective, developing nuclear weapons has strategic significance.
Look at Israel and the United States; Israel has nuclear weapons, but have you seen them wanting to give up nuclear weapons? Of course not, because Israel knows that nuclear weapons themselves are the ultimate deterrent force. Have you seen the United States, with its strongest conventional military force, giving up nuclear weapons? Because this is the ultimate deterrent force.
Do not impose on others what you do not wish for yourself. If this logic applies to Israel and the United States (and it does), why shouldn't it apply to Iran? Similarly, if Iran has nuclear weapons, I believe this war would not be happening now. Our position in preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is actually worse. From the U.S. perspective, Iran having nuclear weapons is not in their interest, and I am not advocating that Iran having nuclear weapons is a good thing.
We do not want them to have nuclear weapons because we understand the consequences of such proliferation and the accompanying negative effects. But I am still uncertain whether this is a wise move to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear-armed state.
Host: John Mearsheimer, thank you for taking the time to speak with us.
This is an exclusive article by Observer Network. The content of this article purely represents the author's personal views and does not represent the platform's views. Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited; otherwise, legal liability will be pursued. Follow Observer Network on WeChat at guanchacn for daily reading of interesting articles.
Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7517451799998054962/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone, and welcome your opinions in the button below to express your attitude towards the article.