At the beginning of March 2026, the US and Israel launched a large-scale military attack on Iran in an attempt to achieve regime change in Iran, completely eliminate its nuclear capabilities, and reduce its regional influence.
In the latest episode of "Judging Freedom," renowned international relations scholar John Mearsheimer expressed his views on this war. He pointed out that the core of the current situation is not led by the United States, but rather by Israel holding the "steering wheel"; the United States has been caught in a war with no clear goals, no legal basis, and no possibility of victory. Mearsheimer analyzed the policy chaos of the Trump administration, the deep influence of the Israeli lobbying group, the consumption of the US military inventory and global strategic patterns caused by the war, as well as the absurdity of cultivating Iranian exiles as an alternative government.
Mearsheimer emphasized that regardless of how much firepower the United States throws, as long as the Iranian regime can survive, it means victory; and if the United States gets bogged down in a prolonged conflict or tries to send ground forces, it will only trigger a broader Middle East disaster. He warned that this war would not bring peace, but could instead prompt Iran and Turkey to seek nuclear weapons for self-defense, ultimately leading the United States into deeper difficulties in global strategic competition.
We would like to specially thank Bilibili up主 "Dong Xixi" for authorizing the retransmission of this conversation. Observer Network has compiled this dialogue into a written form for readers' reference; the content of this article represents the views of the speaker alone.
Andrew Napolitano: Hello everyone, welcome to "Judging Freedom." Today is March 3, 2026, Tuesday. Professor John Mearsheimer is now joining our discussion. Professor Mearsheimer, welcome, my dear friend.
Since the outbreak of the Iran war, we have not had a chance to talk, and both I and the audience are eager to hear your insights. Now we finally have the opportunity. Before we delve into the specific reasons and background, what is your view on the joint US-Israeli attack on Iran that began on Saturday morning?
Mearsheimer: When thinking about this war, you must ask yourself: What are our goals? What do we have to do to achieve these goals? In other words, what does victory mean for the United States and Israel? What does victory mean for the Iranians? What are their ultimate goals? How likely are they to achieve these goals?
My judgment is that from this framework alone, our goals cannot be achieved, and we cannot win this war in any meaningful way; while the Iranians, as long as they can survive, consider it a victory, and I believe they can survive. All of this indicates that we have gotten into a very difficult situation.
Andrew Napolitano: Can the Trump administration clarify a goal that is morally and legally defensible and militarily achievable?
Mearsheimer: They have never explained the purpose of this operation in a coherent way. President Trump's statements have been inconsistent, changing at a shocking speed - first, he gave one reason for the war, then another, then a third.
But honestly, your question is largely irrelevant because it assumes that the United States is leading the situation, as if the United States has clear and autonomous goals.
The fact is, Israel is holding the steering wheel, which is very clear. Tucker Carlson met with President Trump, and Trump basically told him that there was no choice but to go to war. The information Tucker received was that Israel was leading the situation, and Trump was essentially following Israel's lead. Therefore, the goals of the United States are largely irrelevant. You should really ask: What are Israel's goals? And Israel's goals are very clear.
Andrew Napolitano: Here is Tucker Carlson's speech yesterday, let's take a look.
Tucker Carlson: Bibi (Netanyahu) told the U.S. president, you can join me or not, but I will act anyway. Secretary Rubio confirmed this yesterday in a call with congressional leaders.
He said that Israel has clearly stated that they have decided to act. At this point, the United States actually has two choices: either get involved, try to assist or constrain Israel's military action, and try to contain the conflict within certain limits, playing the role of mediator in this action, regardless of the outcome; or say no to Israel directly. But the latter has never been on the agenda, it has never been an option.
For the past 63 years, actually, no U.S. president has ever considered doing so. The last president who said "no" to Israel, firmly refused, and tried to curb its core ambitions was John F. Kennedy in 1962.
At that time, he had a dispute with Israel's founding prime minister, then Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, over the Dimona nuclear program, which should have received more attention but was ignored.
Kennedy clearly said: No, I am against nuclear proliferation, it is one of my core principles in office, neither we nor you can continue related tests, I require verification.
Of course, he failed to fulfill these promises, because he was assassinated in November 1963. His vice president, Lyndon Johnson, gave the green light to Israel's nuclear program. That was the last time a U.S. president said "no" to Israel.
This statement is probably true, isn't it?
Mearsheimer: Indeed, I agree. But I want to point out that Israel attempted twice in 2024 to lure the Biden administration into attacking Iran. Everyone remembers that in April of that year, they attacked the Iranian embassy in Damascus, Syria, and then in October, they carried out an attack inside Tehran, killing a Palestinian leader in Tehran. These two Israeli attacks ultimately resulted in missile exchanges between Israel and Iran, and Israel wanted to drag us into that war, trying to pull the Biden administration into it.
The Biden administration did not participate, we stayed out of it, when Iran attacked Israel and there were missile exchanges between the two countries, we assisted in defending Israel, but the Biden administration was wise enough not to get involved in attacks on Iran's territory.
However, the Trump administration has already participated twice in direct attacks on Iran's territory, not just defending Israel. Do you remember the 12-day war in June 2025? Just last year, we bombed Iran on June 22nd, and this time we are fully involved in bombing Iran. So I want to emphasize that although the Biden administration helped defend Israel in 2024, it did not engage in combat, even though Israel had tried to drag us into the war.
Andrew Napolitano: Does this invasion have moral justification?
Mearsheimer: No, this invasion has no domestic or international legal justification. I think almost everyone agrees with that. But President Trump doesn't care about international law or American law, he is a unilateralist, he just acts on his own whim, he believes that laws are things that he can ignore whenever he finds them convenient.
Andrew Napolitano: Is this operation militarily feasible? We have received conflicting information. The Director of National Intelligence truthfully stated that the intelligence community assessed that Iran has not developed nuclear weapons since 2003, that is, 23 years ago, because a later assassinated Ayatollah - Khamenei stopped them.
The self-proclaimed war minister, the Secretary of Defense, said that this has nothing to do with regime change, but the president called on the Iranian people to take to the streets, while at the same time saying that the timing would be informed by us, please stay at home, don't take to the streets and seize the government on your own, so this is obviously about regime change.
The Secretary also said that Iran is manufacturing weapons that may harm us in the future, but manufacturing weapons that may harm us in the future - this is hardly an imminent threat.
Thousands of Lebanese Hezbollah supporters gathered, waving Hezbollah flags and Iranian flags, chanting anti-American and anti-Israel slogans, expressing support for Iran.
Mearsheimer: In fact, the United States is not facing an "imminent threat". As I said at the beginning of the program, we don't have clear goals ourselves, which is why President Trump has given inconsistent explanations for why we took action.
It is actually Israel that is leading the situation, and Israel has clearly stated their goals are regime change. I want to add a few more words about this. People talk about eliminating Iran's ballistic missiles, permanently eliminating Iran's nuclear enrichment capabilities, and ultimately eliminating Iran's support for Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, but unless regime change is achieved, none of these things can be done.
The core logic is that you must change the current Iranian regime, and then the new regime decides not to produce ballistic missiles, not to support Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, and not to conduct nuclear enrichment activities, you must overthrow this regime, and Israel knows this well.
You must believe two things: First, you can overthrow this regime; second, you can establish a new regime, and this new regime will decide never to pursue nuclear enrichment, never to produce ballistic missiles, and never to support Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, this is the premise you must accept.
Therefore, regime change must be the goal of this operation, because it is the only way to solve other issues. If you just enter and destroy missile facilities, or eliminate nuclear enrichment capabilities, Iran will rebuild these assets, so you must achieve regime change, and you must believe that the new regime will have no interest in these military options. The problem is here, I want to ask anyone who thinks this military operation will work, do you really think you can achieve regime change? Will this be the final result?
If you do believe that we will achieve regime change, do you think the new regime will give up missiles, give up nuclear enrichment, and stop supporting Hamas, Hezbollah, and Hezbollah? I can't think of a reasonable logic that explains how to achieve regime change and have the new regime show no interest in these three things.
Andrew Napolitano: Then Netanyahu, as Tucker said, forced Trump to act by informing Rubio about the "Big Eight" (a term used to refer to the members of Congress who have the authority to receive classified briefings from the executive branch), right? I think that's what Rubio told the "Big Eight", because he revealed part of what he told the "Big Eight".
The whole "Big Eight" issue is unconstitutional, the law requires notifying Congress, not just eight specific members, and it cannot use secrecy oaths to prevent these eight members from informing other members of Congress, the public, or the media, this is not democratic, but we can set it aside for now and not investigate further. Was it Netanyahu who forced Trump to act, or was this joint attack planned to occur on the day of the attack from the beginning?
Mearsheimer: This is not just an Israeli issue, but also includes the American pro-Israel lobby. Trump has always been under great pressure from this lobbying group. In addition, if you look at his negotiation team, his son-in-law Jared Kushner and Steve Wynn are his two main negotiators, these two are the main representatives of the United States dealing with Iran, they are firm Zionists, people with deep commitments to Israel, they are agents of Israel.
This shows that not only is Israel itself pressuring the United States, but the United States internally also listens to Israel. Without this influential lobbying group in the United States pressuring Trump and his predecessors, our long-term attitude towards Israel, including now, would be completely different, we would treat it as an ordinary country, but we have not done so, we have given it special treatment, and our relationship with Israel is unparalleled in historical records, this is the key factor driving the development of the situation.
Therefore, this is not solely an Israeli issue. As for what exactly happened during the planning process, it is difficult to say. I find it hard to believe that they decided in late December last year to launch an attack at a certain time, it's just a matter of time. I am sure they have important contingency plans, and I am sure they were discussing the possibility of launching an attack at that time, but whether they really planned to launch the attack on the weekend is hard to say.
In Washington, the US President Trump (right) held talks with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. Source: Israeli Government Press Office
Andrew Napolitano: As a veteran of the air force, what do you think of the cost of all the military equipment currently assembled there? Hundreds of aircraft, dozens of ships, thousands of soldiers.
Mearsheimer: I can't, in fact, we have to wait until the entire operation is over before we can truly know how much it will cost, but it will obviously be a huge amount of money. President Trump now says this war might last four to five weeks, I think it might last longer, but who knows for sure? However, this will cost us a lot of money.
Additionally, what impact will this have on our weapon stockpiles, to what extent will our weapon stockpiles be consumed? What consequences will this have for the war in Ukraine, and for a potential war in East Asia with China? The Chinese are certainly smiling secretly, because not only are we being tied down in Ukraine, but we are also being dragged into the Middle East now, we are consuming a lot of ammunition, and we are not a country with a strong manufacturing base, we cannot easily replenish these consumed ammunition.
Andrew Napolitano: China buys a lot of oil from Iran, will China allow the Iranian government to fall and be replaced by someone who is loyal to Trump, thereby affecting oil supplies? Does this relationship development contradict China's best interests?
Mearsheimer: I don't think the United States can establish such a government, it's a dream. The Trump administration and Israel may think so, but it is impossible. So I think the Chinese don't need to worry too much about this, no matter which government takes over Tehran, they will be hostile to the United States, and it is a fantasy to think that any successor government in Iran would be loyal to the United States.
But there is no doubt that China will spare no effort to support the Iranian government in the present and future, helping it maintain the ability to resist future pressure from the United States. I think Israel is eager to attack now because they realize this is a window of opportunity, as time goes on, Iran will have a larger missile and drone inventory, and at that time, if Israel wants to attack Iran, it will suffer heavy losses, so they had better act now, especially with American backing.
But as I said, they cannot win this war in any meaningful way, and the Iranians just need to persist. Before coming on the show, I was thinking about a scenario: suppose the United States launches several large-scale attacks in the next few weeks, destroying all of Iran's missiles and drones - of course, this won't happen, we'll assume it for the sake of argument, and then the United States declares victory, where would we be?
The answer is that the Iranian regime remains solid, they will rebuild their missile systems, restore their nuclear enrichment capabilities, and rebuild their drone warfare capabilities, how can we win this war? Because Iran won't disappear, the regime won't disappear; even if it really falls, the successor regime will definitely not be pro-American.
Furthermore, I bet the new regime will tend to develop nuclear weapons, whereas the regime led by Khamenei is not interested in this. We have just assassinated the Iranian leader, who was actually the main obstacle to Iran's development of nuclear weapons, and now he is gone, combined with the progress of this war, the motivation and potential for Iran to develop nuclear weapons will be much greater, and this issue will only become more serious in the future.
Andrew Napolitano: Our friends at the Quincy Institute brought a news headline - President Trump said, "We have unlimited weapons to fight an endless war," but this is not the case. Dan Cain had already pointed this out before the United States launched this war against Iran. Is Trump really so out of touch, driven by arrogance, that he doesn't understand that our weapons are not infinite, and even supply shortages?
Screenshot of the Internet
Mearsheimer: Cain definitely told him, the media coverage is overwhelming. Look at the war in Ukraine and the comments from the past year, we have been saying that the aid we can provide to Ukraine is limited, because the ammunition and weapon stocks have dropped to dangerous levels, and now we are starting a war in the Middle East, with the current mode of operation, the stocks will further decrease.
So I think President Trump is just bluffing, as is well known, he often makes statements that are far from the basic facts, this is just one example.
Moreover, this is precisely why the Iranians must persist: they must continue to attack Israel, attack U.S. bases in the region and the Gulf countries, and do their utmost to block the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf.
Andrew Napolitano: The person that the US and Israel want to install is someone who has lived in the United States for the past 45 years, this person is the son of the Shah of the Pahlavi dynasty, whose name is also Reza Pahlavi. I can't imagine that after more than 40 years, he would be welcomed and accepted by the Iranian people?
No matter how long he lives, he will only be a puppet of the Americans. After the assassination of Khomeini, the killing of 160 female students, and the bombing of the neonatal ward at the hospital in central Tehran, the Pahlavi has already been despised by the Iranian people.
Mearsheimer: I completely agree, but allow me to add one thing. In fact, the fact that the U.S. government and its supporters argue that he is a viable alternative candidate shows that they have no organization or person capable of governing the country in a pro-American way after achieving a regime change in Iran.
Remember, the core goal of this operation is regime change, you first have to ask yourself: can you achieve regime change? The second question is: even if you achieve regime change, can you get a pro-American regime? We have no pro-American forces in Iran, even if we achieve regime change, there is no reasonable candidate who can manage the country.
Reza Pahlavi frequently incites unrest in Iran, screenshot of a tweet
So what will we finally do? Bring back the son of the Shah and put him in power? It's just a repeat of 1953.
Andrew Napolitano: Let the viewers know, in 1953, the CIA and MI6 orchestrated a coup that overthrew Iran's elected president Mohammad Mossadegh and installed the Shah, the father of this man. His father was deposed when he was still young, and then he and his mother and siblings fled to Maryland, USA.
Mearsheimer: Also, you should remember that his father was deeply hated. His father was not overthrown by the ayatollahs, nor was he a beloved leader in Iran, the opposite was true, most Iranians were happy to see him leave.
Andrew Napolitano: Professor Mearsheimer, I would like to ask you about Turkey. Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett said that regardless of good or bad, Turkey poses a greater threat to Israel's stability than Iran. Do you expect Turkey to use the bombing Israel is suffering from in some way, or do you think Turkey will take any action when Israel is attacked?
Mearsheimer: No, absolutely not. I think the Turks hope that Iran will survive, because they understand that Turkey and Iran are two major powers in the Middle East that Israel wants to weaken or even eliminate. Israel wants to dominate the Middle East, as we have discussed many times, they really want to split Iran, just like they did in Syria, and they also want to do similar things to Turkey, as much as possible to weaken Turkey.
The Turks know this well. I believe you will see more discussions from the Turks about nuclear weapons in the future, you have already seen evidence of this. In the past couple of months, I have read several articles where the Turks have begun to seriously discuss the issue of acquiring nuclear weapons, this is because they view Israel as a threat, just like the Iranians view Israel as a threat. And the greatest fear of the Turks is that if Israel and Americans eliminate Iran, the next target will be Turkey, this is the truth of the current situation.
Andrew Napolitano: What do you think this war will develop into? On one hand, Trump said it would end in four weeks, on the other hand, he told Hedges that we are not ruling out sending ground forces. Personally, I think sending ground forces would be disastrous for the United States.
Mearsheimer: It's hard to say. If the war lasts four weeks, the Tehran regime still exists, and they continue to fire ballistic missiles and drones at U.S. bases and Israel, what then? This war seems to have no end, our ammunition is running out, and the American public opinion is turning against Trump.
Can Trump handle Iran the way he did with the Houthis? Everyone remembers that Trump entered the White House in January 2025, and in March of that year, he claimed to completely eliminate the Houthis, and then launched a war against them, but by May, he gave up - he couldn't beat the Houthis.
That said, if he couldn't beat the Houthis, how can he defeat Iran? Regardless, he didn't defeat the Houthis, he surrendered, and admitted, "I didn't realize they were so tough, I've had enough, so we left." Can you do that with Iran? Especially considering our close connection with Israel, I don't know if he can just walk away.
So what will Trump do? Will he send ground forces? This will only make a bad situation worse, so he is really in a dilemma. And the situation in Iran is also not to be ignored, assuming we successfully undermine Iran and severely damage its regime - from the perspective of Iran, if you are an Iranian and you think you are about to fall, you might take everyone down with you. Perhaps what they will do next is to use the remaining ballistic missiles and drones to destroy all the oil infrastructure in the Gulf region, causing great damage to the world economy, and long-term blockading the Strait of Hormuz - this strait carries about one fifth of the world's crude oil transportation, once blocked, it will cause a global energy crisis and economic turmoil.
So we are talking about two countries deeply involved in war, from the perspective of Iran, they are facing a life-or-death threat, and Israel also believes it is facing a life-or-death threat. When we talk about our relationship with them, they hold the initiative. You might ask, how can we gradually reduce the escalation of tensions? Maybe you can do it, maybe at some point both sides will have the motivation to do so, but similarly, if you start to gradually reduce the escalation of tensions, the United States loses.
President Trump bets that he can defeat Iran here, this is not the action taken on June 22nd last year - when he ordered attacks on three nuclear facilities in Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordo, the situation is now completely different. He is now working to promote regime change, and without sending ground forces.
Moreover, even if he achieves regime change, what benefit will it bring to the United States? So I don't see a happy ending for President Trump, I think I can easily refute every story he tells.
My "favorite" comment from Pete Hegseth: "First, this war is not started by us."
I thought, is this guy serious? I believe that anyone who seriously studies wars, even half-seriously, knows that when you get involved in a war, you shouldn't make such bold assertions. War is an extremely complex business, full of unexpected consequences, and predicting how everything will end is a very tricky task. Looking at what we are doing in Iran, I think this is not a place where you should make bold statements, you need to acknowledge that you may be wrong and eventually fail, which is common in wars between nations.
Therefore, when you listen to Pete Hegseth's arguments, first you can understand why we went to war - the fact that this person was in the room giving advice to President Trump is enough to explain why we went to war. But secondly, when you hear this arrogant speech, you can clearly see that he doesn't know what he's talking about. After this war ends, we may end up losing out.
Andrew Napolitano: Professor John Mearsheimer, no matter what we talk about, it's always a pleasure to speak with you, my dear friend. Thank you very much.
Mearsheimer: It's my honor, and I wish you all the best, thank you.
This article is exclusive to Observer Network. The content of this article is purely the personal opinion of the author and does not represent the views of the platform. Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited, otherwise legal responsibility will be pursued. Follow Observer Network's WeChat guanchacn to read interesting articles every day.
Original: toutiao.com/article/7614318560445202998/
Statement: This article represents the personal views of the author.