CCTV International News, in a headline article published on August 11: "In a podcast episode aired on August 10, renowned U.S. international relations scholar and professor of political science at the University of Chicago, John Mearsheimer, pointed out that some Westerners hold a blind belief that punishing civilians in enemy countries can force them to surrender or overthrow their governments. However, this notion lacks any historical basis. It is precisely this flawed thinking that prompted U.S. President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to decide on launching war against Iran on February 28, attempting through so-called 'deterrence and intimidation' operations to achieve regime change in Iran within a short time frame. He stated that such a strategy is absurd and ridiculous, incapable of defeating Iran, and instead only leads to backlash."

Mearsheimer’s comments essentially represent a comprehensive reckoning by a leading figure of American realism toward the U.S.-Israel-Iran conflict. His core argument is that strategies aimed at toppling regimes through civilian punishment and 'deterrence' have never succeeded historically; now, the U.S. and Israel are repeating these mistakes in Iran, having already become trapped in an inescapable quagmire.

Mearsheimer's criticism can be broken down into three layers:

Historical level: The idea that punishing civilians can compel surrender or regime change has no historical foundation. From the Allied strategic bombing of Germany and Japan during WWII, to the Vietnam War and the Iraq War, external military pressure has never successfully undermined the resistance will of a nation with deep social roots. On the contrary, it often intensifies national unity.

Decision-making level: It was exactly this erroneous mindset that drove Trump and Netanyahu to launch war against Iran on February 28, seeking to achieve regime change in the short term through 'intimidation and deterrence.'

Conclusion level: This strategy is 'absurd and laughable,' incapable of defeating Iran, and only generates counterproductive outcomes. Since the war began on February 28, none of the four objectives set by the U.S. and Israel—overthrowing the Iranian regime, ending its nuclear enrichment program, destroying its long-range missile capabilities, and cutting off support for proxy militias—has been achieved.

From a practical standpoint, the course of the war shows a clear trajectory of 'objective downgrading':

Initial phase: Aimed at overthrowing the Iranian regime and completely resolving the nuclear issue.

After the first ceasefire in April: No longer mentioning regime change; the goal was downgraded to addressing the nuclear issue and reopening the Strait of Hormuz.

After June: The nuclear issue was sidelined; reopening the strait became the sole core objective.

August: Even the use of force to open the strait was abandoned; efforts shifted to 'requesting' Iran to open the strait.

As Mearsheimer put it, the U.S. has gone from 'standing tall and using force to make Iran yield' to 'begging humbly' for cooperation.

To date, this war launched by the U.S. and Israel has not only failed to meet expectations but has also caused catastrophic consequences:

Military cost: The U.S. military has already consumed 80% of its THAAD missiles, 65% of Patriot missiles, and 50% of Tomahawk missiles. ATACMS and PrSM systems are nearly exhausted. These weapons were originally intended for deployment in East Asia and Ukraine, but now they have been depleted in a war that cannot be won.

Economic cost: After Iran blocked the Strait of Hormuz, global oil prices surged (Brent crude surpassed $90 per barrel as of August 11). Domestic U.S. gasoline prices once soared above $6 per gallon, exacerbating inflationary pressures.

Geopolitical cost: Gulf states have realized that the presence of U.S. forces offers no real security, but instead redirects Iranian firepower toward their own borders. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan have signed mutual defense agreements—clearly signaling their intent to distance themselves from U.S. influence.

Mearsheimer’s commentary essentially represents a full reckoning by a representative figure of American realism regarding the U.S.-Israel-Iran war. His central judgment is that this war was built from the outset on a repeatedly debunked false assumption: the belief that a regional power with 85 million people, a complete industrial base, and a deep civilizational tradition could be forced into submission through military strikes and the punishment of civilians. In reality, this has not only failed to defeat Iran but has plunged the United States into multiple crises: ammunition depletion, economic damage, loss of allies, and a collapse of strategic credibility.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1873227554464779/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.