Transcription
The problem that the president faces is that Benjamin Netanyahu, number one, doesn't want a peace agreement, doesn't want a ceasefire. He wants to go back to bombing. And number two, he understands that by continuing the war in Lebanon, that he thwarts any movement towards a ceasefire.
So Trump is in a really difficult situation here because he's desperate, and it's very important to understand he is desperate to shut this war down and get the ceasefire in place and then get negotiations going. But he can't do that because Iran has made it such that the war in Lebanon has to be shut down at the same time before the ceasefire can kick in. And of course, Netanyahu, therefore, is at odds with Trump over what's happening in Lebanon. And Trump has been trying to get Netanyahu to cooperate with him. But Netanyahu has, in effect, given him the finger. And this is what prompted Trump, uh, to lash out at Netanyahu and a number of, I think, high-level Trump advisers to go to Axios and tell them about this phone call, all for the purpose of putting pressure on Netanyahu.
>> Chris, uh, let's run the full screen starting with the first one. So, this is what, uh, and Axios reports someone in the room with Trump overheard him say, I won't use the actual word. "You're effing crazy. Trump fumes at Netanyahu in call on Lebanon. You'd be in prison if it weren't for me. I'm saving your ass." This is Trump to Netanyahu last night. "Everybody hates you now. Everybody hates Israel because of this."
And then Netanyahu posts, posts the following. It basically tells Trump to go take a hike. "I spoke this evening with President Trump and told him that if Hezbollah does not stop firing at our cities and citizens, Israel will strike terrorist targets in Beirut. This position of ours remains ours, remains unchanged. Concurrently, the IDF will continue to operate as planned in southern Lebanon."
>> Or hold off on, on the further full screens. Chris, Trump says the IDF has turned around. Netanyahu says the IDF will continue. Who do you believe, Professor Mir Shimemer?
Well, there's no question that Netanyahu will try the war in Lebanon, whether it's bombing Beirut or attacking in southern Lebanon. And those are two somewhat different issues. It's very important to understand that. And I wouldn't be surprised if Netanyahu ends up agreeing not to bomb southern Beirut but nevertheless continues to fight in southern Lebanon, south of the Litani River. Uh, but the point is, Netanyahu does not want to concede to Trump's demand to stop the war altogether, to have a genuine ceasefire in Lebanon because, as I said before, he sees this war in Lebanon as a way of undermining any movement toward a ceasefire and certainly any movement toward a final deal between Iran and the United States. So, he basically has an in-your-face attitude towards President Trump at this point in time. And you see that reflected in what you just put up on the screen.
But here's the problem. The problem is that the international economy is heading toward the precipice, right? It's heading toward the edge of the cliff. And Trump is desperate to get some sort of settlement right away and get oil and gas and other products flowing through the Strait of Hormuz. But he can't do that until he shuts down the war in Lebanon because that's the clever strategy that the Iranians are employing. So, what you see is that Trump is upping the pressure on Netanyahu. And I believe that with the passage of time, that pressure on Netanyahu will just become greater and greater because the consequences of not shutting down the war in Lebanon and getting some sort of ceasefire and opening up the straits could be disastrous for the economy.
Do you believe that these, uh, quotations from Trump and Netanyahu, uh, were said in earnest or just performative?
Oh, I think that Trump would speak to Netanyahu. I mean, it's sort of typical Trump language. And, uh, I do believe that Trump is greatly frustrated by his dealings with the Israelis in general and Netanyahu in public. I mean, Netanyahu in particular. How could it be otherwise? So, I think Trump actually said this. What I think is very interesting is if you read the Axios piece, it appears there were, there were three separate people who told the reporter what had transpired in this conversation. This tells me that the administration was very interested in telling Barack Ravid, the reporter at Axios, exactly what happened, making it clear that Trump was furious and sourcing the story. Three different individuals. So, there's no mistaking that Trump is reading, uh, Netanyahu the riot act at this point in time.
>> Can Trump control Netanyahu as he boasts he can? Can he stop the invasion of Lebanon with a phone call?
Well, if he is determined to do that and the people around him are in agreement that this has to be done, he'll do it. And I've long argued that the only thing that will get him to do that is the threat of the international economy going off the cliff. And the problem here is that every, as every day goes by, more and more people are saying that we have to shut this one down very soon. And if this goes on into August, it could have catastrophic consequences for the world economy. And Trump absolutely doesn't want that to happen for obvious reasons. I'm sure everybody viewing the show understands that we cannot allow the international economy to go off a cliff. And that means that Trump has to put enormous pressure on Netanyahu. And he clearly has the levers. I mean, Israel is so dependent on us at this point in time that if Trump ever decided to play hardball with Israelis, he could quickly bring them to their knees. There's no question about that. It's just that up to now, no president has ever done that. Will Trump do it? Uh, I think the only circumstance under which he'll do it, as I've just said, is if the international economy is going to go off a cliff if he doesn't do it.
You know what I'm gonna ask you next, John? What about the lobby?
Well, it'll be a case of the lobby be damned if the alternative is going off the cliff. That's the point. The lobby is immensely powerful. I'm the last person in the world to dispute that. And I think for the time being, the lobby will continue to exert great pressure on Trump not to cross Netanyahu. And I'm sure he got lots of phone calls after this story was leaked. But at some point, uh, the lobby is going to lose its influence and Trump is just going to have to, uh, uh, lash out at Netanyahu and coerce him into stopping the war.
But look, let's assume that that happens. Let's assume that we get a genuine ceasefire. The question you then have to ask yourself is whether you think the Israelis will stick to that ceasefire over time or do you think that they'll do everything they can to sabotage it? And I would bet a lot of money that even if Trump can coerce them now, if he can play hardball with Israel and with the lobby and get a genuine ceasefire, uh, I think the Israelis, working with the lobby, will go to great lengths to undermine that.
Does the lobby have, um, leverage on Trump other than financial? Does the lobby have dirt on Trump?
I have no evidence of that. All I would say is that it certainly appears that that's the case. Uh, I don't think I've ever seen a president who is as subservient to Israel as Donald Trump is. It's really quite remarkable. Uh, I thought that Trump would, if anything, uh, be more independent of the lobby than any of his predecessors, certainly Joe Biden, but, uh, I do not see any evidence of that. And it does make one think that they must have some dirt on him. Uh, and given what we now know about the Epstein files, and given what we know about President Trump's close relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, it certainly is, uh, possible, uh, that the Israelis have a lot of dirt on Trump and they're using that to blackmail him. But again, I don't know that for a fact.
>> Will Turkey let Israel take as much of Lebanon as it wants?
>> Well, the question is, what are the Turks going to do? Uh, if >> you have an army many times the size of the IDF.
>> Yeah. The Turks are not going to get involved in Lebanon. They're not going to fight a war against Israel and Lebanon. It, it's just not going to happen. Uh, look, the Turks are fully aware that Israel is a threat to them. Naftali Bennett, the former Israeli prime minister, has basically said, uh, that Turkey is, uh, a mortal threat to Israel. Uh, and after Israel deals with Iran, uh, it will then have to turn its gun sights on Turkey and deal with Turkey. So, the Turks are under no illusions that the Israelis are ultimately true adversaries, but the Turks do not want to pick a fight, uh, with Israel. And I do not believe they'd go to war, uh, in Lebanon if Israel goes further in Lebanon.
>> Doesn't Turkey fly about 90% of Israel's oil?
That I don't know. I think the number is probably too high, but, uh, I'm not sure what the percentage is.
>> All right. I mean, I'm, I'm just, uh, trying to probe your thoughts about whether there are economic levers as well as military ones, uh, that Turkey, uh, can pull. Can Israel continue to invade Lebanon, occupy Gaza, assume the West Bank, and attack Iran without the active military and intelligence support of the United States?
>> You forgot that they're also in southern Syria, uh, not that far away from Damascus on top of all of those other instances you described. Uh, look, this military is overstretched. Uh, the chief of staff of the IDF has been complaining bitterly, uh, about how tired and run down the IDF is and some respite is required here. That's point one. But with point two, regarding your question, there's just absolutely no doubt that Israel couldn't conduct this highly aggressive and ambitious foreign policy without the immense support that it gets from the United States of America. Uh, as we've talked about many times on the show, uh, they could not have committed the genocide in Gaza without support from the United States. Uh, they couldn't be at war with Iran, uh, without the United States. I mean, reports have just come out that show that when the Iranians, uh, struck Israel with ballistic missiles, this is when the air war was going on, uh, between February 28th and April 8th. Uh, during that time, the United States was doing much more than Israel was doing to protect Israel. We used half, half, half of our THAAD missile interceptors for the purposes of defending Israel. We engaged many more incoming ballistic missiles from Iran than the Israelis did themselves, uh, with their Iron Dome program. Uh, so they, they under no circumstances could be waging all these wars, uh, without great assistance from the United States.
I, um, wonder if, uh, Trump is under pressure from the Pentagon to end the war because they're running so low on military gear and ammunition.
Oh, there's no question about that. I, I think there's no way that President Trump, uh, can restart the campaign [clears throat] given how we have run down the inventory of weaponry and munitions in Iran plus Ukraine. We don't want to lose sight of the fact that we gave a huge amount of weaponry to Ukraine, uh, over the past four plus years, uh, and now we've used, uh, a huge amount of our weaponry in fighting against Iran. And this has caused us, as I've said before on the show, to pivot away from East Asia, uh, when we should be pivoting to East Asia. Uh, so there's no way, uh, that, uh, President Trump, uh, can start up this war again. By the way, just on this point, uh, the Japanese had, uh, had bought, I think, 400 Tomahawk missiles from us, and we've now told the Japanese that we won't be able to deliver those 400 Tomahawk missiles to them anytime soon. It'll be in a few years' time. And why is that the case? Because by my count, uh, we've used about one-third of the inventory of Tomahawk missiles in the Gulf War, in this war that started February 28th.
Think, this is really malpractice, incompetence, malfeasance in office to allow America's, uh, offensive and defensive weaponry to be degraded like this.
Absolutely. This is just more evidence of the fact that Israel, which led us into the war, uh, is a strategic liability. It's an albatross around our neck. I mean, let's go back to the beginning of our conversation. What were we saying at the start of our conversation? We were saying that Israel not only got us into the war, they won't let us get out of the war.
>> Right?
>> They got us into a losing war. We want to get out of a losing war. And they won't let us get out of a losing war. They want to escalate. They want to restart the air war against Iran. And we cannot afford to fight the air war again against, uh, Iran. So Israel is a huge albatross around our neck. And now the, uh, National Defense Authorization Act for 2027, a thousand-page piece of legislation that very few members of Congress will read before voting in favor of. Basically funds the Pentagon. Also has some, um, I guess I can't call them Christmas tree ornaments, but it also has some goodies in there for, uh, the Israelis. An alliance between the IDF and the US military for sharing research, intel, uh, and military hardware. How could we possibly do that with another country? Moreover, a country with which we don't have a treaty of alliance. It's outrageous. There's no other word to describe this. Why more people in the national security, why more generals and admirals, uh, and former defense officials don't speak out against this behavior is, to me, stunning. This is just, this should be unacceptable, uh, to senior military officers and to senior defense officials. Uh, the idea that we are, uh, tying ourselves to Israel in this way just makes no strategic sense at all. But it's just more evidence of the power of the lobby. I mean, the fact is, on Capitol Hill, what you see is that the lobby basically controls what virtually every congressman and senator says or does when it comes to US-Israeli relations. And this is just another example of this. But it, it, it does mean that we are acting in strategically foolish ways.
>> Here is a from Reuters out just about 15 minutes ago. I only have to read the first two or three lines to you. Benjamin Netanyahu is under criticism at home after US President Donald Trump declared Israel would halt plans to attack Iran ally Hezbollah in Beirut, highlighting pressure the Israeli leader faces ahead of an election polls ahead of election polls showing him losing. Now Trump claimed, this is Trumpian language, the IDF turned around in Lebanon. Netanyahu claims, Chris, if you can put that, uh, um, full screen up. Netanyahu claims the IDF will continue to operate as planned in southern Lebanon. So, whom to believe, Professor Mir Shimemer?
Well, I think that for the time being, Netanyahu will go to great lengths to continue the war in southern Lebanon. He probably will not agree or not, he probably will agree to not bomb southern Beirut, but the southern part of Lebanon where the IDF is fighting on the ground, uh, and destroying villages and towns from the air. I think he will try, Netanyahu will try to continue, uh, that dimension of the conflict. But, uh, I believe at the same time that President Trump will go to great lengths to tell him that that is unacceptable. And the reason that Trump will do that is because the Iranians will tell Trump that there will be no ceasefire until Israel stops bombardment of Israel, excuse me, of Lebanon, whether it's in southern Beirut or in southern Lebanon itself. You got to get a genuine ceasefire. That's what the Iranians are demanding. And I believe Trump has gotten the message and he will try to convey that to Netanyahu. And again, my argument is only when the economic situation is threatening enough will you see Trump really lower the boom on Netanyahu.
>> Here's, uh, what our friend and colleague, in my case, longtime friend and colleague Larry Johnson, uh, posted on his website. Does Iran have a nuke? Well-placed source says yes. So Larry reported yesterday on this show and now has reaffirmed it that he and Pepe Escobar, another, um, friend of the show and friend of mine, received clarification on how Iran obtained a functioning, functioning, deliverable, functioning means deliverable nuke. Iran's objective is, with the backing of Pakistan, China, and Russia, to raise the risk to Israel of engaging in future attacks on Iran. Iran plans to detonate one of these in the Iranian desert to scare the daylights out of Netanyahu. Does this make sense to you?
I don't believe it. I mean, I have great respect, as you know, for both Larry and Pepe, and I listen to them when they're on your show all the time. Uh, but I find this hard to believe. First of all, I don't think Russia or China, the other two great powers in the system, uh, would give Iran a nuclear weapon. There has been no evidence of that along the way. And great powers like the United States, Russia, and China tend to be adamantly opposed to proliferation. They tend to be very hardline on proliferation. So, I don't see the Russians or the Chinese doing it. With regard to Pakistan, there has actually been talk over the years about Pakistan giving a nuclear weapon to Saudi Arabia if Saudi Arabia got into desperate straits, uh, to include Iran developing its own nuclear weapon. So, there's very close relations between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. And in fact, people have long argued that Saudi Arabia financed Pakistan's development of its nuclear arsenal. And the quid pro quo was that Pakistan would give Saudi Arabia a nuclear weapon if it was in dire straits. So, if you told me that Pakistan had decided to give Saudi Arabia a nuclear weapon, I might find that plausible. But with regard to Iran, it's very hard for me to imagine Pakistan giving Iran a nuclear weapon. Uh, it's very hard for me to imagine Pakistan even giving a nuclear weapon to Saudi Arabia, but that's more likely than Iran. So, I find this story to be hard to believe. That's not to say I might be proven wrong. But, uh, based on what I know, it doesn't sound right.
Do you think that the, uh, around Trump, I'm not asking you Trump himself because who knows what he thinks, the people around Trump, uh, run the day he withdrew from the JCPOA, the maximum enrichment was 3.67%, 67% verifiable by international, uh, inspectors. No inspectors since he tore it up in 2017.
Well, there's no question it was a major mistake. You remember when I debated, when Steve Walt and I debated, uh, Victoria Nuland and Mike Pompeo? Uh, Victoria Nuland made it clear that she thought it was a mistake to withdraw from the JCPOA. Pompeo, of course, who was Secretary of State at the time and therefore, uh, was one of the principal individuals in the first Trump administration responsible for withdrawing from the JCPOA, still thinks it's a good move, unsurprisingly. But Victoria Nuland thought it was a foolish move. And, uh, I think the fact that she thought that, uh, tells you that it's likely that a good number of people around President Trump, and maybe even President Trump himself, uh, wish they could go back and undo that. Uh, I think, uh, we'd be in a much better situation today. Uh, and we'd be in a better position moving forward had we not withdrawn from the JCPOA. Think that was a terribly foolish move by Trump.
Suppose Larry and Pepe are right and we wake up some morning and discover that Iran has detonated an enormous nuclear weapon in some safe way, in some safe, uh, place. What will the reaction be in Tel Aviv and in DC?
Well, a couple of points here, all closely related. First of all, if they got a nuclear weapon and they had only one nuclear weapon, they would have no incentive to explode that nuclear weapon because then they wouldn't have another nuclear weapon. So, for this story to be, uh, to make sense, they need at least two nuclear weapons. Okay? So, let's assume that they have two nuclear weapons, they explode one, and they have one left. The great danger that they risk in that situation is the Israelis will go after that one remaining nuclear weapon. Uh, you want to understand that Iran having nuclear weapons only produces stability if Iran has a survivable nuclear deterrent. What that means, Judge, is that if Israel strikes Iran with its nuclear arsenal, it cannot eliminate all of the nuclear weapons that Iran has. Iran, in that circumstance, has a second-strike capability. So, all I would say to you is, if they have only one remaining nuke after they test this one nuke or explode this one nuke, and the Israelis have any idea of where it is, the Israelis will go after it. And I would, I believe the Israelis would use a nuclear weapon to take it out. So, that would be an extremely dangerous situation. If Iran has nuclear weapons, we have to hope that it has a survivable deterrent. In other words, a nuclear first strike by the Israelis won't work, and Iran will be left with a retaliatory capability that would produce some stability. So, if Larry and Pepe are correct, we are getting into very dangerous waters.
Professor Mir Shimemer, thank you very much, my dear friend. Always great to chat with you. I didn't even get a chance to, because I have to run, to ask you about the latest in the special military operation in Ukraine, but that for next week. Safe travels. We'll look forward to seeing you, John.
>> Thank you, Judge. Look forward to seeing you next.