Read the full transcript of international relations scholar Professor John Mearsheimer’s interview on Piers Morgan Uncensored, October 14, 2025.
The Historic Day and Initial Reactions
PIERS MORGAN: Amid the positivity and relief about the prospect of peace in Gaza, not everyone’s been thrilled. But aside the U.S. president honoring Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Knesset, the fact remains that more people now than ever, including among Trump’s base, are deeply uncomfortable about Israel’s influence on US Politics and deeply skeptical about the prospects of a lasting peace while Netanyahu is still in power.
For his analysis, I’m joined now by international relations scholar Professor John Mearsheimer. Professor Mearsheimer, great to have you back on Uncensored.
JOHN MEARSHEIMER: I’m glad to be back, Piers.
PIERS MORGAN: It feels like a day of history today. What is your assessment of the ceasefire, of the dramatic release of all remaining living hostages and of the scenes on the Knesset with President Trump? What is your view of it all?
JOHN MEARSHEIMER: Well, I could make a number of points. First of all, it’s wonderful to see the hostages released for their sake and for their family’s sake. And it’s wonderful to see the Palestinian prisoners released as well. That is all a net positive.
In terms of President Trump and his performance in the Israeli Knesset, it was vintage Trump. He’s one of the greatest showmen of all time. His ability to put on a rock and roll show is just not to be underestimated. I don’t think there’s any other politician in our history or on the planet at this point in time who can operate before an audience as well as he does.
Now, with regard to substance, which is of course the key issue, I think that this hostage exchange, this temporary ceasefire and hostage exchange is definitely a move forward. But the two critical questions on the table are, number one, will you get a permanent ceasefire? Will the ceasefire hold? And then number two, will you get a genuine peace agreement at the end of this entire process?
And I think there is zero chance you’ll get a peace agreement. And I think the chances that this ceasefire will hold are not good at all.
PIERS MORGAN: Why?
The Challenge of Lasting Peace
JOHN MEARSHEIMER: Well, the Israelis are bent on destroying Hamas, and more importantly, they’re bent on ethnically cleansing the Palestinians from Gaza. That’s their principal goal. They have not defeated Hamas, and there’s no way that they’re going to end up disarming and defeating Hamas as a result of this ceasefire. It’s just not going to happen. And I can explain why.
And furthermore, the Israelis are not going to completely leave Gaza as long as Hamas is not defeated. And given that situation, coupled with the fact that Netanyahu and company are determined to drive the Palestinians out of Gaza, it’s only a matter of time, I think—I hope I’m wrong—before the ceasefire breaks down and we’re back to conflict.
By the way, Piers, you want to remember, right before President Trump took office, he took office on January 20. On January 19, a ceasefire was put into place. And that ceasefire lasted until March 18, when the Israelis broke it. But over the course of that ceasefire, the January to March 2025 ceasefire, 33 Israeli prisoners were released and five Thai prisoners were released.
So we have a precedent here. But the fact is, after this earlier hostage exchange, it broke down, the ceasefire broke down, and you were back to the genocide. And my great fear is that that’s what will happen this time.
The Question of Ethnic Cleansing
PIERS MORGAN: The thing that I was most concerned about in the last few months was the increasing rhetoric from the likes of Smotrich and Ben Gvir in the Israeli government, the hard right element of that government, where they were talking in the most brazen way about ethnic cleansing. They were making it crystal clear that they now saw the mission as kicking Palestinians out, cleansing Gaza, as they put it, and taking that land which they believed is their religious right.
But what’s interesting to me is today, coupled with all the scenes of hostages going home and Trump in the Knesset and so on, you also saw thousands of Palestinians going back into where the remains of their homes are to try and start rebuilding their lives. That is not consistent with my fear that Israel was really plotting to expel them all and keep them out. Are you not encouraged by the scenes of so many Palestinians being allowed to go back to where their homeland was?
JOHN MEARSHEIMER: It’s hard not to feel good about seeing the Palestinians return to their homes. It warms the cockles of my heart, although it’s terribly depressing to see what’s happened to their homes.
But the more important question, Piers, is what is the political settlement here? There are two big questions. Who is going to run Gaza? In other words, is there going to be Palestinian self-determination? Are the Palestinians going to run Gaza? That’s number one. And then number two, what is the political horizon? What is the end game here?
And with regard to the question of who is going to run Gaza now, it’s not going to be the Palestinians. It’s going to be President Trump and apparently Tony Blair and some of the Arab armies in the neighborhood are going to provide security. But the Palestinians are not going to have self-determination here. They’re not going to run Gaza.
And then more importantly, in terms of the long term, there’s not going to be any two-state solution. There’s no political solution here. So this one’s just going to go on and on.
The Prospects for a Two-State Solution
PIERS MORGAN: I mean, you’re very downbeat about it. But others who are involved at the sort of sharp end of negotiations, they do believe that out of the hell of the last two years, there is a genuine opportunity and a genuine collective will from the neighboring Arab and Muslim countries, including Turkey, Egypt, UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia to try and use this as a way of getting to a two-state solution.
Why are you so pessimistic about it?
JOHN MEARSHEIMER: I mean, Prime Minister Netanyahu has made it unequivocally clear on countless occasions that there’s not going to be a two-state solution.
PIERS MORGAN: But what if he’s not there?
JOHN MEARSHEIMER: It’s a position that’s widely shared in Israel. And after what’s happened over the past two years, do you think any Israeli is going to be interested in a two-state solution? Probably the number you can count on one hand. It’s just not going to happen.
The Israelis have already de facto annexed Gaza and de facto annexed the West Bank. Their principal goal now is to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians out of those two areas. The idea of ethnically cleansing Greater Israel has been wired into Zionism from the very beginning. This is why you had massive ethnic cleansing in 1948 and 1967. And here after 2023, you had a big war. And the Israelis always see big wars as an opportunity to ethnically cleanse. And that’s what they are trying to do.
Trump’s Role and the Abraham Accords
PIERS MORGAN: Okay, but there are two things I would say about that which may counter that rather doom-laden narrative. One is President Trump who has set his stall and his reputation and his legacy on this being a lasting peace. This is by his own admission on the plane, Air Force One last night. This is the biggest moment of his life that’s unfurling here. And I think he is determined to try and bring lasting peace.
And he is key to Israel’s ability to continue prosecuting a war against Hamas or to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians. He’s made it clear there can be no annexing of the West Bank. The Palestinians must be allowed to return home. So I’m encouraged by that.
And the secondary issue, which is more of an economic issue, which is that before October 7, Saudi Arabia was making a lot of signals that they wanted to join the Abraham Accords, which would have a very significant financial economic benefit for Israel if that happened. And that’s been put on hold for this war. But the signals again coming from Saudi Arabia, if this all gets resolved and if there’s peace in Gaza and they can move towards a two-state solution or at least have the sort of planks for that to go ahead, then they may join the Abraham Accords too, with all the benefit that would come to Israel. So there are two things there which I think would slightly counter your narrative.
JOHN MEARSHEIMER: Well, I would make two points. First, I think you greatly underestimate, Piers, how deeply committed the Israelis are to ethnically cleansing both Gaza and the West Bank. The Israelis now have a situation where there are roughly as many Palestinians as there are Israeli Jews inside of Greater Israel. And this is an unacceptable situation for most Israelis. And they’re completely committed to ethnically cleansing Gaza and then the West Bank. I think the evidence is overwhelming on this.
Now, you say President Trump sees this as a great opportunity to prove that he’s a statesman and he can bring peace to the Middle East. I think in principle that he’d love to do that. But I’ve written a book with Steve Walt on the Israel lobby and there’s absolutely no question in my mind that if President Trump gets rough with Prime Minister Netanyahu, Netanyahu will turn to the lobby and the lobby will force Trump to back off. There’s no way Trump is going to get tough with Netanyahu if he violates the ceasefire. Remember, he did that in March, on March 18.
Trump’s Power Over Netanyahu
PIERS MORGAN: Do you not think he’s already got tough with him? I think the catalyst for what we’ve seen today and the last few days, I think the catalyst was Israel’s attack on the Hamas negotiating team in Doha, which was unbelievably ill-advised. It was a catastrophic failure. They didn’t kill anyone from the Hamas negotiating team. They killed the Qatari security guy and other people unconnected with Hamas and the opprobrium this brought on Israel from all the leading leaders of the Middle Eastern countries and states around there was tremendous.
They all got on the phone to Trump and then an extraordinary thing happened. Donald Trump made Netanyahu get on the phone and apologize to the Prime Minister of Qatar. I’ve never heard of anything quite like that happening. It was a public humiliation for Netanyahu, and it showed me that Trump does wield a lot of power. I mean, if Trump was to suddenly say, we are withdrawing all military support and financial support for Israel, then Israel could not be the superpower that it is in the Middle East.
JOHN MEARSHEIMER: You’re absolutely right. There’s no question about it. Israel is amazingly dependent on the United States. Israel, when I was younger, prided itself on the ability to provide for its own. Israel did not want to be in a situation where it had to rely on another country for its defense. And it’s reached a point where it is extremely dependent on the United States. And this is not good for Israel from Israel’s point of view.
But the fact is the United States is not going to cut off its aid and assistance to Israel. It’s just not going to happen. And President Trump has never given any indication that he would do that. When President Trump says to Benjamin Netanyahu, “If you don’t accept a two-state solution, I will cut off all aid,” then I will apologize to you and say that you were right and I was wrong. But he has never even come close to that. As much as both you and I would like to see that happen.
Tony Blair’s Potential Role
PIERS MORGAN: When they talk about an interim kind of administration in Gaza and want to include Tony Blair, how feasible is it that Blair could be credibly involved in something like that? Trump has been saying you have to look at it today, but there’s been a lot of unrest there about Tony Blair’s involvement, given his track record with Iraq and so on.
JOHN MEARSHEIMER: Yeah, yeah. I think that Trump is beginning to back off on the idea of putting Tony Blair on the board of peace. I think there’s no question about that. But the key issue you want to ask yourself, Piers, is who is going to govern Gaza moving forward? If you’re a Palestinian, whether you’re in Hamas or not, you want the Palestinians to be in a position where they determine their own future.
PIERS MORGAN: Right.
Palestinian Self-Determination
JOHN MEARSHEIMER: If you’re a Palestinian, you want to run your own politics. And if you look at the arrangement that President Trump has set up, the Palestinians are not running their own politics. And by the way, he’s decided that at some point down the road the Palestinian Authority, after it has been re-educated, can take over in Gaza.
And you sort of say to yourself from a Palestinian point of view, what is this telling you? President Trump is going to decide who runs Gaza. This is unacceptable to us as Palestinians. And this is the basic problem that you face. Nobody in the West, and certainly the Israelis, are willing to allow the Palestinians to determine their own fate or to have a state of their own at the end of this political process.
And as long as you don’t do that, this conflict is going to go on and on, especially when you consider who’s in the driver’s seat in Tel Aviv.
Netanyahu’s Strategy and the Two-State Solution
PIERS MORGAN: But isn’t the reality on the ground there that Netanyahu operated a divide and rule quite deliberately between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority from 2006? He seemed either oblivious or oddly unconcerned by the fact that the billions of dollars he helped funnel to Hamas was being squandered on this elaborate tunnel system, as he was totally oblivious, it seemed, to any warnings of what may happen on October the seventh, which seems extraordinary to me given the powers that the Mossad has.
But that actually the only logical way, surely going forward is to no longer have a separate Palestinian government in the West Bank and Gaza, but to have a united government for both areas. Because they’ve shown that where you have to actually it can lead to massive instability, which is what I think Netanyahu wanted, but he didn’t realize just how bad it would get. Is there not a logic in having the same governing body in both the West Bank and Gaza?
JOHN MEARSHEIMER: Yes, there is. And if you’re in favor of a two-state solution, as you are, then you want the Palestinian Authority to be in charge, not only in the West Bank where they’re now in charge, but in Gaza as well. But you want to understand that Benjamin Netanyahu wanted Hamas in charge in Gaza because they don’t want a two-state solution.
PIERS MORGAN: Yes, I agree.
JOHN MEARSHEIMER: And he’s made it clear to President Trump now that he does not want the Palestinian Authority to take over in Gaza because his great fear is that that will mean movement toward a two-state solution, which he doesn’t want. This is the great problem that we face. It’s the Israelis more than anything, who were opposed to a two-state solution.
PIERS MORGAN: And you don’t think you’ve changed your leadership in Israel could have any impact on that?
JOHN MEARSHEIMER: Well, it’s widely believed in the West, as you know, that the problem here is Benjamin Netanyahu. And if only we can get rid of Benjamin Netanyahu, then enlightened Israelis will come to power and will live happily ever after. This is not true.
Benjamin Netanyahu gets elected time after time because his views reflect the views of most Israelis. And I believe that no matter who is driving the train in Israel, he or she will be committed to cleansing both the West Bank and Gaza. They want a greater Israel that has almost all Jews and no Palestinians.
The War in Ukraine
PIERS MORGAN: Let’s turn briefly to Ukraine, because Trump has said he wants to now go and get that sorted, albeit you don’t think he sorted the Middle East. But let’s assume for a moment he thinks he has, or at least got it on the right track by getting a ceasefire and the hostages released.
Where are we with Ukraine here? I mean, Trump’s been talking about, he has several conversations with President Zelensky in which they apparently discuss the use of Tomahawk missiles that America may give the Ukrainians to fire into Russia. How significant is that in terms of an escalation of American involvement? And where are we with the war, do you think?
JOHN MEARSHEIMER: Well, I think in terms of the war, it’s quite clear that the Russians are winning on the battlefield. The head of the Ukrainian army admits that his soldiers are outnumbered 3 to 1 overall on the front lines and 6 to 1 in some critically important places. And when you look at the balance of firepower, it greatly favors the Russians.
So the Russians are slowly but steadily winning and the Ukrainians are losing. And the question is, what can the West do about this? And the answer is, not much. There was talk for a while, as you remember, about secondary sanctions. This is where we put sanctions on India and China as a way of punishing Russia. We’ve given up on that.
PIERS MORGAN: Just on that point, though it’s interesting. I mean, he’s put 50% tariff on India, and he cited the fact that they buy too much oil and energy from Russia as the reason. Is that not an indication that Trump wants to try and destabilize Russia economically?
And that the best way to do that is to bring big purchases of his energy, like India, back into line by using very high aggressive tariffs against them until they stop buying Russian energy? Is that not what he’s up to? And is that not potentially quite an interesting strategy?
JOHN MEARSHEIMER: I think one can argue, just as you do, that putting 50% tariffs on India was designed to get India to break off its importing of oil from Russia. But what happened? It didn’t work. In fact, it backfired. It pushed the Indians and the Russians closer. It pushed the Indians, the Russians and the Chinese closer. It just simply didn’t work. We have no economic lever.
And now we’re flailing around talking about the possibility of giving Tomahawk missiles to the Ukrainians. I don’t believe that we have the Tomahawk missiles to give to the Ukrainians. I don’t believe Trump would give them to the Ukrainians. But even if he does, it’s not going to matter very much at all.
Remember, we gave him ATACMs, and that was supposed to be a war-winning weapon. We gave them HIMARS, we gave them F-16s. Those were all supposed to be the magic bullets. None of them panned out. The idea that giving the Ukrainians Tomahawks is going to turn this one around, shift the tide against the Russians and in Ukraine’s favor is delusional. The fact is Ukraine is going to lose the war. The West is going to lose the war. That’s a bitter pill to swallow, but that is reality.
Russia’s Demands and Trump’s Strategy
PIERS MORGAN: And if you were President Trump, what could you do that would have an effect on Putin to deter him from continuing to prosecute the war or to expand it?
JOHN MEARSHEIMER: Well, I think there’s nothing that President Trump can do. The Russians have made it unequivocally clear since the start of this war what their goals are. They have three principal goals.
Ukraine has to be neutral. It can’t be a NATO. It can’t have meaningful security guarantees. Number one. Number two, Ukraine and the West have to accept the four oblasts that Russia has annexed now belong to Russia, plus the Crimea. And then, number three, Ukraine has to be disarmed to the point where it doesn’t have significant offensive capability against Russia.
Those are conditions that the Russians have set out and are determined to stick to. And there’s no way Trump can do anything to move them away from those conditions. And the Russians are willing to fight until they create a situation where they get those conditions. And that’s where we are today.
So President Trump, I think, would like to work out a deal. He’d like to take into account what Russia’s demands are and work out a deal. But even if he did work out a deal, he could not get the Europeans and the Ukrainians to agree to that deal. They simply wouldn’t accept it.
So what Trump is actually doing, Piers, if you watch carefully, is he’s distancing himself from this conflict. He’s turning over the responsibility for running the conflict to the Europeans. He’s making them buy weapons from the United States to give to Ukraine. The United States is not directly giving weapons to the Ukrainians anymore.
And furthermore, Trump is doing just enough so that when Ukraine goes under, he cannot be blamed. For example, on the sanctions, think about the secondary sanctions we were talking about a minute ago. Trump said very cleverly that he would agree to the secondary sanctions if the Europeans also agreed to the secondary sanctions.
The Europeans, of course, are in no position to accept the secondary sanctions. So President Trump says, “I’m in favor of secondary sanctions, but the United States is not going to bear the sole burden of putting those sanctions on Russia.” And since the Europeans won’t go along, we won’t go along. So Trump can’t be blamed. He’s blaming the Europeans.
So Trump is slowly but steadily weaning himself, weaning the United States from the Ukraine conflict because he understands it’s a lost cause and he wants to turn it over to the Europeans and the Ukrainians to figure out how to put an end to it.
Putin’s Capabilities and Intentions
PIERS MORGAN: If Putin wins in Ukraine, though, what is to stop him doing this elsewhere?
JOHN MEARSHEIMER: The fact that he had so much difficulty and paid such an awful price, just conquering the eastern one-fifth of Ukraine means that he does not have the capability to conquer all of Ukraine, much less invade countries in Eastern Europe.
When you look at the raw capability of the Russian army, there is no way it can conquer all of Ukraine plus territory in Eastern Europe. Furthermore, when you look at what Putin has said over time, he has never once said that he was interested in conquering all of Ukraine, and he never has once said that he was conquering any territory in Eastern Europe.
This idea that he is interested in recreating the Soviet Union and then the Soviet empire in Eastern Europe is a figment of Westerners’ imaginations.
Historical Context of Modern Warfare
PIERS MORGAN: Final question, Professor Mearsheimer, because you probably know the answer to this, but there is a belief, I think Steven Pinker has talked about this, that despite all the attention we have with the Israel-Hamas war and Russia-Ukraine, that this is actually, in terms of warfare, the least warmongering period in recorded history. That actually there are fewer wars raging now than there have ever been. Is that your sense?
JOHN MEARSHEIMER: I think that what’s important to understand, Piers, is that the war in Ukraine is a war that bears marked resemblance to World War I. And furthermore, one can make a case that the United States is almost at war or at war with Russia. And this is what makes this period so special and so dangerous.
We have one particular war that stands out above all the other wars that we have seen actually since World War II. You and I are old enough to remember the Cold War. We had nothing like the Ukraine war. During the Cold War, it was unthinkable that the United States would support a country like Ukraine that invaded Mother Russia during the Cold War or supported a country like Ukraine that struck at the Russian strategic nuclear forces.
This is a really remarkable development in terms of where we are today. And if you look at the battlefield, what you see in eastern Ukraine does bear marked resemblance to what you saw on the Western front in World War I. So I think it’s that war that makes people think that this period is so different. And in that sense, it is very different.
But in terms of whether or not there are more or less wars now than over past decades, I think nothing much has changed there. But most of those wars were relatively small wars, nothing like the Ukraine war.
PIERS MORGAN: Professor Mearsheimer, it’s always a pleasure to have you on Uncensored. Thank you so much. I appreciate it.
Related Posts
