Read the full transcript of political scientist John Mearsheimer Vs Israeli philosopher Yoram Hazony on Israel vs. Iran – Debate, moderated by UnHerd’s Freddie Sayers (Jun 17, 2025).
Listen to the audio version here:
Freddie Sayers: We are on day five of the Israel-Iran conflict. And already there seems to be two completely different understandings of what is going on that seem unbridgeably divided. In one camp, this is understood as the brave and lonely Israeli government necessarily defending itself from a neighbor that is hell-bent on its destruction, and in fact, doing the world’s dirty work by taking out dangerous nuclear capabilities of a regime in Tehran that is a threat to the whole world, as usual, being greeted with condemnation instead of applause. That’s one view.
The opposite view is that a reckless government in Israel, hell-bent on its own political survival, is adding a new front to an already shameful destruction in Gaza, causing havoc, threatening world peace, and in fact, being given a free pass by a morally weak West. That’s the alternative extreme view.
So how should we try to make sense of it today? Instead of offering a fiery debate between two opposing sides, flame-throwing and insulting each other, we thought we’d find the very best, most eloquent and interesting, subtle spokespeople for each side and talk to them in sequence.
First, we’re going to talk to the world-famous Professor John Mearsheimer. This is someone who describes himself as a realist, someone who has been very vocal and influential in understanding the Ukraine-Russia conflict and has been a searing critic of Israel. He’s written whole books about what he calls the Israel lobby. He feels Israel’s influence on the United States is much too strong. And we felt that he would be an interesting person to put this conflict into context from that perspective.
Then we’re going to talk to Professor Yoram Hazony, also highly influential, both inside Israel, where he is resident and has lived most of his life, but also inside the United States and Europe, because as the founder of the national conservatism movement that now holds conferences across the world, he is really a big inspiration for people inside MAGA, inside the Trump movement and inside nationalist conservative movements across Europe.
Hopefully, at the end of hearing from both of them, we will be, if not completely clear, at least better educated about the different arguments on both sides.
John Mearsheimer’s Perspective
Freddie Sayers: John Mearsheimer, welcome to UnHerd.
John Mearsheimer: Hello, Freddie.
Freddie Sayers: Let me start with the biggest question, which is, what do you think Israel is trying to achieve?
John Mearsheimer: Well, I think their ultimate goal is to eliminate Iran’s nuclear capability. And basically that means making sure Iran has no enrichment. I think if they could get regime change, they would be happy with that. But I don’t think that’s the principal goal. I think the principal goal is to eliminate Iran’s nuclear capability or its ability to get a nuclear weapon. And I think to do that, they have to get the Americans in. I think they went into this thinking that by themselves they could not eliminate Iran’s nuclear enrichment capability. They’d need the Americans to do that. And I think they believe that once they got into it and the war developed, the Americans would come in and the Americans would do their dirty work for them.
Freddie Sayers: Well, there’s two components to that. On the nuclear aspect, do you think it’s fair enough that they cannot tolerate a neighbor that is avowed to their destruction having nuclear weapons?
John Mearsheimer: Well, I think they obviously don’t want Iran to have nuclear weapons for what are good strategic reasons from their point of view. And I would add to that, the United States does not want Iran to have nuclear weapons either. But the $64,000 question is whether or not we can prevent that, meaning the United States and or Israel. The fact is that if they want to get nuclear weapons, there’s nothing we can do to stop them. And all sorts of experts have said that. I recently heard Ehud Barak making that point, former prime minister of Israel. You just can’t prevent it if they decide they want to do it. And I certainly think that this Israeli operation is not going to do much at all to eliminate their enrichment capability.
Freddie Sayers: So you as a realist would say the strategic objective is understandable, but you don’t think they will achieve it through this method. So it’s a kind of pointless attack.
John Mearsheimer: Yeah, I think the Israelis by themselves cannot do it. Almost everybody I know agreed with that basic point before the operation that the Israelis by themselves couldn’t do it. It looked like we might, we meaning the Americans, might be able to do it because we have these 30,000 pound massive bombs that may be able to go down far enough into the ground to eliminate their enrichment capability. But the problem there, Freddie, is that even if you do eliminate the capability now, they’ll just rebuild it.
And I would note to you that they have announced that they have recently opened a third enrichment plant. And this one is even buried more deeply into the ground than the one at Fordow, which is the one that we’ve been concentrating on recently. So I just don’t think that over the long term you can eliminate their or Iran’s nuclear capability with military force.
The Role of American Involvement
Freddie Sayers: The second part of what you said is that you think key to their strategy is getting the Americans directly involved. Is that playing out? Do you think it’s going to happen? How do you see it playing out next?
John Mearsheimer: Well, it hasn’t happened yet. There’s no question the United States has been giving the Israelis assistance both before the operation started and since the operation has started. But Trump has gone to great lengths to make sure that we don’t get sucked into this. And if you listen to him talk over time, it’s not likely that we will get pulled in.
What’s happening here is he is watching how little success the Israelis are having and then thinking, what does this mean for us? You want to remember, we went to war against the Houthis. We were going to destroy the Houthis military capability. Trump promised that. After 30 days, Trump quit. He said the Houthis won. We couldn’t defeat the Houthis. We couldn’t eliminate their ability to launch missiles at ships in the Red Sea or to launch missiles at Israel.
But if we couldn’t defeat the Houthis, is it really plausible to think that we can go in with military force and do the job on Iran? I don’t think so. I mean, if you look at the history of air power, it’s quite clear that it has some utility but not great utility when it comes to defeating an adversary. What you invariably have to do is go in on the ground. And we’re not going in on the ground in Iran, nor are the Israelis. So what are we going to do in terms of eliminating this nuclear capability that Iran has with air power or missiles alone? And I think the answer is just not much.
Freddie Sayers: I mean, a lot of people reading Western newspapers and watching the coverage over the past three days will conclude the opposite, I think, which is that it seems to have been pretty effective. Chunks of the military leadership have been taken out. One of the leading nuclear scientists has been taken out. Some of their military capacity has been degraded. The response, such as it has been, has been…
You describe yourself as a realist in international policy terms. Do you think this administration, the Trump administration, is behaving in a realist way? I mean you’ve written a lot about the Israel lobby. Your general view seems to be that Israel has an extraordinary grip on American administrations and generally is allowed to do whatever it likes. Do you feel like this administration is different and that those new voices within the MAGA coalition that are more restrainist are winning out?
John Mearsheimer: No, I think that the lobby basically gets what it wants from Trump. There’s no evidence that Trump has stood up to the lobby in any meaningful way. That’s true I think both with regard to the Gaza genocide and with regard to what’s happening with Iran. If you look at what happened before this attack, it’s quite clear from all sorts of reports in the mainstream media that Trump colluded with the Israelis to bamboozle the Iranians and leave them vulnerable to a surprise attack. We’ve provided the Israelis with huge numbers of bombs and all sorts of other military equipment to wage war against Iran and to execute the genocide in Gaza. There’s no evidence that Trump is standing up to the lobby and I wouldn’t expect him to.
Freddie Sayers: Well, it’s not so far directly involved. I mean even that is something isn’t it? I mean it may not be true in a week or a month or a year from now, but for now, he may be allowing it that he is keeping the US out. And if you believe the news reports he vetoed an Israeli idea to try and assassinate the Supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei, do they not count as a realist or restrainer credentials?
John Mearsheimer: Well, first of all, I don’t know whether he really did tell the Israelis that they couldn’t try to kill Khamenei. Who knows where the truth lies on this one? Truth is not something that Donald Trump is comfortable with and one never knows what is really going on behind the scenes, but there may be some minor instances like this where Trump stands up to Israel. I wouldn’t be surprised but in terms of the basic relationship here, the Israelis get pretty much whatever they want as they have for decades on end.
And Freddie, I’ve argued for a long time and I believe it’s more true than ever that what the lobby wants for Israel is not in Israel’s interests. I think if you look at where Israel is today, it is in really deep trouble and that’s because the lobby makes it possible for the United States to support Israel unconditionally. Israel can do anything it wants and we support them and the lobby and Israel itself think this is really all for the good. I don’t think it’s all for the good and I think if you look at the situation that Israel is in today, it is not a good one.
Western Response to the Conflict
Freddie Sayers: How would you like the West, such as it is, to respond to this? Respond to what to do, the Israeli attack on Iran and the return fire? I mean if you were in charge either of the US or some kind of Western coalition, what would you like to see? Condemnation of the Israeli strikes, some kind of intervention? What should other Western countries be doing do you think?
John Mearsheimer: Well the only country that counts here is the United States and the United States should have put great pressure on Israel not to launch this attack. What we should have done is worked out an agreement with the Iranians similar to the JCPOA agreement that the Obama Administration worked out. If that failed and the Israelis went to war anyway, we should have gone to great lengths or we should be going to great lengths now to shut the war down. It’s just not in our interest to see this war go on because it may escalate. And the greatest threat to us is if it turns into a war that leads to the Iranians shutting down the Persian Gulf and the Houthis helping them to shut down the Red Sea. This will I think have disastrous consequences for the world economy. That’s certainly not in our interest. So I think we have an interest in shutting down the war. But again, I want to emphasize we should have shut down any talk of a war or any threat of a war before it happened last week.
Strait of Hormuz and American Military Involvement
Freddie Sayers: Let’s just try a couple of hypotheticals here. If the Iranians do attempt to shut down the Strait of Hormuz or really get involved in those shipping lanes, what should America do?
John Mearsheimer: I think the United States will go to great lengths to try to open up the Gulf, probably use its naval power. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Israelis would welcome this, right? I believe the Israelis will go to great lengths to bait us to get involved in the war and this would be one way of doing that. You want to remember in 2024 they tried to drag the Biden administration into a war against Iran on two separate occasions, one in April of 2024 and then one in October of 2024, and both times the Biden administration resisted. And of course the Trump administration is resisting now because it’s not in our interest to get involved in a war in the Middle East. And that’s again not just true for Donald Trump, it was true for Joe Biden as well.
So we’re trying not to get into this but if the war spins out of control and it involves interrupting the oil supply coming out of the Persian Gulf and out of the Red Sea in a major way, I think it’s likely the United States would move in militarily and that’s something we don’t want to happen.
Freddie Sayers: If that does happen, what does that do for the United States’ position in the world? I guess that’s a whole new front. It’s already trying to deal with Ukraine and the challenge from China. This would be another hot front. Is the United States powerful enough to sustain efforts on three fronts?
The China Challenge and Resource Allocation
John Mearsheimer: No question about that Freddie. I’ve been arguing for a long time that the principal threat the United States faces comes from China and what we should be doing is focusing laser-like on containing China, but we’re not able to do that because number one we’re pinned down in Ukraine and number two, we’re pinned down in the Persian Gulf. Now if you hypothesize a situation where an actual war breaks out in the Gulf that involves us, we will have to move even more assets from East Asia to the Gulf and this is certainly not in our interest. We need those air and sea assets that we’ve been keeping in the Gulf in recent months in East Asia. This is not a good situation. The Nimitz, the USS Nimitz, a major league aircraft carrier, is now leaving East Asia to come to the Gulf. It should stay in East Asia.
You want to remember in the war against the Houthis, one of the principal reasons that Trump quit that war is that we were expending ammunition, precious ammunition that we might need in East Asia against the Houthis and of course, it was having very little effect anyway. But it’s just important to understand that we’re robbing Peter to pay Paul here and that is not in our interest because China is the principal threat that the United States faces and we should be concentrating on pivoting fully to Asia and containing China.
Freddie Sayers: Could you not make the argument that Donald Trump is actually behaving in quite a John Mearsheimer-ish kind of way over this conflict? He’s saying fine, Israel has its own vital interest. If they want to do stuff in Iran, he’s going to step back and let them do that. They might be useful to him in some ways to take out some of their capacity, but he hasn’t got America involved so far. There is no U.S. direct involvement. He even appears to be kind of restraining some of the more dramatic ideas like taking out the Ayatollah. If he gets away with it and the net result is a weakened Iran which has taken steps back in its nuclear program and he avoids it spilling out to a wider conflict, is that a win for the U.S.?
John Mearsheimer: No, not at all. We have all sorts of assets pinned down in the Middle East that we don’t want to have there. They’re better in East Asia. It’s not in our interest to have all those assets in the Middle East, number one. And number two, as we were just talking about, there’s a serious chance we’re going to get sucked into a war. The last thing we need is another forever war in the Middle East. Trump was elected because he promised no more of these forever wars. And you want to remember in his previous term as president, he was the one who set in motion us getting out of Afghanistan. We’d probably still be in Afghanistan if he hadn’t set that train in motion.
So we don’t need any more wars in the Middle East. In fact, we don’t need any more wars period. We don’t need a war in East Asia either. What we want to do is contain China and not go to war with China. But to contain China you need to concentrate on doing that job, and that means keeping as many assets as possible in East Asia. And what’s happening in the Middle East is certainly not in our interest.
And then there’s the fact that this is doing enormous damage to our reputation. We support Israel, which is seen as a rogue state by most other countries outside of the West. And furthermore, with regard to Gaza, we’re basically colluding with the Israelis in terms of the execution of their genocide against the Palestinians. This is a disaster for us, for all those people who believe in the liberal international order and talk about Western civilization. When you look at what’s happening in Gaza and now what’s happening in Iran, we look like giant hypocrites. This is not in our interest. So we have all sorts of reasons for wanting to put an end to this war in Iran and for wanting to put an end to the genocide in Gaza.
Putin’s Strategic Advantage
Freddie Sayers: Whose interests do you think it is in? Because one name that has come into frame is Vladimir Putin. It was notable that he seemed to be the only leader that spoke to all three presidents or prime ministers involved in the 24 hours after the conflict broke out. And he’s offered himself already as some kind of mediator to any peace solution. Do you think Russia benefits from this war?
John Mearsheimer: I think Russia does benefit from this war. There’s no question about that. I think that it gives Putin certain standing, as you describe, and it forces us to focus on the Middle East and take our eye off Ukraine. So this is, I think, a good situation for Russia. I think it’s also a good situation for China. The Chinese must be very happy about the present situation that we’re in. We’re pinned down in Ukraine and now we’re pinned down even more than ever in the Middle East.
So from the Chinese point of view, they should hope the Ukraine war goes on forever because the United States will be unable to fully pivot to Asia because it’s pinned down in Ukraine. And now with this war going on in the Middle East, if we get sucked into it and we’re fighting against the Iranians in the Persian Gulf, this is manna from heaven for the Chinese. It just shows you how foolish the United States is when it comes to executing strategy. We’re up against two first-class strategists in Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin, and they beat us at almost every turn. It’s really quite remarkable.
Predicting the Future
Freddie Sayers: What do you think happens next, Professor Mearsheimer, if you put on your prediction lenses? I mean, what do you think we’ll see in the next two weeks?
John Mearsheimer: I don’t know for sure, Freddie. I mean, it looks like the Israelis are in a position where they simply can’t quit. And I think the Iranians are in a similar situation. The Israelis started this war and they promised that they were going to lambaste the Iranians and achieve certain goals. And to quit after a couple of days because you haven’t had success at achieving those goals I think is extremely unlikely. So I think the Israelis will stay in the fight. And it’s hard for me to imagine the Iranians dropping out of the fight. Are they going to admit defeat? I think that’s unlikely. So I think unless the United States comes in with a heavy hand, the fighting will go on.
Now, to argue against myself, one could say that’s true if both sides don’t run out of weapons. But it is the case that maybe the Iranians will run out of missiles or the Israelis will reach the point where their public just can’t tolerate any more punishment. And furthermore, their air force is being worn out on these long trips to and from Iran. And they want to call it quits. I don’t see either one of those things happening. My sense is that the Iranians have more than enough missiles to continue for at least a couple more weeks. And I think the Israelis will continue as well. I don’t think public opinion will force Netanyahu to call it quits. And I don’t think the Israelis will reach the point where they don’t have the ability to bomb Iran in a meaningful way. So I see this one going on.
Again, I think that the one chance that it comes to an end is if Trump were to intervene. And I think the scenario where that is most likely is one where you have an oil war, as we were talking about before. I think that’s one of the two nightmare scenarios here. An oil war, which would have, again, disastrous effects for the world economy. And then the possibility at some point that the Israelis think about using nuclear weapons. If you’re the Israelis and you do really believe that Iran is an existential threat and you can’t eliminate that existential threat with conventional weapons, you may very well begin to countenance using nuclear weapons to deal with the threat. And I think if that were the case, the Americans would move in with a heavy hand to prevent the Israelis from launching a nuclear attack on Iran.
Iran’s Nuclear Capabilities
Freddie Sayers: Final question for you, Professor. We talked a little bit about the Iranian program and them enriching uranium. What’s your view on whether they are actually building nuclear weapons? Because we had Tulsi Gabbard just earlier in March. She was saying that the United States intelligence community does not believe that Iran is currently building a nuclear weapon. She said there’s a stockpile of enriched uranium. There’s nuclear ambition. She doesn’t think they’re building a nuclear weapon. Is your view that they are and there’s nothing we can do about it or that this whole thing is not actually real?
John Mearsheimer: Well, something in between, Freddie. I don’t think they’re building a nuclear weapon at this point in time. But what they are doing is they are enriching uranium up to 60%. And if you enrich uranium up to 90%, then you have weapons-grade material. And to get from 60% to 90% is very easy. All that is a way of saying that their enrichment capability is so sophisticated that they could easily produce weapons-grade material for probably about 10 bombs in, I’d say, two weeks’ time.
But that’s not a bomb. They would then have to build a bomb, and they would have to mount it on a ballistic missile that could deliver it. And most people think that that would take about a year, maybe 10 months, maybe 14 months, but roughly a year. So it would take a good year to build a deliverable bomb. But again, it would only take about two weeks to have weapons-grade material. And you could understand why, from Israel’s point of view, this is an absolutely terrible situation.
So the argument here is not that Iran is developing a bomb, but it’s getting close to the point where it would be easy to move to having a bomb. And what the Israelis want to do, of course, is they want to eliminate that enrichment capability. Because once you get rid of Iran’s ability to enrich uranium, then they can’t build a bomb. And, by the way, the JCPOA, the nuclear agreement that the Obama administration worked out
in 2015 with the Iranians and a handful of other countries, was designed not to eliminate the enrichment capability, but to make it virtually impossible for Iran to enrich uranium to the point where they had weapons-grade material. And of course, the Israelis hated the JCPOA, and the Israelis pushed the first Trump administration to walk away from the JCPOA simply because it left Iran with an enrichment capability. So even though Iran couldn’t enrich up to 90 percent under the JCPOA, the mere fact that Iran had an enrichment capability was unacceptable to the Israelis. And again, I can understand why that is unacceptable to the Israelis. But the question you have to ask yourself is, what can they do about that? Can they eliminate that enrichment capability once and for all? And the answer is that they can’t. And I don’t think we can either. And this is why the Obama administration argued that the best alternative was to have this agreement that greatly limited their ability to enrich up to weapons-grade material. But the long answer is that, or the short answer is, Freddie, that they’re not developing a bomb.
Freddie Sayers: So it sounds like you are almost fatalistic about it, that you think if they really want it, Iran will have weapons-grade uranium, and if they want to mount it onto a warhead, they can.
John Mearsheimer: Let me make two points. I think that we could have had another JCPOA-like agreement, and maybe even a better one, and they would not have developed the bomb. So I think that there’s no way we could have gotten the Iranians to give up their ability to enrich, which the Israelis find unacceptable. But I think the second best alternative here, or the least bad alternative, I guess that’s a better way of putting it, is to have a situation where you have a JCPOA. But the idea that you’re going to go out and get the Iranian nuclear capability and eliminate it once and for all is just not in the cards. You just can’t do that.
## Iran’s Strategic Incentives for Nuclear Weapons
And my second point that I would make to you is, I think you want to ask yourself whether or not the Iranians are going to get a bomb after what’s happened over the past couple days. I’ve long argued that if I were the national security advisor in Iran, they would have had a bomb a long time ago. I think from Iran’s point of view, they were foolish not to get a bomb long ago. Look at Kim Jong-un and North Korea. We’re not going to attack North Korea. The South Koreans are not going to attack North Korea because North Korea has nuclear weapons. Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons. Libya didn’t have nuclear weapons. Iraq didn’t have nuclear weapons. If you don’t have nuclear weapons, the United States or the Israelis will attack you. The lesson that comes out of this whole conflict so far is that Iran has more powerful incentives than ever to acquire nuclear weapons. So hopefully that won’t happen. But you can make a very good case that if anything, this operation makes it more likely, not less likely, that they’ll get nuclear weapons.
My final point on this, which I think illustrates why Iran should have gotten nuclear weapons, is that a number of years ago, Ehud Barak, the former prime minister of Israel, said that, I believe Iran is trying to acquire nuclear weapons because it makes so much strategic sense. Just think about what Barak was saying. He understood that from Iran’s point of view, it made strategic sense to get nuclear weapons. I mean, just look at the Israelis and the Americans. The Israelis have nuclear weapons, Freddie. You don’t see them trying to get rid of their nuclear weapons, do you? Of course you don’t. And the reason is the Israelis understand full well they’re the ultimate deterrent. You don’t see the United States that has the most powerful conventional forces on the planet getting rid of its nuclear weapons, do you? No. Why? Because they are the ultimate deterrent. Well, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. And if that logic applies to Israel and the United States, and it does, why doesn’t it apply to Iran? And it does. And again, if Iran had nuclear weapons, I don’t think this war that’s now taking place would be taking place.
So I think, if anything, we’re worse off with regard to preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons. And again, I want to emphasize that from an American point of view, it’s not in their interest to see Iran have nuclear weapons. I’m not making the argument here that it would be good if Iran had nuclear weapons. It would not. We do not want them to have nuclear weapons, because we understand what the proliferation consequences are of that happening. And there are all sorts of other downsides as well. But again, I’m not sure this is a smart way to go about preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state.
Freddie Sayers: John Mearsheimer, thank you for your time.
## Introduction of Yoram Hazony
Next up, we are joined by Professor Yoram Hazony from Jerusalem, where he is a professor and where he has been kept up most of the night by sirens and alarms as the rockets continue to fall. Professor Hazony is also the author of “The Virtue of Nationalism,” which is just about to be reissued, a very influential book and in a sense, part of the founding of the nationalism movement that has swept up so much of Europe. And of course, the United States administration, he remains a very big source of inspiration for people across the Trump movement, as well as those governments that are turning more nationalist in Europe. So we’ve been really looking forward to hearing from you, Professor, and welcome to UnHerd.
Yoram Hazony: Absolutely. Thank you.
## Israel’s Long-Term War Strategy
Freddie Sayers: Yoram, let me start by asking, what do you believe the purpose of this Israeli action actually is?
Yoram Hazony: Let’s think back to October 7th, 2023, with the horrific surprise invasion of Israel from Gaza by an Iranian-supplied, Iranian-backed, Iranian-funded Hamas terrorist organization. Now, if you remember those days, within a few days after that attack, Prime Minister Netanyahu, the Chief of the General Military Staff, and the Defense Minister appeared on Israeli television, spoke before the Israeli and Jewish people and before the world, and described the war that was coming. And Netanyahu’s description was of a long war. He said that it will be a war of months, if not years. And the outline was already there. It was clear that the source of this horrific atrocity was in Iran, and that the goal would have to be to peel back, stage by stage, the protective layers of Iranian proxies that had been built up over 25 years on Israel’s borders, and then eventually to take the war to Iran.
So what we are seeing now, over the last few days, is the culmination of that Israeli campaign that was promised back in those days. Israel has, in fact, been at war with Iran for decades. But the stage at which the Iranians thought that they would be able to move quickly to destroy Israel, we finally reached there. And the Israeli public, left and right, is completely united around the clear understanding that this is a genocidal regime, which has promised to destroy Israel many, many times on a daily basis, chant death to Israel. And Israel can’t live with an Iranian nuclear weapon. Israel can’t live with ballistic missiles that can carry nuclear warheads and can reach the state of Israel, and by the way, reach plenty of other countries as well. But our interest at the moment is absolutely clear. It’s been the same as it has been for the last two years, which is to eliminate Iran’s nuclear capacity.
## The Achievability of Eliminating Iran’s Nuclear Program
Freddie Sayers: Do you think that is an achievable objective? There’s the specific question of nuclear capacity that can be eroded, if not completely destroyed. But the underlying question which you started with, which is why does this regime continue to fund proxies that are intent on the destruction of Israel? Will that be helped or hindered by bombing Iran? I mean, even if it’s successful in the short term, won’t Israel just increase the enmity that that regime feels towards Israel?
Yoram Hazony: It’s a completely fair question, but I hope you don’t mind a frank answer. When somebody’s developing nuclear weapons with the declared explicit aim of eradicating you and your children and your entire population, then you don’t worry about making them matter. They’re already at maximum. And so the things can only improve from where they are right now from the perspective of the state of Israel. With regard to your particular question, is it possible for us to achieve the elimination of Iran’s nuclear program? The answer is absolutely yes, it’s possible. I’m not
Yoram Hazony: I’m not saying that it’s simple, because as you know, some of these facilities are buried deep underground, under mountains. The options for Israel to attack those facilities alone, they do exist. There’s a number of possible ways in which even under Fordow and other sites buried deep underground, there are ways that given time, Israel should be able to do this alone. But of course, these days, there’s also the question that the Americans are going to be deciding about whether they are going to join into the campaign. This is not something I would call for. It’s not something I would ever ask for. The Americans have to make that decision themselves. One of the possible ways that this is going to unfold is that President Trump decides that it’s in the American national interest, and that they assist with the particularly difficult aspects of this campaign.
Freddie Sayers: I mean, this is now getting to the heart of it, because there’s a lot of paranoia and allegations around this, that actually all of this is a precursor to involving the US directly. Do you believe that it is Israel’s objective to get the Americans directly involved? Because as you seem to imply, they’re kind of necessary to complete the job as regards the nuclear facilities.
Yoram Hazony: No, I don’t think that they’re necessary. That’s certainly not Israel’s official position. And I believe Israel’s official position is, in fact, realistic. My friend, the Foreign Minister, Guy Dansar, and the National Security Advisor, Tzachi Hanegbi, both of them have clarified in the last couple of days that this campaign has been designed by Israel to end the Iranian nuclear program on the basis of Israel alone. And the details of this, I don’t think it’s responsible for me to go too far into this. But suffice to say that Israel in the last two years has practiced, this is a matter of public knowledge, anyone can check this, different techniques for using the arsenal that Israel has at this time for tunneling deep underground. We’ve used that effectively against the Hezbollah and also for ground operations against sensitive sites and there are other options. Israel, given enough time, Israel can do this alone.
Freddie Sayers: So you think there will be ground operations, Professor Hazony?
Yoram Hazony: There already are ground operations. The reason for the extraordinary successes of Israel in the first several days of this war is because Mossad is active all over Iran. Iran’s been our number one enemy for 20 years and these operations have been planned carefully over the course of 20 years. You got to see the way it works and the way it comes to fruition already in the war against Hezbollah and the same techniques, many of the same techniques have already been used in the war against Iran. Yes, Israel has the capacity to do it. The difference between Israel’s capacity and America’s capacity is that the United States can send in B-2 bombers and drop munitions that are much, much larger than anything that Israel has. But Israel will complete this operation with or without the United States. That’s not a slogan, that’s a plan. That is what is in fact planned.
Division on the American Right
Freddie Sayers: Are you surprised by the level of division on the political right in the United States about this? I mean, your thinking, your way of your philosophy of national conservatism has been a big source of inspiration for many people within the MAGA movement. And now we find that it’s divided into itself with people like Tucker Carlson, really very strongly advocating what he would call restraint. Others would might call isolationism, staying out of conflicts like this. And others now apparently, including the president himself, saying that it is crucial to America’s national interest that Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons. Are you surprised by the level of division and what do you make of it?
Yoram Hazony: Well, division was always there. I mean, you know as well as I do that part of what’s been fascinating and gratifying about the arguments on the right over the last decade is that these are extremely diverse movements where there’s been a great deal of openness on many different subjects. The nationalist conservatives have always had internal disagreements on issues like appropriate foreign policy. You know, we’re united in thinking that the global liberal empire, if you can call it that, the idea that America has to be the world’s policeman and to engage in conflict in every corner of the world in order to spread liberalism, that’s obviously been extremely controversial. And everyone on the nationalist right is skeptical of those old liberal internationalist policies. But the question of whether the United States should become, you know, kind of like a pacifist nation, a country that does not support wars and does not get involved with wars at all. Well, that question has come to a head in the last few months.
Yoram Hazony: And look, there’s always been different schools on this. One school, we could call it the Trump Doctrine School, advocated by thinkers like Michael Anton and myself and others. The Trump Doctrine, as it was discussed in 2018, 2019 and going forward, was not a doctrine of pacifism. It was a doctrine of building up regional allies in different places of the world and allowing them the freedom to protect their own interests and in so doing to protect American and Western interests. So this discussion has been not just with respect to Israel, but with respect to the UK, to Poland, India, Australia, Japan, maybe Greece. There are plenty of countries in the world that either have the ability or potentially have the ability to play the role of taking care of security threats, serious security threats within their own regions.
Yoram Hazony: And so although Tucker Carlson and I would agree that the United States is overextended, that it can’t afford financially and morally in terms of the public support within the country, the United States cannot protect every country in the world, every region in the world against predators, against the Russians, against Islamic radicalism, against China. The United States can’t do that. But where Tucker and I would, it seems, disagree is over the question of whether the United States has any kind of interest in supporting regional allies as they make their regions safer for Western and American interests. So there is a very serious disagreement about it. The issue is important and it’s substantive. I’m sorry that it’s reached the degree of acrimony and mudslinging that it has reached. But obviously, this is a very important issue for everybody.
Concerns About Repeating Past Mistakes
Freddie Sayers: I guess what people, some of them are worried about is that it all feels a little bit sort of 2003. I mean, there is talk of regime change explicitly from some in the Israeli administration. You know, what would the result be of toppling the Iranian regime? We’ve learned now to be careful what you wish for after the disasters of Iraq. Would it lead to breaking up of the country? Would it lead to civil war? Would it lead to mass amounts of immigration into Europe? Would it lead to a vast oil conflict that would crash the global economy? Why are they wrong to fear that we’re just looking like we’re about to repeat the mistakes of that period?
Yoram Hazony: First of all, people, the people who are worried about that are right. I mean, I personally am not the kind of person who bangs the drum for American military involvement. I’ve never called for or supported American military action in Iraq or in Afghanistan for regime change in Egypt or even in Serbia or much less places like Ukraine. I’m very skeptical, as is much of the nationalist right of most of this. In fact, the entire theory of the United States ruling the world through regime change operations by force. So I understand these worries and I agree to them.
Yoram Hazony: With respect to there have been voices in the Israeli government speaking about regime change. I think people are right to be worried about it. But I don’t think that the Israeli internal debate is similar to the American or even the European internal debate. When Israelis talk about toppling the regime of the Ayatollahs, they are not talking about occupying militarily with ground forces, occupying the nation of Iran. They’re not talking about attempting to impose liberal democracy on the nation of Iran through an occupation of decades. None of these things cross the minds of any of the Israeli decision makers.
Freddie Sayers: Well, apparently they were talking about an assassination attempt on the supreme leader, which would be about as provocative a central move against an administration as you can make.
Yoram Hazony: But these are two different things. It’s one thing to talk about. Look, I, you know, I’m not the decision
Israeli vs. American Perspectives on Iran Strategy
But it’s very important if you want to understand what is being said and thought about in Israel, then it’s important to understand that the entire complex of ideas that are associated with the neoconservative regime change operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Egypt and so on, that entire complex of ideas is not endorsed by any party in the Israeli political system or military. The Americans do have this problem that they think some sections, some factions of the American public discourse do in fact think in terms of will go in and will occupy Iran and will by force of weapons and willpower and the incredible brilliance of our Enlightenment liberal ideas, we will turn Iran into a liberal democracy. There’s no one in the state of Israel endorses this kind of policy. No one, not Netanyahu, not the general staff, none of the political parties in Israel. So although the goal of the Israeli operation is elimination of the nuclear program, not regime change.
And this is important to say this, that when President Trump says that the goal is for Iran not to have a bomb, and Trump has said this many times, if it can be done by diplomacy and negotiation, we’ll do it by diplomacy and negotiation. If it can’t, then we’ll do it another way. So that is, in fact, the correct policy, and that’s also Israel’s policy. If the Trump administration steps forward in the coming days, in the coming hours, possibly, with a new Iranian proposal, and the Iranians are willing to commit to the dismantling of their nuclear program and their ballistic missiles program, if that is on the table, then Israel would be happy. Israelis would be happy.
It sounds unlikely, doesn’t it? It’s unlikely because of the nature of our enemy. This possibility was open not just in the last few months of Trump diplomacy. For 20 years there have been attempts by Western governments, by the Americans, the British, the French, and others, to attempt to bring Iran to this kind of a position. It’s failed, and it’s brought the Iranian regime to the brink of destruction. But it doesn’t change our values. We’re not interested in having this war. We’re interested in Iran not having a nuclear weapons program.
National Conservatism and Divergent Interests
Freddie Sayers: I wonder if this moment is quite a decisive one also for your movement, because it’s become almost a global movement. You are the figurehead of, I would say, the national conservatism movement, and there are now national conservatism conferences in the United States, in Europe, here in London. It has become a global movement, but it’s, as I understand it, correct me if I’m wrong, it’s predicated on the idea that national self-interest is a virtuous thing and we should not be ashamed of it. That all makes sense until a moment like this where you’re sitting in Jerusalem and you’ve been kept up all night by sirens, and your national self-interest is much more clear in terms of at least what the Israelis believe their national self-interest is as regards Iran. But people sitting in Washington, DC, many of them don’t feel like this is part of the United States self-interest. So I’m wondering if this becomes a crisis for the global national conservatism movement where suddenly everyone’s interests aren’t aligned anymore.
Yoram Hazony: I don’t really see it as a crisis. The beauty of the nationalist theory, the beauty of it always was that unlike liberalism and unlike Marxism, it doesn’t claim to be able to dictate a one clear answer that fits everyone at every time and place in history. It’s not a utopian political theory. It’s a much more realistic political theory, which assumes that the reason that we need to have a world of independent nations, the reason that we need the concept, the principle of national independence, is because it’s impossible for the countless nations and peoples of the world to always have the same interests. So that’s baked into the cake. If you want there to be one uniform answer to political questions, then you’re attracted to these theories of world liberal government or world Marxist revolution. Of course, they also don’t come to one concrete answer. That’s the utopian part of the theory.
But this is what’s good about nationalism, is that the Americans should not have identical views of their interests from 7,000 miles away to the Jews living in the state of Israel. We’re not going to have the same interests, which means that sometimes we’ll disagree and sometimes we’ll argue and there’ll be give and take. And we still don’t know whether the Americans are going to decide to join in this war or not. But either way, the tremendous thing that I really would like to give President Trump credit for the tremendous positive thing that’s happening, the state of Israel has been endangered by Iran’s nuclear program for two decades. Beginning in 2010, under President Obama, the state of Israel has repeatedly reached the point that a wall-to-wall left and right coalition in Israel agreed that Iran’s nuclear program has to be taken out. In 2010, we have the first instance of many in which President Obama suppresses by threats the Israel’s attempt to defend itself. And this is not a reasonable, in my view, a reasonable way for nations to govern the relations between them.
America cannot have the same interests as Israel at all times. And that means that Israel, like the UK in Eastern Europe, it may be that the UK will decide that, you know, I’m not recommending this, but it’s possible that the UK will decide that its interests require British military deployments in Ukraine. And the Americans will say that’s not in our interests. But having a president like President Trump who will say, look, different countries have different interests, you need to look out for your interests first as you see them. I mean, that’s the nature of democracy, is your people will see its interests in a certain way and your government will honor and take seriously the interests of the English or the British people. That’s the kind of world we would like to see.
American Strategic Priorities and Regional Security
Freddie Sayers: Wearing your American hat. Do you understand those who think that big picture America’s most important interest is in containing China? This is the view held by people like Elbridge Colby, who is now in the Trump administration is even people who are from very different political viewpoint, like John Mearsheimer, who we spoke to earlier. The view there is that there is too much entanglement in Europe with regard to Ukraine, and there is too much entanglement in the Middle East and that for America to protect its most important interest, it needs to focus its energy on China and therefore big picture. They may take the view that they do not want to get entangled in this Iran-Israel conflict. Do you understand that kind of estimation of America’s interests?
Yoram Hazony: For sure. My views of American policy are almost identical to Elbridge Colby’s. I consider him to be a good friend. But with respect to China, I completely agree with him, and I’ve written this many times, that America is the only power in the world that is capable of facing the threat that all of us face from an expansionist and brutal Chinese regime. He’s absolutely correct that the United States needs to focus on it. That’s part of the Trump doctrine, is that the Brits and the Europeans can and should be focused on security in Europe, and Israel and its allies in the Middle East can and should be focused on Iran. And America’s focus should not be on Iran.
On this, I completely agree with people like Tucker Carlson, who say that an American regime change operation in Iran to invade Iran and take it over and try to reshape it for 10 or 20 years, this would be catastrophic for the United States. The United States has to have a foreign policy. I don’t buy that America can just be this sort of pacifist country behind its oceans. But Bridge is right that the United States has to focus its foreign policy on China. And with respect to the Middle East, the United States should support the emergence of powerful allies that can take care of business here in the Middle East without pulling the United States into it.
Freddie Sayers: So my understanding of what you said, as a way of kind of squaring nationalism with America possibly being involved in a conflict so far away, is that you would like to see us move to a kind of regional security structure, where there would be a strong country or group of countries in each region that basically run it or look after the security of it.
Freddie Sayers: And what you’re suggesting is that the United States will look after the North American region or the region it’s in. Europe should look after Europe. And what, Israel should look after the Middle East? Or how does that work? Is Israel strong enough on its own to kind of run that entire region?
Yoram Hazony: First of all, America is not at this stage of history going to become a regional power. When I say that America’s first priority has to be meeting the threat with China, that’s not regional. That is a much larger mission than the UK or Israel or any of the other American allies can take responsibility for. The idea is that the UK and Israel and our allies should be able to take care of other regions in order to free up the Americans to deal with China.
With respect to Israel’s position in the region, I actually think that the signs of regional security structure are already well underway and in place. The first Trump administration, working with Netanyahu, were able to, with the Abraham Accords, to, for the first time, bring about the kind of, the beginning of the kind of architecture that would bring Jews and Arabs together in defending the region against two major forces that threaten this region. I’m leaving China aside for a moment.
The major security concerns in our region are from radical Islam and there’s two different versions of it. There’s the Iranian version and there’s the Muslim Brotherhood. Muslim Brotherhood is backed by Turkey and Qatar. Iran mostly backs Shiite organizations like the Houthis and the former Assad regime was aligned with that. But Iran also has its fingers in the Muslim Brotherhood as well. Those are the major threats to every regime in this region, to Israel, to the Gulf States, to Egypt, Jordan. All of us face that threat.
Part of the goal, part of Netanyahu’s goal in defanging Iran, in removing the threat of a nuclear Iran, is to pave the way for peace between Israel and countries like Saudi Arabia that have not yet joined the Abraham Accords. Syria is, you know, in theory a possible example, although not clear that the regime there really is capable of that kind of thing, but we will see. So the beginnings of a regional architecture, security architecture are there.
Freddie Sayers: It’s almost paradoxically, you’d argue then that America to be involved in so far as it’s facilitating this new architecture into being, perhaps some alliance between Israel, Saudi, some other Gulf States that are friendly to Western regimes to keep the long-term security of that area is actually a form of extrication from the region.
Limited Resources and Strategic Focus
Yoram Hazony: For sure. Look, this is something that I think should be obvious, but unfortunately, you know, all those decades of liberal internationalist arguments from Americans and from many in the EU have clouded the nature of international power politics. No nation has infinite resources. It can’t be everywhere. It’s ridiculous. I mean, I know Bill Clinton used to talk like that, but in reality, resources are always limited. Even a vast country like the United States has limited resources and it’s not just a matter of limited financial resources or limited willpower to send your sons and daughters to go die on the other side of the planet in wars that don’t directly affect you. It’s not just that.
Political leaders also have, and by the way, about this Tucker Carlson is correct, that American government has limited attention, that the president of the United States, he may have hundreds of staffers. It doesn’t matter. It is limited by nature, by human nature, limited cognitively in the number of issues that it can deal with.
The possibility that America should be able to take an endless festering problem like Red Sea piracy, the freedom of shipping in the Red Sea and the Straits of Hormuz and the Gulf of Aden, all of these are things that weigh on the American security mind and it’s not necessary. There are powers in this region that you can imagine in my new version of the expanded version of the virtue of nationalism, there’s a discussion of this Red Sea problem, the liberal internationalist theory that America is responsible for the Red Sea. Well, that’s utopian. That’s ridiculous. The Americans, they can’t be everywhere.
But also the sort of pacifist view that says, no, America doesn’t have to care at all what happens in the Red Sea because that’s 7,000 miles away from us, that’s also ridiculous. What? You mean that if American interests are endangered in the Red Sea, then the only answer is that the United States needs to be able to deploy to the Red Sea unilaterally and take care of it. That’s just as ridiculous a view as the liberal internationalist one. You end up in the same place that the United States is ultimately responsible for securing its shipping in the Red Sea.
The only common sense alternative is there are other powers in this region. There’s Israel and the Gulf States, there’s Ethiopia, there’s Greece, there’s India, among these nations, we ought to be able to put together with some effort and appropriate resolution of ensuring the safety of American and other shipping in this part of the world. And of course, America should be interested in that kind of a coalition, but not because America has to govern that coalition, to run it itself. That makes no sense. The whole idea of the Trump doctrine is that America can focus its attention on domestic issues and on the security threat of a rising China and allow these other conflicts to be resolved by regional players.
Freddie Sayers: Yoram Hazony, thank you so much for your time.
Yoram Hazony: My pleasure.
Freddie Sayers: Thanks there to Professor Yoram Hazony.
Conclusion
So the two professors we heard from in a sense are complete opposites. One is a staunch critic of Israel and what he calls the Israel lobby. And one is an Israeli, it was talking to us from Jerusalem. Both of them take very different views on the wisdom of this conflict and whether it’s in Israel’s interests or in the United States interest to get involved. And yet what was interesting is there’s almost an overlap in their worldview because John Mearsheimer as the ultimate realist is the school of foreign policy he belongs to, really thinks that states do act in their own self-interest. That is the way the world works and that liberal ideals of some kind of international Kumbaya are for the birds. So he is essentially a defender of states acting in their national self-interest.
And Yoram Hazony is the architect of the national conservatism movement. It’s been incredibly influential, incredibly successful in the past few years. And at its heart is in a way the same idea, which is that it is virtuous and proper for countries to act in their own self-interest. So they sort of agree about that fundamental principle, but they come to completely different conclusions.
So John Mearsheimer believes that although he understands it’s in Israel’s self-interest to try to take out the Iranian nuclear program, he thinks, A, it won’t work. And B, it’s more likely to trigger a wider conflict, drag in the United States against their self-interest and create chaos and make the world a more dangerous place. So he strongly criticizes the whole adventure.
Meanwhile, Yoram Hazony really made quite an interesting, delicate argument, which actually showed sympathy with those voices inside MAGA, like Steve Bannon, like Tucker Carlson, who are absolutely dead against the US getting involved in this at all. He showed sympathy with their principles. But he was trying to say that paradoxically, for the US to help Israel become one of the regional players that can look after security in the Middle Eastern area, perhaps alongside Saudi, alongside Emirates, Jordan, various Gulf states, it helps America first, according to Yoram Hazony, to try and help bring about that settlement so that in the long term, America can focus on its own vital interests.
These are delicate judgments, but I thought it was fascinating to hear both sides put forward in such eloquent and interesting ways. As ever, you can make your own mind up. Thanks to them for joining. And thanks to you. This was UnHerd.
Related Posts
- Transcript of Jeffrey Sachs: US Prepares to Join War Against Iran
- Transcript: State Department Holds Press Briefing After Trump Issues New Threat Against Iran
- Transcript of Scott Ritter: Analysis of Israel/Iran War
- Transcript of Steve Bannon’s Interview on The Tucker Carlson Show
- Transcript of Trump Remarks at US Army 250th Parade – June 14, 2025