Global Middle East Seminar Series organized by the Center for Russian Studies (Bilkent University) and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
@@henli-rw5dw He is a realist who looks at both sides of the coin, not biased seeing one side only. He skipped the moral issues focusing on objective reality only.
If you are referring to Ms Rouhi's objection to John believing US should be the only nuclear power, I would agree with her. This is the unconscious US arrogance showing its ugly face. Imagine the gigantic level of bullying even beyond the current level if that was the case.
Mearsheimer's rhetorical style, analysis and argumentation is always a tour de force. Such a valuable voice in a world dominated by corporate/military agendas and corresponding narratives foisted upon the citizenry by an all too subservient Fourth Estate. Thanks, John!
I came to watch this video bec of Dr Mearsheimer but when I heard Dr Rouhi I was like “God damn” she is so smart and she analyses every aspect of the story
I have been assured that he is from the same planet you and I come from. And that's a relief because American participants are strictly from Planet Hollywood with no attachment to the rest of humanity. Prof. Mearsheimer is simply trying to put together his reasons as having some justification by facts that would be hard to argue against.
I’m an Iranian and I 100% agree with everything John Mearsheimer says. Iran faces existential threat from the US and Israel. It will never give up nuclear ambition as long as that threat exists.
ایران هرگز نباید توان نظامی اش کم کنه ..باید حتما سلاح هسته ای هم داشته باشه..چرا بقیه داشته باشن ایران نداشته باشه..کار درستی میکنه ..فقط باید سیاست داخلی اش عوض کنه و مردم و ازاد بگذاره
How is IRAN faces existential threat from USA ?? i do not see USA bombing Iran to oblivion. But i do see IRAN supporting international terrorism and also terrorizing his own nation . Like killing own citizen over " wearing wrongfully jihad " . i am afraid of Iran as idiotic and unpredictable country .
@@neilabernath5862 So Israel gets to build an undeclared, uninspected, illegal nukes program with material and technology stolen from NUMEC in PA in the 1960. Why?
If Russia did not have nukes the west and Nato would already be fighting Russia in Ukraine. Nukes is useful as deterrence but not prevent other countries to make hostile war like actions like sanctions or weapon deliveries. Nukes have very limited practical use.
You contradicting yourself. If NATO was fighting Russia, NATO would have overrun Russia. All the way to Moscow. NATO spends 20 times more in military than Russia does!
@@AdSd100 Defend Ukraine and population that support you is big diffrent to invade Russia. 20 year of fight against Taliban in Afghanistan only end up with US arming the Taliban. Never occupie a deeple hostile country.
@@len2063 again, you didn't address my criticism to your statement of "Nukes have very limited practical use". If Russia didn't have nukes, NATO would just steamroll it with full force of all of it's members and drive all the way to Moscow and topple the regime. It's a very practical use to prevent NATO murdering you like it did to Ghaddafi in 2011! Your thoughts are not coherent.
Dr. Rouhi was eloquently able to convey her points within a realist framework. I especially liked her point around how, at least in Iran, there's no belief that sanctions will ever (or meaningfully) be lifted from them.
Yes but she repeats that 20 times without going anywhere with it: she has internal knowledge of Iranian society but made worthless because of lack of reasoning power
She is the weakest contributor to this debate because her attitude is ideologically driven. She puts a lot of her ego in this debate and her points of view are not so realistic and wise. She speaks with ease on US bombing iranian bases, and that's it! Having a PHD doesn't mean that you are an intelligent person. She could of listening dr. Mearsheimer and not talking at all.
I genuinely enjoy how Prof Mearsheimer starts plenty of his lectures with a note that he is wrong most of the time, and then proceeds to predict events hapenning a year or a decade later with precision, clarity, heart and humbleness every single time. "It's my guess". Yeah.
And almost every other (inevitably liberal) professor by contrast make their ideas up as they go along, never make correct predictions, sticks by their utopian theories, refuse to admit they're poor forecasting, and remains so arrogant they think they can read Putin's mind, change the fabric of totalitarian societies, make arguments based on what they hope others would do, imagine their country is obeying international law while other countries aren't, and come up with totally random conjecture that ignores fear, power and violence, like "Russia's biggest threat isn't encirclement by a hostile foreign alliance depriving it of its nuclear deterrent its having a democratic neighbor".
The US insistence of being the primary hegemonism over the multi-polar globe is the problem! Forcing, or convincing other sovereign entities to believe what you personally believe is arrogant, and narrow minded
The US with its trillions of paper dollars and the end of the petrodollar,plus a weak woke army can no longer fact Russia or China in a land war. What use are aircraft carrriers these days? NONE. Like England of old, it is a sea and air power, but it cannot defeat land powers like Russia and China. Russi's militaray technolog is a good bit ahead of the US.
Sir Halford McKinley 100 years ago explain the Ukraine/ Russia - west of China has a lot of natural resources. The best in the world, any who controls it, controls the world. George McKennan US ambassador in the Soviet Union claimed the best approach for Russia and the URSS was to contain them, not to fight against them. Bzrinsky, security advisor to Jimmy Carter said Russia alone is a regional powerful country. Russia with Ukraine its an international powerful kingdom. Moreover, the east and south of Ukraine speak Russian and have a Russian religion: orthodox. Whereas the north and west speak ukranian and are Catholics. Hence, Russia wants to take over east and south of Ukraine, they feel entitled to it.
Maybe young people cannot grasp the full failure of US world leadership in the period when the Unipolar Moment lasted. The Kosovo and the Iraq adventures demonstrated scornful disregard for international law, for legitimate institutions, or the opinion of the "second-third rate" humanity outside the US. US citizens didn't even feel the world's reaction to this, but the World did not forget. Then, the folly of the erratic Qaddafi, to abandon Libya's nuke program and the shocking abuse of their trust, hardened the conclusion - Your only chance for independence is nuclear explosives. (Or, if hard, - other WMDs). North Korea immediately resumed its nuclear and missile programs. Others are probably working on chemical and biological WMDs. The US opened the Pandora's box. For the second time. The first was after Hiroshima. So it knew what would follow. And this time there is no second superpower strong enough to help to close it.
Oh man it's high time decadent unipolarity came to an end. I was always appalled how Russia was treated ever since the Wall came down. Here's the bill. Finally
Western leaders are incompetent and corrupt. How could they waste their superior position in 1990? I should add that they are insane too, denying reality and live in a fantasy world of lies. Putin nailed it with his "Empire of lies" speech the other week. There is no idea to talk with madmen, western leaders are too stupid for diplomacy. And of course, all idiots who vote for them are so very stupid that they are very dangerous to all of human kind. Democracy was not a good idea after all.
Iran needs nuclear weapons if it does not want to end up like Iraq or Libya. Just think what the US hegemon would do or would have done already if Russia were not a big nuclear power?
John Mearsheimer is a great speaker. He nails his argument over and over again. One thing I can’t understand is, why is he not one of the top advisers to the president of US?
Mearshy! Mearshy! Mearshy! Let's give Mearshy a Hershey 😁 ...He is about to become a true RU-vid phenomena just like Jordna Peterson before him. Glad l found both of them. The Return of COMPETENCE in the public discourse
Sweden did abstain from its nuclear program. After WW2 nukes were not so controversial, it was a matter of course that this new kind of weapon should be in the arsenal. A research reactor was built for the purpose and the SAAB Viggen fighter/bomber was developed to carry a nuclear bomb (which were heavier back then). But Sweden abstained for a US promise that Sweden will be protected by the US nuclear umbrella. Which the Soviet learn of (or else the promise wouldn't have been a deterrent!) and the Soviet therefor did not consider Sweden a neutral country. So it came at a double cost for Sweden. Also, didn't McNamara in the 1990s, when it was popular to believe that history had ended, say that No, the US would NOT have used nuclear weapons if the Soviet had invaded Europe with conventional weapons!? That has pretty much permanently erased the Swedish scenario of abstaining from nukes in exchange for a promise by the US!
In regards to McNamara, I strongly doubt he believed that. Research some of the things he said about the Cuban Missile crisis. Basically, he was with Kennedy when he made the decision to commit to direct conflict with Russia if they refused to remove nukes from Cuba. He understood that Kennedy was willing to enter a thermonuclear exchange with Russia over that.
Unreliability of US, The Hegemon, is indisputable. They are as kind as ATILLA the HUN. After the Conquest of IRAQ and slaughter of ONE MILLION IRAQIs BY NATO FORCES who gathered together to look for non-existant WMD, BUSH,The First got on the horn and said: "WHAT WE SAY GOES." LONG BEFORE BUSH SAID THAT, HENRY KISSINGER HAD SAID: 'IF YOU ARE AN ENEMY OF THE UNITED STATES, YOU ARE IN A VERY DANGEROUS SITUATION, BUT IF YOU ARE A FRIEND OF UNITED STATES YOU ARE IN LETHAL DANGER." With recent US/UK sabotage of the Nord Stream Pipeline and Sweden's application for NATO membership, I think SWEDEN's FATE IS SEALED. And I don't mean that Sweden is now safe. Just the opposite. US is nobody's friend and everybody's enemy except when it comes to the Illegal occupiers of PALESTINE. Then, they are ready to sacrifice the rest of the world because of the Jewish Lobby backlash in USA and its impact on Presidential Elections. The Swedes shouldn't sleep soundly after Sweden's admission into NATO. The Lethality risk that Kissinger spoke of had already begun for Sweden.
As did Kissinger and a host of others. You'd have to be very naive to believe the US would allow itself to be vaporized in retaliation for a nuclear attack on another country, which would have left the victims no better off. This is why Japan and Germany maintain the ability to assemble a bomb in short order. They want the protection that comes with abiding by the NPT but access to nukes at a moments notice if that protection isn't forthcoming. I predict Poland and South Korea will also move to zero breakout time programs that are de-facto functional, due to the renewed sense of nearby threats and the potential disintegration of NATO as LePen and Trump come to power. To assuage some of those fears the US used to keep its nuclear umbrella small, so that only strategically vital countries were offered protection and it was credible that if they were attacked the US would have to go to war as part of an alliance. Also, the possible nuclear response to a conventional attack on an ally, which would devastate the attacker but spare the ally depending on the timing and the scale of conventional force used, is why the US unlike the USSR and China maintained the right to 'first use' of nuclear weapons.
@@cherylderue336 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦and you think women would usher in paradise and never wage wars? 😂😂😂😂😂😂🥳🤦🤦 #MadeleineAlbright, #CondoleezaRice #HillaryClinton #NancyPelosi #UrsulavonderLeyen, #AnnalenaBaerbock, the female concentration camp guards, etcetcetc... Get your head out of your ass, child, women are different NOT better. 'Take a long hard look in the mirror'
There’s a lot of people writing in the WaPo and NYT every day that make no sense and have PhDs. I don’t get it either, and it looks like they give those PhDs as long as you pay for it
@@darknightbegins85 I feel like this was the first time she'd ever even thought about the topic. Like she kept hoping for people to behave against their security interests and could't understand why it would be advantageous to have a nuclear monopoly. First time talking to a realist?
It is great hearing from Prof Mearsheimer on something other than Ukraine. Any reason why he puts the end of the uni-polar moment at 2017? Is it related to the Trump presidency?
25.35 about "ideal world in which one country has nuclear weapon is US ".I hope it was a joke.What kind of world it would be? probably on a world map we would see only one title " US Empire"
Does Saudi Arabia have the capability , I think not. Does Turkey have the capacity? I'm not sure. Iran has the technology . Manufacturing Centrifuge refine uranium to 60% purity. They have a robust missile force.
First I comend every single participant in this discussion. My personal take is that Iran is for the time being more interested in developing their aerospace industry, particularly their missile capabilities. One the nuclear front they may have to go full force on foreing intelligence penetration before actually building the bomb. I am not sure Iran will ever attack israel with nuclear weapons even if they had them, when taking into consideration that Iran has invested political and military efforts to support the palestinian ressistance. Also the fact that the third most holy site in islam is under israeli occupation, by this I mean that if Iran nukes Israel they would sin twice, by nuking the people they claim to support and one of the holiest sites for islam, on top of that Lebanon is a country that Iran also supports and without a doubt a nuclear fallout in Israel will certainly spread to Lebanon. I think that a possible nuclear Iran would aim to deter mainly the US presence in the region, particularly in Europe (particularly the Ramstein US base in germany) and Turkey, country that hosts the Icerlink base. Now if Iran ends up developing ICBMs, deterrence would be in full force. To wrap it up, I think the long term strategy of Iran is to eventually deal with Israel on cnventional military terms, and with the US on building an uncontested deterrent capacity.
Iran could have gotten a nuke decades ago. It wanted though to be always 1 to 2 years away from a nuke just in case. Problem is now iran faces existential threats on many fronts which is pushing it towards becoming a nuclear power.
I humbly disagree with the distinguished panel in regards to Saudi Arabia acquiring the bomb if Iran did so. No doubt that's what the Saudis would try to do, but unlike Iran, the Saudis would not be able to stand the preventative international pressure to acquire a bomb; The Saudis do not have the human resources, the technical know-how and the stomach to endure backbreaking economical sanctions. And most importantly unlike Iran, the Saudi political system is not independent.
Considering Mahsa's rhetoric, she doesn't think, and she speaks way faster than normal which is too much for a non native speaker; she must have memorized every single word which, I assume, it must be part of her dissertation in Ntional defense Uni and what she has been ruminating on for a long time (I love the metaphore). Apart from that, she has extreme opinions about Iran, so I don't know how much I can trust her.
Prof M, I'm disappointed. Your recent lectures spoke about Russia's need for Ukraine's neutrality as a buffer state between Russia and NATO and you explained it as a rational point of view. It would avoid direct confrontation between two nuclear armed states. Removing nuclear arms from Ukraine was a joint venture between the US and Russia which I personally thought was positive. Now in 2022 the war in Ukraine has revealed itself to be a proxy war between the US and Russia and it is threatening to expand beyond control. Nuclear weapons should not be products for sale or trade and if it occurs, which it has, both parties are responsible. When the US or any other country provides a nation or entity with materials or technical support, they are both equally responsible. A nation that has the bomb feels immune to aggressors and this has proven to be true... So with more and more countries arming themselves, what is the end game?
Then everyone would start to look after their own people and fix their national problems, just like what Trump did for 4 years. No wars, what a relief for the world.
I totally agree with prof.John Mearsheimer when America, Israel, UK, Pakistan, India and ither Nato countries have nuclear power to fend their countries wht shouldnt Iran have to defend its soveriegnity otherwise Iran will end up like Libya and Iraq when they got invaded by America and UK why no one talks about Israel having nuclear arsons and presently bombing Palestine who have no powerful amunition to defend themselves what quarantee is there to say that Israel or America wont use their nuclear arsons towards Iran? Whether it is Iran ,Saudi Arabia or any other middle east countires they all have right to defend their countries from their enemies i would suggest that both America and Israel try to establish positive relationship with Iran and bring peace between them instead of constantly accusing each otherx
Oh ladies....... Both Koreans have pursued nuclear capability since their independence, since they saw Americans throw the bombs in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Sanctions have nothing to do with the ambition to pursue the bomb. Nations just naturally want the bomb. Why the South haven't achieved it while its leaders and public openly say they want the bomb? Because whenever Seoul touches uranium enrichment, uncle Sam comes into the room and say he is wondering if Seoul wants to commit suicide within one or two years. Then Seoul leaves the room to let uncle Sam take the enriched uranium(it literally happened) and go to another room to build delivery means or commercial nuclear reactor dreaming someday when Seoul can have the moment. It is the very nature of nations to desire the means like the bomb.
Mahsa underestimated the domino effect. India got a weapon, and then Pakistan got the weapon. Although Saudi is weak due to the monarchy, a revolution in the country similar to the Iran one could bring a very strong ambitions. Iran didn't have nuclear ambition under Shah, but it changed under Khomeini
Actually, Iran did have some nuclear ambitions under the Shah. It just increased under Khomeini. And as for Saudi Arabia, I feel can get the tech and expertise to enrich uranium to produce nuclear weapons from a state that they have very close relations to. (ie. Pakistan). I still think Mahsa is underestimating the domino effect. And if Iran and Saudi Arabia have nuclear weapons, I think Turkey and Egypt would try to get nuclear weapons as well.
I think the problem here is that you think building a nuk is the same as making an omlett. Pakistan had a significant help from outside world to build nuks. Literally everything they wanted from uranium to centrifuges were available to them in the black market. The reason was back then western world wanted to have pakistan against India. At least for the past 20 years, iran could not get anything from the black markets except for faulty parts. Israel will never let at least egypt or saudi Arabia to get even started, just like they don't let those countries get f 35 or advanced f16s. I seriously think you are underestimating iranian know how, and think all the big middle eastern countries are technically equivalent
So we all can notice that usa and japan relationship are like master and slave relationship??.. and of course japan is very sad??.. so japan has to prepare for sure self defence japan without usa help at all?????...
Doesn't Iran already have nuclear weapons as a result of their defensive treaty with North Korea? Isn't it just a matter of where "their" weapons are being stored?
all this hype is to make Israel safe but how can Israel be safe it is occupying someone's country and when you break into a home then you can stay if you can out power the owners of that house but nothing is guaranteed the owner can out power you any time.
The US had to import European Jews and Germans to get that done. It was the same people who sent Americans to the Moon. But, go ahead, pretend you're a genius nation. Have fun.
It is fantastic that the US could win its two front war in only 3½ years! They built upwards 100 fleet and light aircraft carriers, today it takes decades to develop a new fighter aircraft and 7 years to repair that littoral ship that burned two years ago. It seems the Chinese are today approaching US' 1940s productivity with their naval program.
54:40 It is hard to believe how stupid TyttiErasto is! Just how will Saudi Arabia procure nuclear technology? Their air force will cease to exist if the Yanks withdraw their support! The Ashkenazi-run statelet of Israel has not used the nuclear option to threaten the Iranian Mullahs, because that would nullify the nuclear ambiguity doctrine! However, they have been quite open about their nuclear-capable missiles, both on land and at sea, being able to reach every corner of present-day Iran!
This debate is biased as non of the participants come from Iran .Pakistan,north korea.they are all European and connected to the colonial past.they can canake points and assessment but not imagine up points of view on how Iran thinks and how Iran will behave.how Iran will benefit or not .
Iffy.. Iffy... iffy..Iffy... analytical intellectualuzing what competitive decision makers will, and would do, or should do is narrow mindedness borne of Pollyannic naivety!
These intelligent but naive women with all their words and arguments just ignore the main problem is power. The nuclear weapon gives a country power. Given the past history of the west, Iran has experienced the the control, domination and thievery of its oil. The west would do the same if it could, so Iran is better off with a nuclear bomb to prevent Israel from taking over its oil. In a heartbeat, Israel would do that , just as it took Syria’s oil in the Golan Heights.
This is for Prof Mearsheimer , the closing remarks by very attractive Iranian lady Mahsa Rouhi left him baffled when she said "what John said was very American."Professor could not fathom. Let me explain , what she meant was that he was looking from a Max Webberian " Protestant ethics" prism. Sadly Islam is a hundred ton gorilla in the room. None of the assumptions work ,for as you know ISLAM means SUBMISSION , and that abhorrs argument. Iran is ruled by folks who whose thinking do not follow the national interest of Iranian people or Iran as a country but SHIA islam , rationality plays little part
From what I can gather, the younger generations in Iran have no interest in the practice of Islam. In the ancient world, Persia was the only great power that could stand up to the Roman Empire. They eventually transformed Islam under the Abassid Caliphate. I wouldn'gt underestimate the possibilities of Iran in the future.
@@thomasjhenniganw bro, the leadership doesn't listen to us. They have the money and guns and 10% of the population who are sellouts. They kill us if we stand against them.
Mahsa makes a good point, much similarly to the way russia would feel about Ukraine joining nato, Israel will believe that Iran obtaining these weapons is a direct threat to their strategic interests. How could they not think so, putting yourself in their shoes they are within striking distance of a nation whose Islamic leaders have instilled a constitution that opposes the very existence of Israel. And to assist this johns common point on international politics, strategic Interest will rain superior than any other motive to not start a war. I believe that the US swill follow Israel as Israel is the power and symbol of democracy within the Middle East (in the eyes of the US) . This again hypothetical, but when the moment comes Israel will have to make a choice …
Me too I think that Israel will take out Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons, with a conventional air strike. And will do so repeatedly as needed. There will never be peace in the Middle East.
Israel is already fighting this war covertly. I expect outright war if/when Iran gets significantly closer to putting a nuclear warhead on a missile. Short of a regime change in Iran that takes "the destruction of Israel" off of Iran's bucket list this is how it is going to go down. And of course Iran wants nuclear weapons. It's the only way to gain parity vs. world powers. The JCPOA will not significantly slow, much less stop Iran from going nuclear. If anything the lifting of sanctions will enable Iran to stage the technology to go nuclear in a matter of months instead of years. I really don't understand anybody who thinks Iran fully complied with the original implementation of the JCPOA, much less believes they'll fully comply with a new implementation. Think about it from Iran's perspective: Look what these world powers will do for us simply in an effort to prevent us from gaining nuclear weapons. Imagine how they'd have to treat us if we had them already.
Iran has never been against or an Israeli enemy rather it was it's ally throughout history. Iranian Jews have mostly stayed in Iran. Iran and Israel bone of contention is Palestine/Palestinians. Israel is hostile to Iran Iran's science and technology capability is the biggest threat to Israel and the West unlike the other middle eastern countries
