The Hegemonic Impulse Becomes A Trap (2)

John Mearsheimer gave a rather interesting presentation Down Under. In it he ties together the various geopolitical traps the Neocons have blundered into—dragging the American Empire along. As such, it follows on nicely from the penultimate post:

Israel-Hamas, Ukraine-Russia and China: John Mearsheimer on why the US is in serious trouble!

Since I’ll only be presenting a transcript for the second half, it may be as well to paste in the synopsis:

PART 1. Professor John Mearsheimer addressed an audience in Brisbane on Monday, 23 October ...

The Middle East crisis will have severe repercussions for Israel, its neighbors, and U.S. foreign policy. Israel's response to Hamas's attacks is expected to continue to provoke anger across the Middle East, potentially fueling jihadist movements and escalating conflicts with other groups, contributing to regional instability. The U.S. has a vital interest in maintaining stability in the Persian Gulf, but the Israel-Hamas conflict threatens to undermine this.

It's crucial to acknowledge that Russia, rather than constituting a substantial threat to the U.S., has the potential to be an ally in containing China. However, the U.S.-supported campaign in Ukraine has inadvertently drawn Russia closer to China, contravening the principles of balance-of-power politics, and this commitment to Ukraine is likely to remain.

All this conflict risks diverting American focus from East Asia, where efforts to forge a coalition to address a significant strategic challenge are underway, it's in Australia's interest to collaborate with the U.S. in deterring China. Beijing's optimal outcome involves the U.S. remaining deeply involved in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, preventing a full pivot to East Asia.

I’ll state up front that I don’t agree with too much of Mearsheimer’s ideas here. He keeps saying that China is a “threat”. Why can’t China, perhaps, be a competitor for markets, etc., without being “threat” that needs to be contained? I get that Mearsheimer is an American hegemonist, but his aims—controlling a country that has historically accounted for 20% of global GDP—seems unduly risky. At the same time, China on its own is probably no more a threat than is Russia. Or India. YMMV.

He also talks a lot about the US interest in stability in the Persian Gulf—because oil. But he never actually explains why that interest is solely the interest of the US and of nobody else. Surely the Chinese have an equal or greater interest, since their so dependent on that source of oil? But our interest isn’t for ourselves—we don’t need Persian Gulf oil. It’s because it gives us the whip hand over both the producers as well as the actual consumers of Persian Gulf oil. In other words, our interest is more about raw power rather than energy supplies that matter to us.

On the other hand, I do agree that antagonizing Russia was nuts—however predictable for anyone who has a glimmer of a clue about the Neocon mentality. Taking on Russia, China, and the entire Middle East simultaneously is, if it were possible, beyond nuts. But also predictable.

So now I’ll paste in my transcript and invite readers to go to the link for the first half. The second half addresses the conflict that Mearsheimer sees as destined to simply embroil the US in ever worsening conflicts.

23:48 / 37:18

Jake Sullivan, as you know, basically said that the Middle East hadn't looked so good in a long time. But then came October 7th, and Hamas attacked Israel, and in a deadly effective way. Of course, the Israelis have reacted by declaring war on Hamas. You now have this giant conflict between Israel and Hamas that threatens to escalate to where Hezbollah might come in, conflict might break out on the West Bank, or even the Iranians might come in. So this is a really dangerous situation and, much like Ukraine, we're going to sink deeper into the mud here, and this one's not not going away anytime soon.

Now why do I say that? The first thing you want to keep in mind when you talk about Israel and the United States is that the two countries are joined at the hip. There is no question about that. I don't think this is a controversial issue. I don't think you've ever had a closer relationship between any two countries than you have between Israel and the United States, so it's very hard for the United States in any meaningful way to distance itself from Israel. So that's the first point you want to keep in mind.

Mearsheimer is talking about campaign contributions. Presumably the Aussies understood that?

The second point you want to keep in mind is that the tap root of the problem here is the Israel-Palestine or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You just have to understand what that conflict looks like. This is a longstanding conflict, as you all know, but you just want to understand its essence, because that tells you a lot about what's happening now and what is likely to happen over time. The United States has been deeply interested in creating a two-state solution, as most of you I'm sure know, in Israel. What the United States has been interested in doing is creating a Palestinian state in the West Bank and in Gaza and in East Jerusalem living next door to a Jewish State--Israel. We have failed. We've not been able to push the Israelis to accept that, and there's no two-state solution.

Next comes the crux of the problem. Israel got what it wanted—the land—but also what it didn’t want—the people.

So what the Israelis now have, and what the government in Israel wants, is greater Israel. Greater Israel includes the West Bank, Gaza, and 1967 Israel--or Green Line Israel. That's Greater Israel. The key point you want to keep in mind is that there are approximately 7.3 million Palestinians and approximately 7.3 million Israeli Jews in Greater Israel. There is rough equality between Palestinians and Israeli Jews. You just want to think about that. When you think about Israel and you think about Israel as the Jewish state, which is completely understandable, you want to understand that that Jewish state has as many Palestinians in it as it has Jews. And, by the way, there's a very prominent demographic expert who is Israeli who argues that there are slightly more Palestinians than there are Jews inside greater Israel. Furthermore, when you look at demographic trends over time, there are going to be more Palestinians than there are Jews. And this is a Jewish state.

So the question is, what do you do here? What has happened is that the Israelis do not want to give equal rights to the Palestinians because if they gave equal rights to the Palestinians Israel would cease to be a Jewish State, because there are more Palestinians than there are Jews--if not now, certainly in the future. In the case of the Palestinians who are in Gaza, basically they have been cordoned off. They have been isolated in Gaza and it is commonplace to refer to Gaza as the largest open air prison in the world. If you read virtually any account of what life is like for those Palestinians who live in Gaza, it is absolutely horrible. There is just no question about about that. They live under horrible conditions--in effect in a prison. You want to understand that Israel controls the borders around Gaza and it controls the air above Gaza. These are not disputable issues and, again, there are about 2.1 million of those 7.3 million Palestinians in Gaza. And the fact is that the Israelis, who have been playing hard ball with the Palestinian since 1948 when the state of Israel was created, are in a situation where the Palestinians are going to erupt from time to time. Most of us in this audience have heard of the First Intifada, we have heard of the Second Intifada. The Intifadas were uprisings by the Palestinians. The Palestinians want want their own nation state just as the Jews wanted their own nation state. It's perfectly understandable that the Zionists were interested in coming to Palestine and creating a Jewish State, a Jewish nation state. That's completely understandable but, as my mother taught me when I was a little boy, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and if the Jews want their own nation state are you surprised that the Palestinians want their own nation state? No.

An American policy maker, especially American presidents going back to Jimmy Carter, understood this completely and put enormous--should have put--enormous pressure on Israel to accept a two-state solution. But we were incapable of doing that. We could not put great pressure on Israel, and the end result is you have a greater Israel and inside that greater Israel are 7.3 million Palestinians. And just to take this a step further, it's very controversial to refer to Israel as an apartheid state given how they treat the Palestinians, but Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and B'Tselem is one of the leading human rights groups in the world, and it's an Israeli Human Rights group. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and B'Tselem all have produced significant reports that label Israel as an apartheid state.

So this is the reality that you now face, and the problem is there is no way the Israelis are ever going to agree to a two-state solution, because the political center of gravity in Israel has moved far to the right over time, and is likely to move further to the right over time, if you look at the Israeli demographic situation. Israeli women have large numbers of babies, compared to Western birth rates, but your average Ultra Orthodox woman has about seven babies, so what's happening is that the Ultra Orthodox--who now represent 13% of the population--will probably represent about 30% of the population in 2050. They're growing significantly in number and the Ultra Orthodox are a problem for a variety of reasons for Israel. Because, first of all, they don't serve in the military. Secondly, the husbands don't work and, in effect, live on welfare. But, furthermore, their politics are far to the right. The Ultra Orthodox are not going to be sympathetic to a two-state solution.

Furthermore, after what happened on October 7th, what do you think the Israelis are going going to say when you say, 'Let's move towards a two-state solution'? They're going to look at you like you're crazy, given what happened on October 7th. So all of this is just to say the only hope in my opinion of ever settling this conflict between the Palestinians and the Jews inside of Greater Israel was a two-state solution, and a two-state solution is not going to happen. That train has left the station.

And, again, as I said to you, it's very important to understand that the United States is joined at the hip with the Israelis and, therefore, as the situation continues to fester in Israel we are inextricably bound up in it. Let me just take this a step further.

First of all, we have a deep-seated interest in stability in the Middle East. We were working before October 7th with Saudi Arabia to get Saudi Arabia and Israel to reach some sort of accommodation--the Abraham Accords--that we had helped facilitate during the Trump years between Israel and Bahrain, Israel and Morocco, and Israel and the United Arab Emirates, where relations between Israel and those three countries had significantly improved. The Biden Administration was trying to get another Abraham Accord, this one, which would have been the big enchilada, involving Israel and Saudi Arabia. That's all gone now. Saudi Arabia is adamantly opposed to what's happening with regard to the Israeli war against the Palestinians. There's a possibility Hezbollah may come into this conflict. The Israelis and Hezbollah are exchanging rocket fire up on Israel's northern border. There's a possibility that Iran might come in, as I said before. There's a possibility that conflict will break out on the West Bank--approximately 90 Palestinians have been killed on the West Bank since October 7th. The potential for this one spiraling out of control within the context of the Middle East is really very, very worrisome.

Here again, what reasons have we given the Russians and the Chinese to wish us well in our great Middle East adventure? All we do is issue insults and threats in their directions. As for failing to produce a diplomatic solution, well, isn’t that exactly what we’ve striven to avoid doing? The “Abraham Accords” were all about doing an end run around not only the 7+ million Palestinians in Greater Israel but also those in Lebanon and Jordan. We’re in deep trouble around the world because we make and break the rules without regard to anyone else. And when it comes to the thing that really rubs the rest of the world the wrong way … we just double down. Because campaign contributions. And then we pretend to think it’s all about something else, and the rest of the world is somehow perversely uncomprehending.

Then there's the Diplomatic Dimension to this. The Russians and the Chinese just love this situation. They're saying all sorts of things about how the Americans failed to produce a diplomatic solution that would have given the Palestinians a state of their own, and this is, of course, a message that resonates all around the planet. We're in all sorts of trouble in the Arab world. This may lead to another Oil Embargo. Furthermore, we're very interested in winning the allegiance of the Global South, especially to help us in Ukraine. We're in deep trouble in the Global South as a result of this so, in terms of stability in the Middle East, in terms of our diplomatic position around the world as a result of the Arab Israeli conflict or the Palestinian Israeli conflict, we're in deep trouble. And again, this is one of these situations that has no solution. I mean, I hope I'm wrong. I hope I'm humiliated and a year from now when I return I can say I was wrong.

And what could Mearsheimer possibly mean by “pivoting to Asia to deal with the China threat”? Wouldn’t dealing with China as a global competitor more properly start by getting our own house in order? Culturally, economically, politically? He sounds like he thinks there’s a military “solution” to China, or an economic solution that somehow doesn’t involve any hard choices right here at home.

The same thing is true with Ukraine, but I don't see the Ukraine situation or the Middle East situation looking any better. That brings me to my bottom line. We have a peer competitor. The Biden Administration, as far as I'm concerned, to a person will tell you that the principal threat the United States of America faces is China. There is nobody who disagrees that China is our biggest threat, but what I'm telling you is we're in a situation where we can't fully pivot to Asia to deal with that threat because we're pinned down in the Middle East now, and before that in Ukraine. Furthermore, the Russians, who should be on our side, because of our foolish policies we have pushed the Russians on to the side of the Chinese. This is not good.

Our policies? Neocon policies? There has never been anything remotely like a public discussion about our Russia policy—it’s been non-stop propaganda and disinformation. But he’s right. We have no one to blame except ourselves.

And the final point that I'll leave you with is, as you know, we in the West--and I'm sure this is true for many Australians--love the rules-based order. We always talk about the rules-based order. We think it's important to obey the rules and the West and, of course, the United States has played a key role in establishing that rules-based order, which is in our interest. But the rules based order is in tatters as result of Ukraine, the Middle East, and assorted other forms of behavior by the United States. So all of this is to say we are in the Deep Kimchi.