EssayBoard

As the war between Israel and Iran escalates, the dominant Western narrative remains fixated on the idea that Israel is “winning.” But as renowned realist and political scientist Professor John Mearsheimer recently argued in a powerful interview with Judge Andrew Napolitano, this belief is not only dangerously naive but strategically self-destructive.

Mearsheimer, never one to sugarcoat hard truths, breaks down the situation with surgical clarity: Israel has three stated goals in its war with Iran—to eliminate Iran’s nuclear capability, achieve regime change, and secure unconditional surrender. Yet none of these objectives are remotely achievable through Israel’s current tactics, even with potential U.S. support.

No Path to Victory

According to Mearsheimer, the idea that Israel can dismantle Iran’s nuclear infrastructure from the air is a fantasy. Even if American 30,000-pound bunker busters are used against fortified Iranian facilities like Fordow, there’s no guarantee the centrifuges deep underground will be destroyed. Worse, even if temporarily disrupted, Iran can rebuild in a matter of years. The nuclear problem is not a switch that can be turned off permanently.

Regime change? That, Mearsheimer reminds us, has never been accomplished through an air campaign alone. Iraq required a full ground invasion. Iran—a much larger, more cohesive, and battle-hardened nation—would require even more. And nobody is seriously advocating for a U.S. or Israeli ground invasion of Iran.

Unconditional surrender is perhaps the most unrealistic goal of all. Iran is fighting for its survival. Its memory of the brutal 8-year war with Iraq, during which it endured chemical weapons and Western-backed aggression, has forged a national ethos of resilience. Tehran will not bow easily.

The Myth of Air Supremacy

Mearsheimer also dismantles the myth that Israel “owns the sky” over Iran. Contrary to media claims, there has been no evidence of a full-scale destruction of Iran’s air defense systems. Most Israeli strikes have been conducted with drones and standoff munitions launched from outside Iranian airspace. This is not air dominance—it’s remote attrition.

To truly control the sky, a nation must neutralize radar networks, suppress surface-to-air missiles, and maintain aerial presence. No such battle has occurred. The narrative of Israeli air supremacy is a media construct, not a military reality.

The Strategic Backfire

What Mearsheimer highlights most ominously is the cost to Israel’s long-term strategic posture. Israel has long depended on ambiguity—in its nuclear program, its red lines, its deterrent edge. By launching a high-stakes war it cannot clearly win, it risks shattering that aura of invincibility.

If Iran weathers the storm and emerges bloodied but standing, Israel’s deterrent power will erode. Hezbollah, the Houthis, and even state actors may become bolder. Israel’s aura of dominance—painstakingly built since 1967—will have cracked.

The Global Fallout

If Israel uses nuclear weapons and the West fails to condemn it, Russia may feel emboldened to use tactical nukes in Ukraine. China could feel freer to use force in Taiwan. The global non-proliferation regime would be irreparably damaged. The message would be clear: nuclear weapons are usable, and consequences are optional.

Why His Clarity Matters

Mearsheimer’s brilliance lies not just in his facts but in his framing. He sees the board when others are staring at pieces. He connects tactical delusions to strategic collapse.

In a world awash with propaganda and wishful thinking, his voice cuts through like a siren. And whether leaders heed it or not, his warning stands: wars built on illusions don’t just fail. They unravel empires.

And if we continue down this path, the unraveling may already be underway.

Disclaimer: This is AI generated content. The views expressed in this blog post reflect the strategic analysis and opinions of Professor John Mearsheimer as discussed in his interview with Judge Andrew Napolitano. This article is intended to encourage critical discussion and deeper understanding of the geopolitical implications of the Israel-Iran conflict. It does not endorse any nation’s use of force, nuclear or otherwise, nor does it reflect an ideological stance. The goal is to present a realist perspective to inform debate, not to inflame or take sides in a complex and rapidly evolving crisis.