https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taXIbXYt6YY
The Israel Lobby with John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt | Outside the Box Podcast Apr 18, 2024

36:52 You could also argue that the lobby has made it virtually impossible for American governments to try and improve the relationship with Iran. Iran has tried repeatedly going back to the 1990s to try and lower the temperature with the United States, reach out to us in a variety of ways and every time that happens the lobby has mobilized to make sure the United States kept Iran as isolated as possible. The lobby was strongly opposed to the nuclear deal with Iran in in 2015 as well. So one of the reasons we have this horribly unproductive relationship with Iran is the influence of the Israel Lobby. It's not to say Iran hasn't done some dumb things that have made this more difficult as well but the point is American policy on Iraq back in 2003, on Iran ever since the revolution etc would be substantially different if the United States, if American policy makers didn't have groups like AIPAC and others leaning over their shoulder and pushing them in other directions.

38:04 If you look at the situation in the Middle East today one of the big questions that immediately pops out is who is responsible for creating this disastrous situation and when we talk about this disastrous situation. We're not simply talking about Gaza. We're talking about what's happening on Israel's northern border with regard to Hezbollah, we're talking about the war that the United States is now in with the Houthis, we're talking about the fact that the United States is being attacked by groups in both Iraq and Syria. So what's the basic cause of all of this trouble in the greater Middle East? And if you read what Israel and its supporters say they blame Iran. Iran is the master puppeteer and what Hamas did was obey Iran's dictates and attack Israel on October 7th. What Hezbollah is doing is evidence of Iran waging war against Israel and so forth and so on the Houthis are always identified with Iran. Iran is the master puppeteer and therefore Iran is principally responsible for the disasters that we now see in the Middle East.

39:30 The alternative scenario is that Israel is responsible. It's largely a result of the occupation that the Palestinians attacked Israel on October 7th. Hezbollah has made it clear that it is responding to what's going on in Gaza and if the war in Gaza stops Hezbollah would stop attacking Israel. The same thing is true with the Houthis and so forth and so on. So you have two possible interpretations of which country is principally responsible for driving conflict in the Middle East Iran or Israel.

In my opinion the evidence is overwhelming that Israel is principally responsible for this disaster and it is the occupation, it is the fact that Israel has become an apartheid state and this is why every president since Jimmy Carter has gone to significant lengths to try to create a two-state solution because they understood that if you didn't have a two-state solution you'd have a first intifada, a second intifada and October 7th but of course because of the lobby it's been almost impossible for any president to make any progress in terms of getting a two-state solution. And the end result is you have these various disasters in the Middle East today that are tied to the occupation and there is in my opinion little evidence that Iran is the master puppeteer and responsible for all these conflicts that are now going on.

I'm somewhat optimistic about this but you know we're a political system that was sort of designed not to change radically. You could certainly change a lot if you ended uh the way campaigns are financed but that's an enormous issue not likely to happen anytime time soon.

Here's why I'm optimistic I'll point to two things. One we've already talked about and that is that a discourse has changed I mean for us when we first wrote the original article and then the book to even bring up the Israel Lobby in public in explicit ways and talk about how it operated was very controversial, using the phrase was controversial, that's not true anymore. People across the political spectrum will talk openly about the political clout that AIPAC has you know we've talked about the New York Times New York Times had a bit big article a couple of weeks ago on how the lobby is facing more difficulties now in trying to defend the situation in Gaza so we've in some respects helped legitimate having a conversation about the political influence of these various groups in ways that what didn't happen before. We wanted to break that taboo and I think that's been accomplished.

43:33 Second, because there are now more media outlets as John described information is flowing to people in ways that it didn't before. And finally and this is related to that there is a huge generational change going on here right people who are much younger than John or I have grown up with a very different experience of the US Israeli relationship. Their experience of Israel is not 1948, it's not making the desert bloom in the 1950s, it's not what we sometimes call the Leon Uris school of Israeli history. What they see is the occupation, they see the oppression of one group by another and many younger Americans see it through that particular frame even if they don't have any particular interest in the Middle East per se. So I think generational change is also driving a change in attitudes and that's ultimately going to shape what happens in the political system as well because people in Congress are going to have to pay attention to the votes of people who are in their 20s and 30s and 40s once people like John and I have left the stage along with lots of people who are sort of instinctively supportive of Israel.