The US Must Finish the Job | John Mearsheimer

Added: 2026-06-03

[00:00:00]Uh, the idea that we have to go in and finish the job, that sounds good, you know, rah rah America, let's go in there, let's finish the job. We're the most powerful state in the world, don't tell us we can't have our way. We can just need the willpower, that's what's lacking here. President Trump is getting weak, we got to stiffen his backbone, and then send the American military in there and they'll do the job. You know, this sounds good to a lot of people, you know, sounds like a a prescription for success, but if you look carefully at what we can actually do, uh, and what we tried to do and didn't do in the first 40 days of the conflict, it becomes manifestly apparent that these people are speaking nonsense. We have no military option here.

[00:00:50]We couldn't get control the straight, we couldn't bring Iran to their knees, the Iranians to their knees in the first 40 days of the war, uh, with massive air power. What makes them think we can do it now? And oh, by the way, when we stopped bombing, uh, in mid-April, we then went to the blockade, and everybody was saying the blockade would work. Well, the blockade hasn't worked. Uh, and nobody really believes on the inside, or anybody who has an analytical mind, uh, that you can use the blockade plus a renewed bombing campaign to bring the Iranians to surrender. It just can't be done. Uh, and if it can be done, it would be nice if those people could tell us what the causal story is. In other words, what targets do we hit? What effects do those uh, those attacks have on the Iranian leadership? Uh, you know, how how do we cause them to surrender? Uh, and and and and what about the historical record?

[00:01:51]When we look at past cases where, you know, you bombed a country like Iran, uh, after uh, one big campaign, you launch the second campaign. What's What's the historical record say about why we should be confident that it will work this time when it didn't work the first time? And of course, they have no such stories. They just make these empty statements that we have to go finish the job.

[00:02:16]>> If I may, I'd like to turn to your recent debate with Mike Pompeo. For those who may not have followed that discussion, could you briefly outline the core of the disagreement? What were the main arguments put forward by advocates of a tougher coercive approach, and why do they believe that strategy is likely to succeed?

[00:02:34]>> Well, the thing is that Mike Pompeo said remarkably little about what we should do to win the war. Because Mike Pompeo is smart enough to know that there is no magic formula. And the last thing that he wants to do is get into a debate with me and win the war.

[00:02:54]He concentrates on making the argument that the Iranians are basically the second coming of the Third Reich. They are the most evil regime Iranian regime is the most evil regime on the planet, and we have to finish it off. And therefore, it was good that President Trump went to war against Iran. And he's fully aware that it's a tough fight, but it's a fight worth waging.

[00:03:22]He has no solution as to how we can win this war, and he doesn't go to that issue. Because he fully understands that there is no magic formula there.

[00:03:34]>> Let me follow up on that point. Mike Pompeo is obviously not alone in holding these views. There is a broader constituency of policy makers, analysts, and foreign policy figures who support a similar approach. With that in mind, is it fair to suggest that some of these advocates fully understand the military realities, the balance of power, and the risks associated with further escalation, yet still view the continuation of the confrontation itself as an acceptable or even desirable outcome? In other words, do you think there is a school of thought within these circles that no longer sees outright victory as the primary objective, but instead regards the maintenance of long-term pressure and a prolonged conflict as a strategic success in its own right?

[00:04:22]>> Well, I don't know if that's Mike Pompeo's view, but I think there are a lot of people who believe that if we keep throwing mud at the wall, at some point it will stick. Uh it's not sticking now, but we just have to hang in there.

[00:04:37]Incredibly powerful, and we can do this for a long time. And sooner or later, the mud's going to stick, and we're going to have an effective outcome.

[00:04:48]The Iranians are going to throw up their hands.

[00:04:53]And you want to remember, this is I think their world view, that we live in an uncertain world. You can never be perfectly sure what's going to happen when you employ military force against an adversary. And they believe there's a good chance that this will work out. And you want to remember that if this doesn't work out, if we don't go back to fighting the war, we don't renew the air campaign, and we effectively surrender to Iran, which is what we're going to end up doing. Iran is going to clearly win this war.

[00:05:29]These people are going to have egg on their face. It's going to be a huge embarrassment for them for the rest of their life. They're going to have to explain how they thought we could win this war, and therefore acted as cheerleaders getting us into the war. Uh and therefore they have a vested interest in trying to continue the war uh, in hope that they'll gain resurrection.