John Mearsheimer is prime architect of offensive realism theory, describing relations between “great powers” as driven by the rational desire to achieve regional hegemony in an anarchic international system. I don’t buy all of it, and see greater explanatory power in the geopolitical analyses of Brian Berletic, and the political-economic takes of Michael Hudson.
The blindness of offensive realism to class, in the oppositional sense, leads John one-sidedly to claim that Israel drives US policy. Underpinning that is the correct perception that US policy in the Middle East 1 is not in the interests of most Americans – just as, I contend, the subservience to Washington of Europe’s leaders over the proxy war in Ukraine and much besides is not in the interests of most Europeans. But offensive realism’s failure 2 to disentangle national from class interest leaves John Mearsheimer unable to see that the elites who rule the United States from behind a fast thinning veneer of democracy are well served by Israel’s expansion. 3
That not inconsiderable caveat duly noted, what he pulls off in this 2:45 extract from his April 9 address 4 to the Arab Center in Washington takes some beating. Chapeau, professor …
* * *
- Call me indecisive but I’m going back to “Middle East” as term of choice for the region, despite having recently declared that I’d henceforth use the more politically correct but geographically misleading, “West Asia”.
- Offensive realism begets understandings vastly superior to those offered by our corrupt corporate media – but that’s way too low a bar for this site!
- See my March 30 post, Israel & USA – does the tail wag the dog, for more nuanced takes on a question long rigidly polarised.
- The broader theme of John’s address was America’s strategic defeat in Iran.