to have bodies was that perhaps we're not used to hearing from the british royal. they tend to be a lot more. was of the not the princess says that she hopes to undertake me public engagements over the summer. but how has a moon that this would not be seen as a full return to public duties? because as she said in her statement, she's not out of the woods yet. we love a city to reach out to 0. london muslims from around the world have converged on the sacred valley of our thoughts near mecca and saudi arabia, holy state, the annual hutch pilgrimage gathering on mountain it must be. so what's considered to be the highlights, the spiritual journey of corresponding hash, him a bar as covering the hutch versus yeah, he has moved from mount our fence just outside on the mountain that you see behind me is the balance of no. see why muslims belief profitable how much delivered his finals and pilgrims came over here at nights. we decided to

spend the day here for a reasons. i believe this is one of this take what size it is land. and they would like to spend the entire day in a tournament priors and supplication. they believe that this is an extremely important day for them. and that if i'm lucky enough, by the end of the day when the sun sets that create a wake, forgive the sins, now it's a very hard day. i have to say and they all thought is happy using me, spray or is across the entire plains of auto fat and be happy and asking people to use umbrella. the biggest concern is hate stroke. what is next? well, the pilgrims. they're going to stay here until the sunsets and then they would move to the plane of that was that it had to gather the pebbles which are going to use pull the symbolic stoning of the devil. tomato is a piece of sacrifice. also that there was continued the symbolic stoning of the

devil, and the journey is going to be over. you will see an element of the journey which is basically about which you were to put the 2 ways. what they consider to be sacred. traditions of prophets. well, how about and abraham? but at the same time, it's a journey about the need to find a greatest sense of purpose in life. and this is exactly what they hope to achieve today. pushing my bottle, i was just leave a bounce out of that. okay, that's it for me, lots more information on a website out. is there a dot com? the news continues here. notice they're off of the the

challenges with the as united states is under fire for its continued support of israel's brutal war on gaza. and while it becomes further invest in the cost of the war and you pray, many are asking, how is this affecting washington's global spans? is the us overstretched, unclipped the signal, the end of us, middle polarity, will ask renown political scientist, john mearsheimer, and it upfront special, the nearest time, or thank you so much for joining us on upfront. my pleasure to be here. it's been nearly 20 years since you co author, your seminal piece of titled the israel lobby, dealing with the lobby's undue influence on united states foreign policy. have there been any major policy shifts or any other changes or developments since you

wrote the piece? well, i think there's 2 things have changed. one is i think that we help to open up this course about the lobby before we wrote the article and then the book, not many people talked about the lobby, explicitly, lobbies, influence on us foreign policy. and i think in terms of the discourse, uh, we had a significant influence in terms of actual policy. i think we've had little influence at all. i think that the lobby remains as powerful as ever, and american foreign policy of, towards israel and towards the greater middle east remains greatly influence by the lobby. i mean, one could argue you're here being too hard on yourself, but you're selling yourself a little bit short to the extent that there is at least resistance now. and that

resistance does matter. i mean, there's a campaign against the lobby group, a pack, the american israel public affairs committee, and how they influence us politics. specifically the targeting and progressive democrats, according to one paul, 62 percent of respondents who voted for president biden and 2020. agree that quote, the us should stop weapons shipments to israel until israel discontinues. it's a tax on the people of guys and now present it by and certainly continues to provide military aid and financial support to israel. there's no doubt about that. but there is at least the perception of a risk that biden is taken. now that wouldn't have been there 20 years ago. is that safe to say? well, i think there's no question that uh, attitudes towards is real and towards israel's policies. regarding the palestinians has shifted in the body politic, especially among young people, and especially among democrats. and there's no question that causes problems for

president bite. but the fact is that the lobby still remains exceedingly successful at influencing a policy at the elite level lobbies influence in congress, and the lobby's influence on the white house remains as powerful as ever. so what you find here is something of a disjuncture between public opinion on one hand and the lobby's ability to influence policy on the other hand. and how that plays out over time remains to be seen. it could be the case that bike is defeated in the fall, in large part because he is supported israel down the line up to now and that he continues to support is real down the line and that comes back to bite him. that may be the case, and if that does happen,

then attitudes towards israel and towards the lobby and towards the is really american relationship, i think will change even more and maybe policy will change. but that has not happened. so for fair enough, the something memo organized by the us state department staffers, which was leaks back in november, early november, a warrant that the us as failure to criticize is really war crimes quote, contributes to regional public perceptions that the united states is a biased and this honest actor, which at best does not advance and at worst harms us interest world wide, is the u. s. has continued support for israel affecting it's global standing. there's no question about it. the united states is effectively complicit the genocide that's widely regarded. our ability, uh, you know, to influence people around the world has diminished significantly as a result of this. all of this makes a joke out of the concept of

a rules based order, which we preach about all the time. so this is a disaster for the united states, but i would point out to you that despite the fact that to disaster the united states continues to support israel down the line. now the rejoinder to that, at least the most reasonable rejoinder to that would be that this is absolutely a matter of national security. that is really, is not just the recipient of us large, yes, for philanthropic reasons or humanitarian reasons. but there is a strategic interest in the middle east that goes beyond the money, but it, it is actually directly tied to us. national security interest is supporting israel, vital to maintaining us national security. i think your comments have it dead wrong . israel is a strategic albatross around their neck. it's a liability. we gain hardly any benefits from our relationship with israel, any strategic benefits,

and there are significant liabilities as we're seeing now. furthermore, there's a powerful moral or ethical dimension to this. and the idea that being joined at the hip with is real is in their moral or ethical interest is not a serious arguments. as i said to you before, the united states is complicit in a genocide. this is certainly not in their interest. so the idea that, you know, we're supporting israel unconditionally because it's an expertise you can, more or less interest is not a serious argument. yeah. but the moral side was more saying, if we cast aside the more argument against supporting israel us, is this still a strategic interest that trumps that into. and some people would argue whether it's, whether it's being wary of your, on whether it's proxy wars that there might be some vital military reason for being there. and being so staunchly tied to israel, but you say there's no,

there's no credible argument there. no, i don't buy that argument for one second. and stephen, i lay out the case against that argument in both the article end of the book. and by the way, with regard to a ran, i believe we would have much better relations with the rand today. we're not to the lobby in our chapter on a ran in, in the lobby book. we make it quite clear, it ran, tried to improve relations with the united states on a number of occasions of the eighty's and ninety's and the lobby moved in and killed their efforts to accommodate the for randy ends in any way. and furthermore, if you look at the jcp away, which is the nuclear agreement between basically the united states and a ram that i think affectively shut down the rainy in nuclear program in the short term. uh, it was israel in the lobby that put enormous pressure on the united states to put

an end to that agreement, which i don't think was an error interest. so help me understand why we end up in this place if there's no legitimate moral argument here. to your point, and if there is no legitimate strategic interest and it's certainly a financial burden, we're talking 3 or $4000000000.00 a year. and we're talking about in post october 7th, an attempt to get even more tens of billions of dollars to israel. it's certainly a financial burden. why does the united states continue to double down in this way in the sixty's, we'd say, as hawk missile sales? perhaps, you know, we might say that it's a, it's a, it's an attempt to leverage a geo political standing in order to access oil more. but now in 2024. what good reason does the nicest have to do this and not doing it blindly there. there must be a reason. what is it to but let me just point out that the united states just doesn't give is real lots of weapons and lots of money, and supported diplomatically it does it on conditionally. there is no relationship

between any 2 countries in world history. and it looks like this relationship, the united states again, supports is real no matter what it does. this is truly remarkable. we don't treat is real like a normal country and help it because it's to our benefit strategically. that's the argument you're basically making. this is a strategic asset for the united states as a normal country, and we take advantage of it. that's not what's going on here. so the why, what is the organizing principle behind this special relationship that it's a fascinating argument you're making, but why that, why is us doing it? because of the lobby. the united states has a political system that is set up in ways that allow interest groups to have great influence. just think of the national rifle association. when you look at polls in terms of how americans think about gun control,

what you see is that there are lots of americans who are interested in some serious gun control, but it's almost impossible to get any meaningful control because of the national rifle association. the national rifle association is the interest group that wields enormous power when it comes to legislation involving gun control. well, the is real hobby, is one of the most powerful lobbies, if not the most powerful lobby in the united states. and the lobby goes to a nor misplace to make sure that american foreign policy supports is real unconditionally and it is wildly successful. truly impressive, how good the lobby is. getting a u. s. foreign policy makers to support israel, hook, line, and sinker. here in the optimism that it's, you know, is the invincibility of apax that are, of invincibility breaking down. and i think that's

a little too strong. i think it's a road in somewhat of what the future looks like for sure. it's hard to say. let me make 2 points there. first of all, the lobby now has to operate out of the open, and it has to engage what i call smash male politics. before we wrote the article in the book, the lobby could operate behind closed doors and for any interest group, the ideal situation is to operate behind closed doors and not out in the open. but when you're out in the open, like the lobby is now when you're engaged in smash mouth politics, it's going to cause you all sorts of problems that's pointing out. ready one, please, number 2 that israel's behavior has gotten more outrages over time and a good manifestation at this point is what's happening in regards to today. and the situation is not going to get any better with the passage of time is widely recognized. it is real, is that apartheid state. and furthermore, it is engaging in a genocidal campaign at this point in time. well,

that tells you that the lobby has really got a difficult job confronting it. it has to work over time these days to defend is real and it will have to work harder and harder with the passage of time. because more and more people are aware of what's going on in the middle. at least they see what is real is doing, but i would never underestimate the ability of the lobby to adjust to the circumstances and, and prevail. a more that may not happen, but you don't want to underestimate the lobby. that's my basic point. understood, that's what a warranty you praying a bit in october of last year, president biden had asked congress to authorize $61000000000.00 and ukrainian assistance, in addition to another $14000000000.00 for israel, which for now still remains stalled. in the us house of representatives, the u. s. department of defense in early february, we stated that without us funding ukraine's defense will likely collapse,

given that the funding is now stalled. what do you believe the impact would be for ukraine and for us policy to well, i believe that ukraine was going to lose this war to russia, whether they got that 60 plus $1000000000.00 or not. the fact is that the ukrainians need weaponry. and furthermore, they need manpower because they're badly out numbered in terms of troop levels. well, we can't do anything to help the troop levels. and in terms of weaponry, we don't have the weaponry to get them. when you listen to people talk about the 60 plus $1000000000.00, you would think that this is going to allow us as soon as this aid is provided, to take all these weapons off the shelf and ship them to ukraine. and that's going to go a long way towards redressing the in balance and weaponry over there. but that's not true. we can't, we can't give them the weapons they need and large enough numbers because we don't

have those weapons and that we includes the europe pins as well as the united states. so we can give them dollar bills or yours, but that's not going to do much good. so we can number one, we dress the weaponry in balance. and number 2, we can not re dress the man power imbalance. oh, so there's money, largely and effective to the point that it's, it's a little legitimate argument not sending any that's worse than that. what it does is it encourages the ukrainians to continue fighting, which means they'll lose more territory and more ukrainians will die. when, if we cut off the aid and what ukraine go its own way and become a neutral country, ukraine could cut a deal now and get a better deal today. then it will get tomorrow if we give it the to continue finding a little bit like i won't call it appeasement, but thing to effectively yield a significant portions of your land because you can't when uh,

when there's an entire global community that could offer support, feels like a tough decision to me. as you get into the site, was mohammed ali, you go to rounds with them and it's quite clear that he has the ability to kill you . what are you going to do? quit after 2 rounds or continue to fight and allow me to kill you. well, if i, if i'm wearing gloves and he's not, i've been yelling to somebody, hey, is there a rest of it? i can put some gloves on the guy. i feel like rushes friday, but i'd love to know it was watching in the international system, there is no higher authority that can rescue you when you get into trouble. ukrainians are in big trouble, and there is no referee, no god, no higher authority, no, whatever up there that can rescue. and my point to you is that with the ukrainian should do now is they should cut all security ties, cut all security, ties with the west, right, and declare neutrality and work with the russians to make it clear that they are

a neutral states that have no interest in joining nato, and then the united states should cut off all way to ukraine, and the ukranian should rely on economic aid from europe in its place of the russian president. dimitri made video of who's now deputy chairman of russian security council was recently asked at what point russia should stop its invasion and he stated, it probably shouldn't be keyed, if not now, then after some time, maybe and some other phase of the development of this conflict of president, putting himself also stated that russian troops would push further into ukraine after russia's success in taking over the town of, of the of car. do you think pollutants goal is to take over all of ukraine and especially even capable of doing this? and i think that despite the conventional wisdom of the west, he is not determined and never has been determined to conquer all of ukraine. and

indeed, he would be foolish to do that. and furthermore, despite the conventional wisdom in the west, there has never been any evidence that he is interested in conquering other countries in eastern europe as well. the idea that he's trying to recreate the russian empire or create a great, a russia is not a serious argument. but what's your argument isn't that he's trying to take over the rest of europe, but maybe just the rest of ukraine? no, i don't believe that there's no evidence to support that. he'd be a full to try to conquer all of ukraine because the western half of the country is filled with ethnic ukrainians, who would resist russian occupation mightily. he'd have a serious insurgency on his hands, and that's the last thing you need. and as i said the before, they would be foolish in the extreme to try to do that. but let's move on because there's a, there's another thing i want to ask you about. in december of 2023 us defense secretary lloyd austin stated, rushes, military is badly weekend. and last year,

the head of the defense intelligence agency said that it would take somewhere between 5 and 10 years for russian to rebuild the capabilities of its armed forces . some argue that ukrainian resistance with western support was, in fact important to prevent further aggression from russia. what are you making it? i think it's just dead wrong. i think the russian military today is much more formidable, that it was then, it was when the war 1st started. armies at the start of a war, rarely look like armies midway through a war or at the end of a war. and by almost all accounts in the ukrainian media, this is in the ukrainian media media. the russian army has gotten much better with the passage of time. they mobilized lots of troops. they've trained them up, the equipment is much better. and most importantly, the tactics and strategy are smarter, which is what you would expect in any army the fights of protracted warrants. it

gets better in most cases, which the past with the passage of time. i think the concern was the wiping out of ground troops and that to replenish those tubes. it would take 5 to 10 years. but i hear what you're saying loud and clear, which is that those numbers are inflated and that, and that they're, they've replenish troops and much more quickly and efficiently than that. i think that's exactly right. the numbers of casualties for inflated and furthermore, putting has mobilized a huge number of troops. they've trained them up and they now have a quite effective military fair enough. new recently stated that the u. s. as in trouble in regards to the middle east and ukraine on ukraine, you said a quote. we were committed to beating the russians in ukraine. we were committed to wrecking the russian economy and knocking the russians out of the ranks of the great powers we sailed. this is a devastating defeat for the west. you said i'm from here. stand point is this the end of american unit polarity? you know, una blurred, in my opinion, ended in 2017 with the rise of china. and the fact that who brought

the russians back from the dead between the period of 2000 when he took over in 2017 due to polar moments lasted from roughly december 1991. when the soviet union collapse, until about 2017, we were the only great power on the planet. and it was the ideal strategic situation to be in. but the world that we live in today is not uniform. small bipolar is china, there's russia and there's the united states. and let me push back on that just a little bit because the us still remains the largest economy in the world, according to g, d, p, and g d, p per capita. in 2023. and in 2024, the us was still ranked as the most powerful military in the world, with the world's largest defense budget, in excess of oblique $750000000000.00. there we have military base in well over 70 countries. right now, i have

a partners really threaten the unipolar strength of the united states. well, i went out to use it. you're absolutely correct that we are the most powerful state on the planet. but the argument i'm making to you is there are 2 other great powers on the planet, and although they are not as powerful as we are, they still qualify is great powers. but the fact is that china is a peer competitor, and china is bent on dominating asia, and the united states has been on preventing china from dominated nation. so we have an intense security competition now taking place between china and the united states in east asia. so in that sense, china is a threat to the united states with regard to the russians, as you well know, who in ukraine, we are effectively involved in a war against russia. so we have these 2 other great powers in the system, russia and china. and in both cases, we are competing with them at the security level and very serious ways. and with

regard to russia, one could make an argument that we're work with russia in the past when countries have attempted to challenge or break 3 of us orthodoxy, they faced the wrath of the u. s. government. some countries today are still enduring. a ferocious array of sanctions, others in the past with victims of regime change operations that were supported by the united states or other western governments. does the us do have the same ability to threaten nations that go against them or have things changed? so i think things have changed somewhat. i think that to other countries like a ran, for example, in north korea, which we're in a much low layer position during the unit polar moment, can now cosy up to the chinese and the russians who are willing to cozy up to them . and this just goes to tell you the weaker countries in the system can find allies

who will help to protect them from the united states and its pension for regime change. so before we go, let me ask you one more question. so if i accept your argument that us uno polarity is over, what comes next? are we going to see a genuinely multi polar kind of political environment here? or are we going to see a situation where china eventually takes us his place and impose the new kind of imperialism to were in a genuinely multi polar system. and there is no evidence that it's going to end any time soon. one can make an argument for demographic reasons, moving forward, we will eventually go back to a unipolar world. and the reason i say that is it's quite clear that the chinese and the russians, but especially the chinese have wicked demographic problems. and their populations are going to shrink in significant ways over time. the united states has a bit of

a demographic problem itself. but we have one great advantage that they don't have . and that is that we're an immigrant culture. so we can import all sorts of people to redressed the demographic problems that we have. and i think an argument could be made that you know 50 years from now as the united states may be back to you in a polarity, in large part because of demographic reasons. because you understand the 2 principal building blocks of military power or wealth and demography. you have to be rich and you have to have lots of people in china and russia are in a very precarious situation over the long term because they have declining populations. john, this time i wanna thank you for your time. thank you so much for joining us. on our part with your insights, you my pleasure. thanks for having me on the show. i enjoyed it. all right, everyone, that is our show. a product will be back in the

israel's war on gossip be coming in forever across the united states. why are the student protests for palestine being met with military style track down? why despite insist on 0 consequences for israel in its war on gaza? the quizzical look at us politics, the bottom line, the

on counting the cost, your a plays catch up with the us in china and what's being called a competitive does crisis can india is private us but pushed through economic performance with a refused parliamentary majority. and how the, how should pilgrimage is boosting. so these are counting the cost on al jazeera. ok, so we start with driving forces. those are, what are the emissions going to be? and it's not that easy. if you think about it, what are we going to be doing $3050.00, a 100 years from now? that's going to cause human beta missions. how does the political system going to respond? how does the human psyche get a response? there you get in an area which is really impossible to predict. and the question then becomes, how do you fix up between these events? how do you recover from a hurricane before you have time to really fix the damage? the question i guess we might, as of drake, they'll pick up next time is why do we do nothing?

thank you, the, [000:00:00;00] the, [000:00:00;00] the hello, i'm sammy say them. this is the news. our live from dell coming up in the next 60 minutes is ready strikes target residential areas in central and south and gaza. kidding. at least 38 palestinians. protest is across from small gains to the far right head of upcoming elections. at the latest from paris. runs sweden, exchange prison isn't

a deal mediated biome on for my writing. and the official convicted of war crimes