Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Autopsy #9 Analysing Pompeo vs Mearsheimer
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Autopsy #9 Analysing Pompeo vs Mearsheimer
In this week's Autopsy, we react to a debate from the Munk Debates in Canada, featuring Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer against Mike Pompeo and Victoria Nuland on the question of Iran. The full video is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntiLygd0ihE
On paper this is a clash between academia and policy. In practice it is a demonstration of exactly how Western Bubble thinking shuts down serious analysis the moment it feels threatened.
Walt and Mearsheimer do what good analysts are supposed to do: follow the evidence. The JCPOA worked. The IAEA inspectors were on the ground. Iran was not stockpiling. Iran was not, by any serious measure, this close to a nuclear weapon, despite thirty years of Western politicians insisting otherwise. The academics make these points clearly, without drama, and with data.
Pompeo's response is essentially: don't trust the inspectors, don't trust the international institutions, trust me. I was Secretary of State. I had information. Iran are monsters. That is the full argument. It is the same logic that preceded the invasion of Iraq, delivered with the same confidence, by someone who has apparently learned nothing from that episode.
What makes the debate particularly revealing is the moment Nuland effectively ends the conversation by saying "there you go" when Walt and Mearsheimer decline to describe Iran as a monster. That two words. In those two words you see the entire problem with Western foreign policy thinking: the moment someone refuses to accept the good versus evil frame, they become an invalid conversational partner. Not wrong, not misguided, simply irrelevant.
We also discuss what the debate says about the difference between policy and academia, why Iran's weapons development makes considerably more rational sense than Pompeo wants to admit, and why North Korea's survival as a state tells you everything you need to know about the real incentive structure around nuclear weapons.
This podcast is an individual project between us, Dario Hasenstab and Balder Hageraats. We are supported by our producer Stefani Obradovic from Western Bubble Insights & Strategy. If you would like to get in touch with us, write us an email at [email protected].
View all episodes
By Balder Hageraats & Dario HasenstabIn this week's Autopsy, we react to a debate from the Munk Debates in Canada, featuring Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer against Mike Pompeo and Victoria Nuland on the question of Iran. The full video is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntiLygd0ihE
On paper this is a clash between academia and policy. In practice it is a demonstration of exactly how Western Bubble thinking shuts down serious analysis the moment it feels threatened.
Walt and Mearsheimer do what good analysts are supposed to do: follow the evidence. The JCPOA worked. The IAEA inspectors were on the ground. Iran was not stockpiling. Iran was not, by any serious measure, this close to a nuclear weapon, despite thirty years of Western politicians insisting otherwise. The academics make these points clearly, without drama, and with data.
Pompeo's response is essentially: don't trust the inspectors, don't trust the international institutions, trust me. I was Secretary of State. I had information. Iran are monsters. That is the full argument. It is the same logic that preceded the invasion of Iraq, delivered with the same confidence, by someone who has apparently learned nothing from that episode.
What makes the debate particularly revealing is the moment Nuland effectively ends the conversation by saying "there you go" when Walt and Mearsheimer decline to describe Iran as a monster. That two words. In those two words you see the entire problem with Western foreign policy thinking: the moment someone refuses to accept the good versus evil frame, they become an invalid conversational partner. Not wrong, not misguided, simply irrelevant.
We also discuss what the debate says about the difference between policy and academia, why Iran's weapons development makes considerably more rational sense than Pompeo wants to admit, and why North Korea's survival as a state tells you everything you need to know about the real incentive structure around nuclear weapons.
This podcast is an individual project between us, Dario Hasenstab and Balder Hageraats. We are supported by our producer Stefani Obradovic from Western Bubble Insights & Strategy. If you would like to get in touch with us, write us an email at [email protected].