{"id":58716,"date":"2026-04-13T07:29:49","date_gmt":"2026-04-13T15:29:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/?p=58716"},"modified":"2026-04-13T07:29:49","modified_gmt":"2026-04-13T15:29:49","slug":"john-mearsheimer-says-attacking-iran-was-irrational","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/2026\/04\/13\/john-mearsheimer-says-attacking-iran-was-irrational\/","title":{"rendered":"John Mearsheimer says Attacking Iran Was Irrational"},"content":{"rendered":"

Reprinted from John’s Substack<\/a>:\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

On 10 April 2026, I was on Glenn Diesen\u2019s popular podcast, mainly talking about the disastrous war in Iran. Toward the end of our discussion, Glenn raised the issue of how one determines whether a particular policy that a state follows is rational or not. Of course, this is a hot topic these days.<\/p>\n

Sebastian Rosato, who teaches at Notre Dame, and I recently wrote a book on the subject:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

So, I was primed to answer Glenn\u2019s question and relate it to contemporary events. Our argument in the book is that policies are based on theories about how the world works. In other words, if you are Prime Minister Netanyahu and thinking about attacking Iran in February 2026 or if you are Adolf Hitler thinking about invading France in 1940, you need a theory of victory. In effect you need to be able to tell a causal story \u2014 which is what theories are all about \u2014 that explains how launching an offensive is likely to produce the desired result.<\/p>\n

Policies are rational when they are based on a credible theory<\/em>, which is to say a theory that is logically sound and supported by substantial evidence. If a policy is based on a noncredible<\/em> theory<\/em> \u2014 one that is either logically flawed or not supported by much evidence \u2014 it is an irrational policy.<\/p>\n

President Trump\u2019s decision to attack Iran on 28 February 2026 was irrational because it was based on a noncredible or flawed theory of victory. He assumed that independent air power alone could cause regime change in Iran, which would lead to a new regime that would surrender to US and Israeli demands. However, it is widely recognized in the literature on air power \u2014 and from a quick look at the historical record \u2014 that air power alone is extremely unlikely to produce regime change. Thus, Trump\u2019s theory of victory was not credible and therefore his policy was irrational.<\/p>\n