00:00:00
one of the most influential and
00:00:02
controversial thinkers in the
00:00:04
world he is known as one of the world's
00:00:06
leading experts on economic
00:00:09
development one of the most famous
00:00:12
political
00:00:14
scientists in
00:00:18
history we're talking about moral and
00:00:21
political principles here I would
00:00:23
suggest that all four Wars could be
00:00:25
ended quickly great power politics is
00:00:28
now back on the table if we are anything
00:00:31
as a world Community we have to
00:00:32
implement what we've
00:00:35
[Music]
00:00:36
[Applause]
00:00:44
said I'm excited for this panel we're
00:00:46
going to talk about foreign policy uh we
00:00:48
have I think two of the most interesting
00:00:51
imminent renowned thinkers about foreign
00:00:53
policy uh professor John mimer from
00:00:56
University of Chicago and Professor
00:00:57
Jeffrey Sachs from Columbia so great to
00:01:00
have you guys here
00:01:03
today it's uh it's a it's a big world
00:01:07
and there's a lot of things happening so
00:01:09
let's just jump into it um the big news
00:01:11
over the past week was that Dick Cheney
00:01:13
endorsed kamla Harris for president I
00:01:16
think for people who see the world in
00:01:18
partisan political terms this might have
00:01:20
been surprising but I don't think that
00:01:22
you guys were that surprised by that do
00:01:25
you see an underlying logic to this um
00:01:27
Jeff why don't I start with you
00:01:30
I think it's obvious there's basically
00:01:32
one deep State party uh and that is the
00:01:36
party of Cheney uh Harris Biden uh
00:01:40
Victoria newand my colleague at Columbia
00:01:42
University now uh and uh newand is kind
00:01:46
of the face of all of this because she
00:01:48
has been in every Administration for the
00:01:50
last 30 years she was in the Clinton
00:01:53
Administration wrecking our policies
00:01:56
towards Russia in the 1990s she was uh
00:01:59
in the Bush Administration Jor uh with
00:02:03
Cheney uh wrecking our policies towards
00:02:06
NATO enlargement uh she was in uh then
00:02:10
the Obama Administration as Hillary's uh
00:02:14
spokesperson first and then making a
00:02:17
coup in Ukraine in February 2014 not a
00:02:20
great move started a war then she was uh
00:02:24
Biden's uh uh under Secretary of State
00:02:28
now that's both parties uh it's a a
00:02:32
colossal mess and um she's been Cheney's
00:02:36
uh adviser she's been Biden's advisor
00:02:39
she she uh and uh makes perfect sense
00:02:44
this is the reality uh we're trying to
00:02:46
find out if there's another party that's
00:02:48
the big question and John what's what's
00:02:50
your thought on that do you see any
00:02:51
difference between uh Republicans and
00:02:53
Democrats no I like to refer to the
00:02:55
Republicans and the Democrats as Tweedle
00:02:57
D and Tweedle du
00:03:05
there's hardly any difference I actually
00:03:07
think the one exception is that uh
00:03:09
former president Trump when he became
00:03:12
president in 2017 was bent on beating
00:03:15
back to deep State and becoming a
00:03:18
different kind of leader on the foreign
00:03:20
policy front but he basically failed and
00:03:23
he is vowed that if he gets elected this
00:03:26
time uh it will be different and he will
00:03:28
beat back the Deep State he will pursue
00:03:31
a foreign policy that's fundamentally
00:03:33
different uh than Republicans and
00:03:35
Democrats have pursued up to now and the
00:03:38
big question on the table is whether or
00:03:40
not you think Trump can beat the Deep
00:03:42
State and these two established parties
00:03:44
uh and i' bet against Trump John um and
00:03:48
Jeff but let's start with John can you
00:03:50
actually Define for us for me I don't
00:03:53
understand when people say deep State
00:03:54
what it is I almost viewed the term
00:03:56
comically we have one of our friends in
00:03:58
our group chat who we called Deep state
00:03:59
who is he's deep State he's really in
00:04:03
the Deep state but we say it as a joke
00:04:06
but for maybe the uninitiated what does
00:04:08
it actually mean what are their
00:04:10
incentives who are
00:04:12
they Jeff maybe you want to start or
00:04:14
John you want to start yeah I'll say a
00:04:16
few words about it when we talk about
00:04:17
the Deep State we're talking really
00:04:19
about the administrative State it's very
00:04:22
important to understand that starting in
00:04:24
the late 19th early 20th century uh
00:04:27
given developments uh in the American
00:04:30
economy it was imperative that we
00:04:33
develop and this was true of all Western
00:04:35
countries a very powerful Central State
00:04:38
that could run the country and over time
00:04:42
that state has grown in power and since
00:04:45
World War II the United States as you
00:04:47
all know has been involved in every nook
00:04:49
and cranny of the world fighting Wars
00:04:51
Here There and Everywhere and to do that
00:04:54
you need a very powerful administrative
00:04:57
State uh that can help manage foreign
00:05:00
policy but in the process what happens
00:05:02
is you get all of these highlevel
00:05:04
bureaucrats middle level and lowlevel
00:05:06
bureaucrats who become established in
00:05:09
positions in the Pentagon the state
00:05:11
department the intelligence Community
00:05:13
you name it and they end up having a
00:05:16
vested interest in pursuing a particular
00:05:19
foreign policy and the particular
00:05:22
foreign policy that they like to pursue
00:05:24
is the one that the Democrats and the
00:05:26
Republicans are pushing and that's why
00:05:29
we talk about Tweedle D and Tweedle Dum
00:05:31
with regard to the two parties you could
00:05:33
throw in uh the Deep State as being on
00:05:36
the same page as those other two uh
00:05:39
institutions yeah there there's a very
00:05:42
interesting interview of Putin uh in
00:05:44
figuro in
00:05:46
2017 and he says uh I've dealt with
00:05:49
three presidents now they come into
00:05:52
office with some ideas even but then uh
00:05:55
the men in the dark suits and the blue
00:05:58
ties and then he said I I wear red ties
00:06:01
but they wear blue ties they come in and
00:06:03
explain the way the world really is and
00:06:06
there go the ideas and I think that's
00:06:09
Putin's experience that's our experience
00:06:11
that's my experience which is that
00:06:13
there's a deeply entrained foreign
00:06:15
policy it has been in place in my
00:06:18
interpretation for many decades but
00:06:20
arguably a variant of it has been in
00:06:23
place since
00:06:24
1992 I got to watch some of it early on
00:06:27
because I was an adviser to gorb and I
00:06:30
was an adviser to yelson and so I saw
00:06:33
early makings of this though I didn't
00:06:35
fully understand it except in retrospect
00:06:38
but that policy has been mostly in place
00:06:42
pretty consistently for 30 years and it
00:06:44
didn't really matter whether it was Bush
00:06:45
senior whether it was Clinton whether it
00:06:48
was Bush Jr whether it was Obama whether
00:06:50
it was Trump after all who did Trump
00:06:53
hire he hired John Bolton well the uh
00:06:56
pretty deep State uh that was the end of
00:07:00
they told you know he explained this is
00:07:01
the way it is and by the way Bolton
00:07:03
explained also in his Memoirs when when
00:07:06
Trump didn't agree we figured out ways
00:07:07
to trick him basically so well and what
00:07:10
what are their incentives is it war is
00:07:12
it self-enrichment is it power is it all
00:07:14
three is it some or is it yeah is it is
00:07:16
it just is there a philosophical
00:07:19
entrenchment or is it just this inertial
00:07:22
issue that like once a policy begins
00:07:24
it's hard to change and the system's
00:07:27
just working with 10,000 people working
00:07:29
towards it
00:07:30
you know if I were lucky to sit next to
00:07:33
the world's greatest political
00:07:35
philosopher which I am um he'd give you
00:07:39
a good answer which is that the right
00:07:41
answer which is if you want to interpret
00:07:43
American foreign policy it is to
00:07:45
maximize power uh and uh he gives a John
00:07:49
gives a an explanation of that we have
00:07:52
uh some differences but I think it's a
00:07:55
very good description of American uh
00:07:58
foreign policy which is is that it's
00:08:00
trying to maximize Global power
00:08:03
essentially to be Global hegemon I I
00:08:07
think it could get us all killed this is
00:08:09
because it's a little bit delusional in
00:08:11
my mind but uh not not the I not not his
00:08:15
interpretation of their idea but the
00:08:17
fact that they hold that idea is a
00:08:18
little weird to me but in any event
00:08:21
that's the idea and every time a
00:08:24
decision comes inside that I've seen I'm
00:08:27
an economist so I don't see security
00:08:30
decisions the same way but every
00:08:32
decision that I've seen always leans in
00:08:34
the same direction for the last 30 years
00:08:38
which is power as the central objective
00:08:42
so Clinton faced an internal
00:08:45
cabinate really debate should NATO be
00:08:49
enlarged is this this is a post Cold War
00:08:52
phenomenon that it's well I'll I'll let
00:08:54
John take that just two very quick
00:08:57
points first of all I do believe that
00:08:59
the people people who uh are in favor of
00:09:01
this foreign policy uh do believe in it
00:09:06
it's not cynical they really believe
00:09:08
that we're doing the right thing I've
00:09:10
met them yeah no yeah the second point I
00:09:12
would make to you and this sort of adds
00:09:14
on to what Jeff said Jeff said power has
00:09:16
a lot to do with this and is a good
00:09:18
realist I of course believe that but
00:09:20
it's also very important to understand
00:09:22
that the United States is a
00:09:23
fundamentally liberal country and we
00:09:25
believe that we have a right we have a
00:09:28
responsibility and we have the power to
00:09:30
run around the world and remake the
00:09:33
world in America's image most people in
00:09:36
the foreign policy establishment the
00:09:38
Republican Party the Democratic party
00:09:40
they believe that and that is what has
00:09:42
motivated our foreign policy in large
00:09:45
part since the Cold War ended because
00:09:48
remember when the cold war ends we have
00:09:50
no rival great power left so what are we
00:09:53
going to do with all this power that we
00:09:55
have what we decide to do is go out and
00:09:58
remake the world in our own image so
00:10:01
that's a that's a values point of view
00:10:03
though right that there are values that
00:10:05
they hold dear that that many do hold
00:10:07
dear that
00:10:09
liberalism democracy does ultimately I
00:10:12
believe I've heard this reduce conflict
00:10:14
worldwide that there's an importance
00:10:15
that we've never seen two democratic
00:10:18
nations since World War II go to war and
00:10:22
that there's a reason why we want to see
00:10:24
liberalism kind of breed throughout the
00:10:28
world and it's our responsib ability for
00:10:30
world for Global Peace to make that a
00:10:31
mandate let me step in for one moment
00:10:34
okay sure very quickly and by the way
00:10:36
I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm uh what do you call
00:10:39
it where you pull the spirits of the the
00:10:40
voice of others but I'm I'm just trying
00:10:42
to channeling channeling that's the word
00:10:44
I want to be very clear I am forever
00:10:46
thankful that I was born in a liberal
00:10:48
democracy and I love liberalism but the
00:10:51
question here is do you think that we
00:10:53
can run around the world imposing
00:10:57
liberal democracy on other countries and
00:10:59
some cases shoving it down their throat
00:11:01
doing it at the end of a rifle barrel
00:11:04
and my argument is that's almost
00:11:06
impossible to do it almost always
00:11:08
backfires think Iraq Afghanistan so
00:11:11
forth and so on and secondly you begin
00:11:14
to erode liberalism in the United States
00:11:17
because you build a deep state right and
00:11:19
you want to understand that a lot of the
00:11:21
complaints here about cracking down on
00:11:24
freedom of speech and so forth and so on
00:11:26
are related to the fact that we have
00:11:28
this ambitious foreign policy those two
00:11:31
things go together in very important
00:11:32
ways what an let me let me disagree just
00:11:36
a bit uh because we agree actually on
00:11:39
the behavior and I've learned I'd say
00:11:42
most of that from you that it's power
00:11:45
seeking truly John in my work 40 years
00:11:50
uh overseas I don't think the US
00:11:52
government gives a damn about these
00:11:54
other places I I don't think they really
00:11:56
care if it's a liberal democracy if it's
00:11:58
a dictatorship they want the right of
00:12:00
ways they want the military bases they
00:12:03
want uh the state to be in support of
00:12:06
the United States they want NATO
00:12:08
enlargement I don't I know You' you've
00:12:10
written and there are some who believe
00:12:13
in stateb
00:12:15
building God if they do they are so
00:12:17
incompetent it's
00:12:20
unbelievable
00:12:23
but Professor s know I I'll give you an
00:12:25
example if I put just one one
00:12:27
example I'm I'm a friend with one of the
00:12:31
only
00:12:32
PhD Afghani Economist senior person in
00:12:36
the US um Academia over the last 30
00:12:41
years you would think that the state
00:12:43
department if they were interested in
00:12:45
State Building would ask him one day one
00:12:49
moment something about Afghanistan never
00:12:52
happened never happened not even one
00:12:54
question never happened he asked me can
00:12:57
you get me a a meeting with the
00:12:59
department they were completely
00:13:01
uninterested this is this is about power
00:13:05
you're too idealistic
00:13:08
John they don't care about the other
00:13:11
places they may feel we should be
00:13:14
whatever we want free and so forth but
00:13:17
Freedom I've been I've seen my with my
00:13:20
own eyes the coups the overthrows the
00:13:23
presidents democratic presidents LED
00:13:25
away they don't care at all this is
00:13:28
Washington
00:13:29
be a realist come on Professor mimer
00:13:34
I when we talk about power um there are
00:13:37
other people in the world who are trying
00:13:39
to accumulate power we live in a
00:13:41
multi-polar world right now and they
00:13:43
have in some cases very nefarious or bad
00:13:46
intent um and they do not have democracy
00:13:49
so it's one thing to you know tell uh
00:13:51
people in Afghanistan you need to evolve
00:13:54
you know to be a perfect democracy like
00:13:56
the one we have here I think we all
00:13:58
agree that's unrealistic and insane um
00:14:01
and not practical but what about the
00:14:04
free countries of the world uniting
00:14:06
together to stop dictators from invading
00:14:08
other free countries is that Noble is
00:14:10
that a good use of power and a good
00:14:12
framework for America to evolve too no I
00:14:16
don't think so uh I think that what the
00:14:19
United States should do is worry about
00:14:21
its own National interest uh in some
00:14:24
cases that's going to involve aligning
00:14:26
ourselves with a dictator uh if we're
00:14:29
fighting World War II all over again
00:14:31
it's December 8th
00:14:33
1941 you surely would be in favor of
00:14:36
allying with adol not with Adolf Hitler
00:14:38
with Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union
00:14:41
against uh Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany
00:14:44
sometimes you have to make those kind of
00:14:46
compromises uh as I said before I love
00:14:48
liberal democracy I have no problem
00:14:50
align with liberal democracy but when
00:14:52
you begin to think in the terms that
00:14:54
you're thinking you end up uh with an
00:14:57
Impulse to do social engineering around
00:15:00
the world and that gets you in all sorts
00:15:01
of problems well what I'm proposing is
00:15:04
when dictatorships invade other
00:15:07
countries then we take action it depends
00:15:09
maybe def defend them so it depends yeah
00:15:11
of course I mean when Russia invades
00:15:15
Ukraine basically what you're saying is
00:15:17
you want to go to war on behalf of
00:15:20
Ukraine against Russia are you in favor
00:15:23
of that no I would say diplomacy would
00:15:25
obviously be what we'd want to exhaust
00:15:27
but if they do roll into other fre
00:15:29
countries I think there's an argument
00:15:30
for the free countries of the world to
00:15:31
get together and say two dictators we're
00:15:33
not going to allow
00:15:36
this could I come in
00:15:39
here could I clarify a few
00:15:45
things look uh first of all
00:15:49
um almost all the time that we intervene
00:15:53
it's because uh we view this as a power
00:15:57
situation for the us so whether it's
00:16:00
Ukraine or Syria or Libya or other
00:16:04
places even if we Define it as defending
00:16:09
something believe me it's not about
00:16:11
defending something it's about a
00:16:13
perception of us power and US interest
00:16:16
and it's in objectives of us Global
00:16:21
hegemony and if we analyze the Ukraine
00:16:24
conflict uh just even a little bit below
00:16:27
the surface this is not a a conflict
00:16:29
about Putin invading Ukraine this is
00:16:32
something a lot different that has to do
00:16:34
with American power projection into the
00:16:37
former Soviet Union so it's completely
00:16:39
different second if we decide were the
00:16:45
police which we
00:16:47
do you can't imagine how cynical
00:16:52
we use to justify our actions
00:16:56
we used the cynical B that
00:16:59
we're defending the people of Benghazi
00:17:02
to bomb the hell out of Libya to kill
00:17:05
moamar Gaddafi why did we do that well
00:17:08
I'm kind of an expert on that region and
00:17:11
I can tell you maybe because sarosi
00:17:13
didn't like Gaddafi there's no much
00:17:16
deeper reason except Hillary liked every
00:17:19
bombing she could get her hands on and
00:17:21
Obama was kind of convinced my secretary
00:17:24
of state says go with it so why don't we
00:17:26
go with the NATO Expedition it had
00:17:28
nothing to do with Libya it un it
00:17:30
Unleashed 15 years of chaos cheated the
00:17:34
UN Security Council because like
00:17:36
everything else we've done it was on
00:17:38
false pretenses we did the same with
00:17:40
trying to overthrow Syria we did the
00:17:43
same with conspiring to overthrow Victor
00:17:46
yanukovich in Ukraine in February 2014
00:17:50
so the problem with this argument is
00:17:53
we're not nice guys we're not trying to
00:17:55
save the world we're not trying to make
00:17:57
democracies
00:17:59
we had a committee by the way of all the
00:18:02
luminaries you could mention but they're
00:18:04
The neocon Crazies but they're
00:18:06
luminaries the committee for the people
00:18:08
of
00:18:09
Cheta are you kidding do you think they
00:18:13
even knew where chn is or cared about
00:18:16
Chia but it was an opportunity to get at
00:18:19
Russia to weaken Russia to support a
00:18:21
jihadist movement inside Russia to do
00:18:24
this is a game but it's the game that
00:18:26
John has described better than any one
00:18:29
in the world it's a game of power it's
00:18:32
not that we're defending real things if
00:18:33
you want to defend real things go to the
00:18:36
UN Security Council and convince others
00:18:39
because the other countries are not
00:18:40
crazy and they don't want Mayhem in the
00:18:43
world but we play game so they say
00:18:46
that's a game Iraq which was obviously a
00:18:49
game before we went in it was a
00:18:51
obviously Co and Powell could not move
00:18:53
his lips without lying that day
00:18:56
obviously and so they said no but if
00:18:59
we're real about our interests then you
00:19:01
go to the UN Security Council and then
00:19:03
it's not just on us it's actually then a
00:19:06
collective security issue uh Professor M
00:19:08
if we were to take Jeffrey's position
00:19:11
here um that we are exerting power for
00:19:13
the sake of you know our reputation and
00:19:16
in fact to weaken dictatorships if I'm
00:19:18
if I'm summarizing correctly here um is
00:19:21
that not a good strategy to weaken
00:19:23
dictators around the world who might
00:19:25
like to invade other countries is there
00:19:27
is there a frame Fring in which you
00:19:29
could see that being um for you know a
00:19:33
world where democracy and people living
00:19:36
freely has gone down in our lifetimes is
00:19:39
that not knowable is there not a
00:19:41
justification somebody could make for
00:19:42
I'm not saying I have that but I'm just
00:19:43
trying to steal me on the other side of
00:19:45
this is weakening dictators and despots
00:19:48
a good strategy it depends uh well let's
00:19:51
talk about the the two that we have you
00:19:53
know uh Xi Jinping I think you wanted to
00:19:56
get to eventually and then Ukraine and
00:19:58
Putin are these people worth trying to
00:20:02
you know uh contain or even weaken well
00:20:04
in in terms of China I'm fully in favor
00:20:07
of containing China okay so containment
00:20:10
check it's containment I'm not
00:20:12
interested in regime change I'm not
00:20:14
interested in trying to turn China into
00:20:17
a democracy not going to happen yeah not
00:20:19
going to happen we tried it actually and
00:20:21
I thought it was foolish to even pursue
00:20:23
a policy of Engagement toward China with
00:20:26
regard to Russia I don't think Russia is
00:20:28
a serious threat to the United States
00:20:30
and indeed I think the United States
00:20:32
should have good relations with Putin
00:20:35
it's a remarkably foolish policy to push
00:20:38
him into the arms of the Chinese there
00:20:40
are three great powers in the system the
00:20:43
United States China and Russia China is
00:20:45
a peer competitor to the United States
00:20:48
it's the most serious threat to the
00:20:49
United States Russia is the weakest of
00:20:52
those three great powers and it's not a
00:20:54
serious threat to us if you are playing
00:20:56
balance and power politics and you're
00:20:58
interested as the United States in
00:21:00
containing China you want Russia on your
00:21:03
side of the Ledger but what we have done
00:21:06
in effect is we have pushed Russia into
00:21:09
the arms of the Chinese this is a
00:21:11
remarkably foolish policy and
00:21:13
furthermore by getting bogged down in
00:21:15
Ukraine and now bogged down in the
00:21:17
Middle East it's become very difficult
00:21:20
for us to Pivot to Asia to deal with
00:21:23
China which is the principal threat that
00:21:25
we face
00:21:27
[Applause]
00:21:31
can I
00:21:33
think David could I just say uh 2/3
00:21:37
right
00:21:38
perfect so you gave him a b or B plus a
00:21:42
minus I always give him an A minus
00:21:44
inflation I just wanted to add a
00:21:46
footnote which is that China's also not
00:21:48
a
00:21:49
threat it's just not a threat I mean
00:21:52
we're going to get to it ch ch China
00:21:54
China's a market it's uh got great food
00:21:57
great culture uh wonderful people a
00:22:00
civilization 10 times older than ours
00:22:02
it's not a threat well as an economist
00:22:04
can you talk about the impact of a cold
00:22:08
or hot conflict with China from an
00:22:10
economic perspective given the trade
00:22:11
relationship yeah it would wreck
00:22:13
California for one thing it would
00:22:15
destroy the economy that you guys are
00:22:17
making completely this economy has been
00:22:19
the biggest beneficiary of China's rise
00:22:22
probably in the whole world so it's
00:22:24
crazy maybe if you're worried if you're
00:22:27
really worried about about whether uh a
00:22:30
worker in Ohio has a particular job on a
00:22:32
particular assembly line then uh you can
00:22:35
be anti-china if you're worried about
00:22:37
the tech industry about California about
00:22:40
peace and the future you should be
00:22:42
pro-china that's all so why is it become
00:22:44
so Universal to assume that we are
00:22:47
already in a state of conflict with
00:22:49
China on not just party lines but like
00:22:53
almost any Spectrum you could kind of
00:22:55
like
00:22:56
consider said it exact right and he
00:22:59
predicted it better than anyone in the
00:23:02
whole world in 2001 he said when China
00:23:06
becomes large we're going to have
00:23:08
conflict because that's John's Theory
00:23:11
and it's right as a description of
00:23:13
American foreign policy that we are for
00:23:15
power they are big therefore they're an
00:23:17
enemy they're an enemy of our aspiration
00:23:20
to Global City tra City let let's let
00:23:24
John jump in here do you want you want
00:23:25
me to is it okay if I talk about this
00:23:27
yeah yeah I mean I think um I think that
00:23:30
um what's interesting I mean you and
00:23:33
Jeff I think arrive at similar
00:23:35
conclusions about Ukraine uh but
00:23:38
different ones on China right because
00:23:40
Jeff is an economist and I think sees
00:23:41
the world in fundamentally positive some
00:23:44
ways based on the potential for trade
00:23:47
economics basically whereas you see the
00:23:49
world as more of a zero sum game based
00:23:52
on the balance of power why don't you
00:23:53
just explain that difference I okay uh
00:23:56
it is very important to emphasize David
00:23:58
was saying that Jeff and I agree on all
00:24:01
sorts of issues including Ukraine and
00:24:03
Israel Palestine but we disagree
00:24:05
fundamentally as he just made clear on
00:24:07
China and let me explain to you why I
00:24:09
think that's the case and then Jeff can
00:24:11
tell you why he thinks I'm wrong
00:24:15
uh it has to do with security whether
00:24:17
you privilege security or survival or
00:24:20
whether you privilege prosperity and
00:24:23
economists and I would imagine most of
00:24:24
you in the audience really care greatly
00:24:26
about maximizing prosperity for someone
00:24:28
like me who's a realist what I care
00:24:30
about is maximizing the state's
00:24:32
prospects of survival and when you live
00:24:35
in an Antarctic system and in IR speak
00:24:38
that means there's no higher authority
00:24:40
there's no night Watchmen that can come
00:24:42
down and rescue you if you get into
00:24:43
trouble and this is the International
00:24:45
System there's no higher authority in
00:24:47
that anarchic world the best way to
00:24:50
survive is to be really powerful as we
00:24:53
used to say when I was a kid on New York
00:24:55
City playgrounds you want to be the
00:24:56
biggest and baddest dude on the Block
00:24:58
and that's simply because it's the best
00:25:00
way to survive if you're really powerful
00:25:03
nobody fools around with you the United
00:25:06
States is a regional hedgemon it's the
00:25:08
only Regional hedgemon on the planet we
00:25:11
dominate the Western Hemisphere and what
00:25:14
China has begun to do as it's got
00:25:18
increasingly powerful economically is
00:25:21
translate that economic might into
00:25:23
military might and it is trying to
00:25:27
dominate Asia it wants to push us out
00:25:29
beyond the first island chain it wants
00:25:31
to push us out beyond the second island
00:25:33
chain it wants to be like we are in the
00:25:35
Western Hemisphere and I don't blame the
00:25:38
Chinese one bit if I was the National
00:25:40
Security advisor in Beijing that's what
00:25:43
I'd be telling XI ping we should be
00:25:45
trying to do but of course from an
00:25:47
American point of view this is
00:25:49
unacceptable and we do not tolerate peer
00:25:53
competitors we do not want another
00:25:57
Regional hedgemon on the planet in the
00:25:59
20th century there were four countries
00:26:01
that threatened to become Regional
00:26:04
hegemons like us Imperial Germany
00:26:07
Imperial Japan Nazi Germany and the
00:26:10
Soviet Union the United States played a
00:26:12
key role in putting all four of those
00:26:15
countries on the scrap peap of History
00:26:17
we want to remain the only Regional
00:26:19
hedgemon in the world we are a ruthless
00:26:23
great power never want to lose sight of
00:26:25
that fact and the end result of this is
00:26:28
you get an intense security competition
00:26:31
between China
00:26:33
and the United States and it revolves
00:26:36
around the concept of security not
00:26:39
Prosperity what you just very quickly so
00:26:42
what you see beginning to happen is that
00:26:45
it's in all domains where the
00:26:47
competition takes place especially
00:26:50
high-tech we do not want them defeating
00:26:53
this defeating Us in the Hightech War we
00:26:56
are competing with them econom ically we
00:26:59
are competing with them militarily and
00:27:01
this is because the best way to survive
00:27:04
is for us the United States of America
00:27:06
to be the only Regional hedgemon on the
00:27:11
planet so Jeff let me let me set it up
00:27:14
for for Jeff here so Jeff I you and John
00:27:18
I think agree that the the game on on
00:27:21
the board is power seeking I think what
00:27:23
John is saying is there are smart ways
00:27:26
and dumb ways to pursue power
00:27:28
that containing China is a smart way
00:27:30
what we're doing in Ukraine is a dumb
00:27:33
way whereas it seems like you're saying
00:27:35
that all power seeking behavior is bad
00:27:37
that's not the game we should be playing
00:27:39
we should somehow opt out of that is
00:27:41
that is that kind of where you're going
00:27:43
it's a it's not a bad way to say it but
00:27:45
I would I would put it in in another way
00:27:48
I read a very good book uh John's
00:27:53
um and and
00:27:55
John described
00:27:58
I'm going to quote him but he can quote
00:28:00
himself afterwards he he he said that
00:28:04
the regional
00:28:05
hegemons uh don't threaten each other
00:28:08
actually why because we have big ocean
00:28:11
in
00:28:12
between
00:28:13
I deeply believe that China is not a
00:28:17
threat to the United States and I deeply
00:28:21
believe the only threat to the United
00:28:24
States period in the world given the
00:28:27
oceans given our size and given the
00:28:30
military is nuclear
00:28:33
war I deeply believe we're close to
00:28:36
nuclear war because we have a mindset
00:28:42
that leads us in that direction we have
00:28:45
a mindset that everything is a challenge
00:28:47
for survival and that escalation is
00:28:50
therefore always the right approach my
00:28:53
view is a little bit of prudence could
00:28:56
save the whole planet
00:28:58
so why I don't like Ukraine is that I
00:29:02
don't see any reason in the world that
00:29:05
NATO has to be on Russia's border with
00:29:08
Ukraine I was as I said gorbachov's
00:29:11
adviser and yelton's adviser and they
00:29:14
wanted peace and they wanted cooperation
00:29:17
but whatever they wanted they did not
00:29:19
want the US military on their border so
00:29:23
if we continued to push as we did we
00:29:26
would get to war John explained that
00:29:29
better than anybody we're now at War and
00:29:32
even this morning there is further
00:29:35
escalation blinkin has said well if the
00:29:38
Iranians give these missiles then we
00:29:40
will give missiles to hit deep into
00:29:41
Russia this is a recipe and then we had
00:29:45
Bill Burns the CIA director say last
00:29:48
week an absurdity that he knows but Cia
00:29:52
directors never tell the truth if they
00:29:53
do they lose their job but he said don't
00:29:56
worry about nuclear war don't worry
00:29:58
about saber rattling my advice to you is
00:30:02
worry a lot about nuclear war and so be
00:30:06
prudent you don't have to put the US
00:30:10
military on Russia's border okay and my
00:30:14
advice to Russia and to Mexico when I'm
00:30:16
going to Mexico tomorrow I'll give them
00:30:18
a piece of advice don't let China or
00:30:22
Russia build a military base on the r
00:30:24
Grant not a good idea for Mexico not a
00:30:27
good good idea for Ukraine not a good
00:30:29
idea for Russia not a good idea for
00:30:31
China not a good idea for the United
00:30:34
States we need to stay a little bit away
00:30:36
from each other so that we don't have a
00:30:39
nuclear war by the way I do recommend
00:30:42
another good book and that is Annie
00:30:44
Jacobson's nuclear war a scenario it
00:30:47
takes two hours to read the world ends
00:30:50
in two hours in the book uh and uh it's
00:30:53
a very
00:30:54
persuasive guide that one nuke can ruin
00:30:58
your whole day as they say Jeffrey can
00:31:01
um uh my my strong advice on this
00:31:05
therefore is recognize China first of
00:31:08
all is not a threat to the United States
00:31:13
security big oceans big nuclear
00:31:16
deterrent and so forth second we don't
00:31:19
have to be in China's face what do I
00:31:22
mean by that we don't have to provoke
00:31:24
World War III Over Taiwan that's a long
00:31:27
complicated issue but this would be the
00:31:29
stupidest thing for my grandchildren to
00:31:31
die for imaginable and I resent it every
00:31:35
day when we play that game we have three
00:31:39
agreements with China that say we're
00:31:41
going to stay out of that and we should
00:31:44
and then China would have no reason for
00:31:46
war either
00:31:49
China and then on the economic side let
00:31:52
me just reiterate because I was asked
00:31:55
yesterday and there was some surprise
00:31:57
was it good to let China into the the
00:32:00
WTO I said of course it enriched all of
00:32:03
you by the way it enriched me it
00:32:06
enriched this country it enriched the
00:32:08
world including enriching China that's
00:32:11
normal economics is not a zero sum game
00:32:14
we all agree on that I believe that
00:32:17
security doesn't have to be a zero sum
00:32:19
game either we can stay a little bit
00:32:22
away from each other and China does not
00:32:25
spend its time beon in America being a
00:32:29
western hemisphere hegemon they don't
00:32:33
that's not their greatest interest to
00:32:35
bring down American uh Power in the
00:32:38
Western Hemisphere Jee what about the
00:32:40
energy hold on let's let John respond to
00:32:42
this just very quickly most of you have
00:32:45
probably never asked yourself the
00:32:47
question why is the United States
00:32:49
roaming all over the planet interfering
00:32:52
in every country's business it's in part
00:32:54
because it's so powerful but it's also
00:32:57
because it's a hegemon which means we
00:32:59
have no threats in the Western
00:33:01
Hemisphere so we are free to roam the
00:33:05
great danger Jeff if China becomes a
00:33:08
regional hedgemon and doesn't have to
00:33:10
worry about security conc then they
00:33:12
behave like us yeah then they behave
00:33:13
like us exact but my point to you Jeff
00:33:17
is let's prevent that from happening by
00:33:20
preventing them from becoming a regional
00:33:22
hedgemon we don't want them to have
00:33:24
freedom to roam you were talking about
00:33:27
them putting military bases in Mexico
00:33:30
that's our great fear it's not my great
00:33:32
fear they have no interest in doing so
00:33:35
because they don't want to get blown up
00:33:36
either so they do seem to have a big
00:33:38
interest Jeff in Africa India Russia and
00:33:41
they
00:33:43
are China has a
00:33:45
major um military bases there oh well
00:33:49
they're building nuclear power plants in
00:33:50
trade and they're building de difference
00:33:53
in favor of that let's go compete that
00:33:55
way I'm all in favor of that but Jeff
00:33:56
that's cuz they're not a Regal hegemon
00:33:59
yet yeah if you try to prevent them from
00:34:03
being a regional hegemon we're going to
00:34:04
end up in World War I because as you say
00:34:07
yourself that this can absolutely spill
00:34:10
over into war I don't want it to spill
00:34:13
over into war on the theory that maybe
00:34:16
someday they behave differently that's
00:34:18
not a good theory for me so so so that
00:34:20
part so John can we contain China
00:34:24
prevent them from becoming a regional
00:34:25
haimon without Direct ly defending
00:34:28
Taiwan I mean isn't that where the
00:34:30
rubber meets the road no it's not just
00:34:32
Taiwan I mean one could argue there's
00:34:34
sort of three flash points in East Asia
00:34:37
that you folks should keep your eye on
00:34:38
one is obviously Taiwan two is the South
00:34:41
China Sea and three is the East China
00:34:43
Sea and I think David that the place
00:34:46
where a conflict is most likely today is
00:34:48
not over Taiwan I could explain why I
00:34:51
think Taiwan is not a serious problem at
00:34:53
the moment or for the foreseeable future
00:34:55
the South China Sea is a very dangerous
00:34:57
place we could end up in a war for sure
00:35:01
even if we did not defend
00:35:04
Taiwan uh so Taiwan you don't want to
00:35:07
overemphasize I agree with I agree with
00:35:10
Jeff that we definitely don't want a war
00:35:14
and we certainly don't want a nuclear
00:35:15
war and he is absolutely correct that
00:35:17
there's a risk of a nuclear war if a war
00:35:20
breaks out of any sort between China and
00:35:22
the United States many of us in the
00:35:25
audience remember the Cold War and this
00:35:27
was an everpresent danger in the Cold
00:35:29
War but my argument is that this is
00:35:32
inevitable because in a world where you
00:35:34
don't have a higher authority and you
00:35:37
care about your survival you have a
00:35:39
deep-seated interest as any state in the
00:35:41
system to be as powerful as possible and
00:35:45
that means dominating your world um
00:35:47
there is one uh player on this chess
00:35:50
board that hasn't come up yet and then
00:35:51
maybe we could skate to where the puck
00:35:53
is going you know when you talk about
00:35:55
the South China Sea okay sure South
00:35:57
Korea Japan Jaan Australia all those
00:35:59
major players there they're just a
00:36:00
couple hundred million people but then
00:36:02
China is in population decline she
00:36:05
apparently is self-destructing in terms
00:36:06
of trade seems like uh containment is
00:36:09
working pretty well there because of the
00:36:10
all the self-inflicted wounds but the
00:36:12
fastest growing country fastest growing
00:36:14
economy the quickest to develop is India
00:36:17
and they seem to have a very pragmatic
00:36:19
approach hey they'll buy cheap oil from
00:36:21
Putin and they are their own sovereign
00:36:23
country with their own point of view
00:36:25
Would we not be really well advised over
00:36:28
the next 10 to 20 years to make that our
00:36:30
priority and India's role in this how do
00:36:32
you look at them well we definitely view
00:36:34
India as an ally right it's part of the
00:36:38
Quad which is this uh this rubbe
00:36:40
Goldberg type Alliance structure that we
00:36:43
put together in East Asia that includes
00:36:45
Australia Japan the United States and
00:36:47
India and India is smartly maintaining
00:36:52
its good relations with Russia the
00:36:54
Indians understand like Jeff and I do
00:36:56
that the Russians are no great threat
00:36:59
but from India's point of view the real
00:37:01
threat is China right right and there
00:37:03
are two places where India cares about
00:37:05
China One is on the India China border
00:37:09
up in the Himalayas where they've
00:37:11
actually had conflicts right and there's
00:37:13
a real danger of War breaking out the
00:37:16
second place which is maybe even more
00:37:18
dangerous not at the moment but will be
00:37:20
over time is the Indian Ocean because
00:37:24
the Chinese are imitating the United
00:37:26
States they not not only want to be a
00:37:28
regional hedgemon they want to develop
00:37:30
power projection capability so the
00:37:33
Chinese are building a Bluewater Navy
00:37:35
that can come out of East Asia through
00:37:38
the Straits of Mala through the Indian
00:37:40
Ocean to the Persian Gulf and once you
00:37:44
start talking about going through the
00:37:45
Indian Ocean the Indians get spooked and
00:37:49
that's when the Americans in the Indians
00:37:51
come together okay let's think of this
00:37:54
from an engineering point of view if we
00:37:56
could um
00:37:58
why are the Chinese developing the Navy
00:38:01
because for 40 years I've read essays on
00:38:07
all of the choke points uh in the South
00:38:11
China Sea the East China Sea the Indian
00:38:13
Ocean against China that's our policy
00:38:17
choke points look at the malaka Straits
00:38:20
look what we can do here first island
00:38:22
chain this is American strategy can we
00:38:25
keep the Chinese submarine out of the
00:38:28
Pacific Ocean First China first island
00:38:30
chain and so forth so of course they
00:38:34
react they're rich they're going to
00:38:36
build a Navy so that they can get their
00:38:38
oil on which their economy runs can we
00:38:40
be a little bit sensible with them and
00:38:43
decide how we're not going to have choke
00:38:45
points and then we don't have to have a
00:38:47
nuclear war which is really going to
00:38:48
ruin our day that's the point we can
00:38:52
think a little bit we can understand it
00:38:54
from their perspective we can understand
00:38:56
it from our perspec perspective
00:39:00
deconfliction by the way I don't believe
00:39:03
India is an ally India is a
00:39:08
superpower India is going to have its
00:39:10
own very distinctive interests thank you
00:39:13
it's not going to be an ally of the
00:39:15
United States I happen to like India
00:39:17
enormously and and admire their policies
00:39:20
but the idea that India is going to Ally
00:39:23
with the United States against
00:39:25
China in somebody's dream uh in
00:39:29
Washington because it's another delusion
00:39:31
in Washington because they should get a
00:39:33
passport and go see the world and and
00:39:36
and understand
00:39:39
something but Jeffrey if they these are
00:39:43
my fa students in Washington right now
00:39:46
cuz they didn't listen to their
00:39:47
Professor Jeffrey we're we're making our
00:39:49
iPhones in India now is that not
00:39:53
significantly important say again we're
00:39:55
moving iPhone production maybe Cooper
00:39:58
you're into economics here and that
00:40:00
impact you you got Apple moving out of
00:40:02
China you've got Japan funding people
00:40:05
leaving China to Vietnam and to India is
00:40:07
that not the solution here as we
00:40:08
decouple from China it seems like they
00:40:10
come back to the table we had XI
00:40:12
jingping kick all the Venture
00:40:13
capitalists all investment out of China
00:40:16
he got rid of all the education startups
00:40:18
and then whatever two or three years
00:40:20
later he's in San Francisco asking all
00:40:22
of us to invest more money and saying
00:40:23
where'd you go okay first of all uh
00:40:27
invite me back 10 years and we'll see
00:40:29
how smart all these decisions are
00:40:31
because uh Shing it's incred no I'm
00:40:34
talking about yes we've moved to India
00:40:36
that's our great Ally and then then
00:40:38
we're going to have other other issues
00:40:41
okay you I think you said that XI
00:40:43
jinping's trade policy is uh implo self-
00:40:46
imploding or something it seems like
00:40:48
there's a lot of self-inflicted wounds
00:40:50
when you it's not let me explain what
00:40:52
the wounds are okay the wounds are the
00:40:55
United States deliberate policy to stop
00:40:58
you from selling things to China and to
00:41:00
stop China buying things from you that's
00:41:03
not self-inflicted this a clear wait
00:41:06
minute just to say let me say please
00:41:09
because it's very important for the
00:41:10
economy of the people in this room this
00:41:13
is a decision that was taken around
00:41:17
2014 to contain China and it's been
00:41:21
systematically applied since then and
00:41:24
it's not a surprise that Biden
00:41:28
kept all the things that Trump did and
00:41:30
added more and now Trump says I'm going
00:41:33
to do all the things that Biden has kept
00:41:35
in place and I'm going to do more this
00:41:37
is not a self-inflicted wound the United
00:41:40
States has closed the market to China
00:41:43
okay is that smart no it's not smart is
00:41:46
it leading to uh is it by the way
00:41:51
recuperating American manufacturing jobs
00:41:55
zero it may shift them a bit it make may
00:41:58
make things less efficient it may may
00:42:01
make all of you lose a bit more money or
00:42:04
not make as much money but is it going
00:42:07
to solve any single economic problem in
00:42:10
the United States no way let
00:42:14
me John let let John spicy I I just want
00:42:17
to ask Jeff a question on
00:42:20
this uh my argument is that this is the
00:42:24
way the world Works yes I know and it is
00:42:27
and it is but if I'm describing how the
00:42:30
world really works how do you beat me
00:42:33
the the reason is you've described a
00:42:36
world you've described I think better
00:42:39
than any person I ever read or know how
00:42:43
American foreign policy works I think
00:42:46
it's likely to get us all blown up you
00:42:49
you not and you title not not because of
00:42:53
John but because he made an accurate
00:42:55
description of a profoundly misguided
00:42:59
approach which
00:43:01
is power seeking even if you're safe as
00:43:05
a regional hegemon you're never safe if
00:43:08
another Regional hegemon does what you
00:43:10
do no you can't allow that to happen so
00:43:12
you have to metal every single place in
00:43:14
the world this now all I'm saying wait
00:43:18
let me just finish because it's
00:43:19
important that it is important to
00:43:22
say try this in the nuclear age you
00:43:25
don't get a second chance
00:43:27
so this to me is the most definitive
00:43:31
fact of Our Lives which is we are now in
00:43:35
a war direct War direct War not proxy
00:43:39
war direct war with Russia which has
00:43:42
6,000 nuclear warheads I can't think of
00:43:45
anything more imbecilic than that aside
00:43:48
from the fact that I know step by step
00:43:51
because I saw it with my own eyes how we
00:43:54
got into that mess because we thought we
00:43:56
had to medal up to including putting
00:44:00
NATO into Georgia in the caucuses of all
00:44:03
places and Ukraine so we made that
00:44:06
because we have to medal because we
00:44:09
couldn't let good enough uh stand if we
00:44:13
do the same with China there will be a
00:44:16
war but it's not like reading about the
00:44:19
Crimean War or World War One or World
00:44:22
War II that's my difference this is a
00:44:25
fine theory that explains a lot of
00:44:27
things but damn if you can make chat GPT
00:44:32
or you can make Optimus or you can make
00:44:35
all the rest we can avoid nuclear war so
00:44:39
just do a little bit better than saying
00:44:41
it's
00:44:43
inevitable all right
00:44:45
so we only have a minute left so I want
00:44:47
to give it to John I just want to ask he
00:44:49
had a question I know but we only have a
00:44:50
minute left and it's we got to add five
00:44:52
minutes this is the best panel I've ever
00:44:54
been on in my life can we just add 10
00:44:55
minutes minutes we got to add 5 or 10
00:44:58
minutes the best panel is this the best
00:44:59
panel ever I feel like calling a respond
00:45:02
wa wa before okay we got 5 minutes so
00:45:05
before before we leave this topic John
00:45:07
your book is called the tragedy of great
00:45:10
power politics you clearly understand
00:45:12
the tragic aspect of how great power
00:45:15
rivalry great power competition can lead
00:45:17
to disaster what Jeff is saying is we're
00:45:19
now in the nuclear age and it's going to
00:45:22
lead to nuclear war so do we have to be
00:45:25
on this path or is there way off of it
00:45:28
two points in my heart I'm with Jeff in
00:45:32
my head I'm not with Jeff I wish he were
00:45:36
right but I don't believe he's right to
00:45:38
answer your question head-on I believe
00:45:41
that there is no way out we are in an
00:45:43
iron cage this is just the way
00:45:46
International politics works and it's
00:45:48
because you're in an anarchic system
00:45:50
where you can never be sure that a
00:45:52
really powerful state in the system
00:45:53
won't come after you and inflict A
00:45:55
Century of national humiliation on you
00:45:58
so you go to Great Lengths to avoid that
00:46:01
by trying to gain power at the expense
00:46:04
of another power and that leads to all
00:46:07
sorts of trouble can War be avoided I
00:46:10
like to distinguish between security
00:46:12
competition which I think is inevitable
00:46:15
and War which is where security
00:46:17
competition evolves into war I think War
00:46:19
can be avoided and we were thankfully
00:46:22
successful in that regard during the
00:46:24
Cold War and hopefully that will be the
00:46:27
case uh in the US China competition
00:46:29
moving forward can I guarantee that no
00:46:34
uh does this disturb me greatly yes but
00:46:38
again this is just a tragic aspect of
00:46:41
the world let me just ask one because
00:46:43
we're a little bit I know we were going
00:46:45
to try and talk about Middle East for a
00:46:47
good chunk of this so I just want a
00:46:49
scenario uh uh propose or kind of give
00:46:52
you guys a scenario get your reaction
00:46:54
because it is kind of what feels to be
00:46:55
the most imminent uh theater of conflict
00:46:58
uh the West Bank um the the Israelis are
00:47:03
buttressing the settlements there's a
00:47:05
lot of checkpoints things are getting
00:47:07
very tense they're running raids and
00:47:09
it's becoming a very difficult place to
00:47:10
live for Palestinians and there's a real
00:47:11
concern that the West Bank collapses and
00:47:13
Israelis and Israelis but there's a real
00:47:16
risk that the West Bank collapses and
00:47:18
turns into a real conflict Zone if that
00:47:21
happens the jordanians are sitting right
00:47:24
there and they're not going to let
00:47:24
Palestinians get slaughtered they're
00:47:26
going to have to do something and
00:47:27
they're such a strong Ally of the United
00:47:29
States does that trigger a
00:47:33
theater of response where what is Saudi
00:47:36
going to do are others going to be drawn
00:47:37
to the region does the collapse of the
00:47:39
West Bank or the the the conflict that
00:47:41
seems to be brewing in the West Bank
00:47:43
become this kind of Tinder Box for
00:47:46
everyone showing up and getting involved
00:47:48
and um uh and create some sort of
00:47:51
regional issue that we get drawn into in
00:47:53
a bigger way can I start and have John
00:47:57
have the last word uh you know I I work
00:48:00
uh each day at the UN um and discuss
00:48:04
this issue with ambassadors from all
00:48:05
over the
00:48:06
world there is over the last 50 years a
00:48:10
a an agreement on what would make for
00:48:14
peace and the agreement is uh two states
00:48:19
uh maybe with a big wall between them on
00:48:22
the 4th of June 1967 borders with a
00:48:25
state of Palestine
00:48:27
being the 194th UN member state and its
00:48:30
capital in East Jerusalem and control
00:48:33
over the Islamic holy sites and that is
00:48:36
international law the international
00:48:39
court of justice just reaffirmed that
00:48:41
the Israeli settlements in the West Bank
00:48:44
are illegal uh the uh international
00:48:47
criminal court uh uh is likely to find
00:48:51
or icj is likely to find that Israel is
00:48:53
in violation of the 1948 genocide
00:48:56
convention
00:48:57
which I very much believe it to be in
00:48:59
violation so my own solution to this is
00:49:04
Implement International law two states
00:49:07
build the wall as high as you need to
00:49:09
build but uh you give Palestinian rights
00:49:12
you establish a state of Palestine you
00:49:15
stop the Israeli Slaughter of
00:49:17
Palestinians you stop the Israeli
00:49:19
apartheid state and uh you have uh two
00:49:23
states living side by side Israel is
00:49:26
dead set against that uh the entire
00:49:29
Israeli political uh governance now is
00:49:33
dead set against that hundreds of
00:49:35
thousands of illegal settlers in the
00:49:38
West Bank are dead set against that
00:49:40
smotrich benir Galant Netanyahu are dead
00:49:44
set against that so my view is it has
00:49:47
nothing to do with what Israel wants it
00:49:49
has to do with enforcement of
00:49:51
international law so I want to see this
00:49:53
imposed not because Israel agrees to it
00:49:56
but because it is imposed and there is
00:49:59
one country that stands in the way of
00:50:02
imposing this not Iran not the Saudis
00:50:05
not Egypt not Russia not China not any
00:50:09
country in the European Union one
00:50:11
country and one country alone and that
00:50:13
is because of the United States of
00:50:16
America and the is Israel Lobby somebody
00:50:19
wrote a very good book about that too
00:50:21
that I know uh the best book ever
00:50:23
written about it by John uh uh and um
00:50:27
that's what stops the solution that
00:50:30
could bring peace and I believe we
00:50:32
should bring peace because not only
00:50:35
would that bring peace to the
00:50:36
Palestinians and peace to the Israelis
00:50:39
but it would avoid potentially another
00:50:41
flasho that could easily end up in World
00:50:44
War II let me answer your question about
00:50:48
escalation potential the jordanians
00:50:50
coming in uh Israel faces three big
00:50:54
problems aside from problems with
00:50:56
centrifical forces inside the society
00:50:59
one is the Palestinian problem which is
00:51:01
both in Gaza and in the West Bank it's
00:51:04
one two is Hezbollah and three is
00:51:08
Iran I think there is virtually no
00:51:11
chance of what you described happening
00:51:14
which is if the Israelis were to go on a
00:51:16
rampage in the West Bank similar what
00:51:18
they've done in Gaza that the jordanians
00:51:21
would come in or the Egyptians or the
00:51:23
Saudis they simply don't have the
00:51:25
military capability this is a scenario
00:51:28
where the Israelis completely dominate
00:51:31
so in terms of escalation with regard to
00:51:33
the Israel Palestine problem I don't
00:51:36
think there's much potential Hezbollah
00:51:39
is a different issue uh but mainly
00:51:42
because it's linked with Iran right and
00:51:45
Iran is the really dangerous flasho
00:51:48
because as you know the Russians are now
00:51:50
closely allied with the Iranians the
00:51:52
Chinese are moving in that direction as
00:51:55
well and
00:51:57
if Israel gets involved in a war with
00:52:00
Iran we're going to come in in all
00:52:03
likelihood remember when the Israelis
00:52:06
attacked the uh the Iranian Embassy in
00:52:12
Damascus on April 1st on April
00:52:16
14th the Iranians retaliated reciprocal
00:52:19
response yeah but but we were involved
00:52:22
we were we were forewarned weren't we
00:52:24
yes we were forewarned but the point is
00:52:25
that we were involved in the fighting
00:52:28
right we were involved with the Israelis
00:52:30
with the French the British the
00:52:32
jordanians and the Saudis we were all
00:52:33
involved in the fighting so this gets at
00:52:36
the escalation problem now to counter
00:52:39
the Iranian escalation scenario the fact
00:52:43
is Iran does not want a war with the
00:52:45
United States and the United States does
00:52:48
not want a war with Iran and it's the
00:52:51
Israelis especially Benjamin Netanyahu
00:52:54
has been who has been trying to sort of
00:52:55
suck us into a war because he wants us
00:52:59
the United States to really whack Iran
00:53:02
weaken it militarily and especially to
00:53:05
go after its nuclear capabilities
00:53:07
because as you well know they are close
00:53:09
to the point where they can develop
00:53:11
nuclear weapons so the Israelis are the
00:53:13
ones who want us to get involved in a
00:53:17
big war with Iran that's the escalation
00:53:19
flasho and The $64,000 question is
00:53:22
whether you think the United States and
00:53:25
Iran kind of loting can work together to
00:53:28
prevent the Israelis from getting us
00:53:31
that that question will be answered
00:53:32
based on the next who who who leads the
00:53:35
next Administration well if you believe
00:53:38
that it matters who leads the next
00:53:41
Administration that's
00:53:43
true take it out thank you let me just
00:53:46
say Jeffrey and John now I know why saxs
00:53:51
will not stop talking about you too this
00:53:53
was the most amazing panel of the event
00:53:56
so far are give it up for Jeffrey Sachs
00:53:58
and John Mir shimer all
00:54:01
right wow
