Transcription
Hi everybody. Today is Monday, May 26th, 2025, and our friend, Professor Jeffrey Sax, is back with us. Welcome back, Professor.
Great to be with you. Thank you. Professor, Donald Trump and the case of Iran, the nuclear program of Iran. It seems that yesterday he said he's optimistic about what's going on between the United States and Iran after the fifth round of negotiations. And we know that before the negotiation, the last round of negotiation, Steve Wedkov said no enrichment; the Iranian part rejected that, but it seems that the situation is somehow optimistic. What's going on in your opinion right now?
I I'm not in the room so I can't give you an authoritative account, but the Iranian position has been quite clear. The Iranian position has been that uh Iran will open itself to all relevant inspections. It will definitively end its uh nuclear program. How much of a nuclear program there's actually been is is a question mark. But in any event, Iran has said uh yes, we want to end uh the uh program to develop nuclear weapons, but in in return for a normalization of relations with the United States and an end of sanctions, essentially what was on the table with the JCPOA back in 2016 and 2017, which Trump turned down. Of course, Iran has been very very clear that certain things are off the table. Iran reserves the right to enrich uranium for a civilian nuclear power program. Uh and it has said all along from the start that that is uh the basis for an agreement that Iran is not going to eliminate its enrichment capacity. We know that it's possible to do uh a modest amount of enrichment up to a certain limit that is safe, monitorable, and completely consistent with a complete closure of a nuclear arms development program. So, I think Iran's position is perfectly reasonable, perfectly clear. The US does not want a war with Iran. Even though Netanyahu certainly wants the US to have a war with Iran, uh it's quite clear that Trump does not want a war with Iran. And good for him. He's on the right side of this issue. So I think the expressions of optimism are on the basis that an agreement, a rational, reasonable agreement can be reached. Uh what Iran is asking is perfectly sensible. uh what the United States wants is achievable—an end of of the threat of nuclear breakout of the development of nuclear weapons. And so the basis for an agreement is certainly there, and I'm hoping that that's why they express optimism after each round.
The positive face of the Trump administration, to to my understanding, is Steve Wkov. He is somehow the new sort of fresh air to the foreign policy of the United States. But at the same time, we see that the establishment, if we assume that we have some sort of division within the Trump administration, they're forcing Wkov, they're putting a lot of pressure pressure on him. What do they want from Wkov with the negotiations with Iran?
Well, the United States has a deep state. Uh that means that it has a uh standing uh security machinery uh that is a big business—well over a trillion dollars a year—very powerful uh organized at the Pentagon, the CIA, the armed services committees of the US Congress, uh think tanks all up and down the east coast of the United States funded by all of this and the Israel lobby which is of course ardently anti-Iran and uh the Israel lobby uh absolutely coincides with the deep state, the and the the military-industrial complex of the United States. So there are powerful political forces that have been in play for 46 years actually, at least since 1979, uh against Iran, and they don't just go away because Trump uh wants to avoid a war. We see the same in Ukraine. Trump wants to end the US engagement in Ukraine, but I'd say most of the people around him continue the deep state policy that the US should invest in more war. After all, it's the Ukrainians dying, not the Americans dying.
Um and so this phenomenon of a divided Washington, because the president in this case is actually on the more peaceful side, uh and the deep state is pretty much a militarized and war-mongering set of institutions because war is their business and it's big business. Um this is not shocking. The question is what will happen? Who will prevail? There's a famous line of uh Vladimir Putin in an interview in 2017 to Lefiguro where he said—and it's become quite famous—He says, you know, he's worked with many American presidents. He said they come into office with some ideas, and then men with briefcases and dark suits and blue ties come to visit them and explain realities to the US president. And as Putin says, and those ideas are never heard of again. And what he means is that uh presidents get talked out of their peace initiatives. And Trump absolutely could get talked out of this. Uh you've got a wall of opposition to making peace with Russia visa v Ukraine. There's so much war-mongering in all of the European capitals virtually, uh certainly in uh London, in Paris, in Berlin, uh in Warsaw, um to continue the war, and you see it in the United States, even on Trump's own team. Uh Kellogg definitely is basically on the European wavelength on this. He doesn't want peace with Russia; at most he wants kind of freezing the conflict, but NATO enlargement and so on. So Trump has to grapple with a war machine which defines the US government, and we've had you know other presidents—the the last one that really tried to make peace a center of the administration was actually John F. Kennedy, and many people, including myself, think he was killed because of those actions because the deep state in in that case, probably elements of the CIA, said we're not we're not going through with this.
We know that Marco Rubio is talking about snapback sanctions which were considered in JCPOA during the Obama administration. When you look at this current situation of Iran today and where they're talking about snapback sanctions, they're considering Europe together with Russia and China. Where are we with with the situation of snapback sanctions? How much pressure they can bring? They can put on Iran.
Again, I'm not in these negotiations. Uh, and there is a absolutely a wall of anti-Iranian sentiment in Washington. And one of the issues that Iran faces is that uh even if it reaches an agreement, uh the US can change its mind or change its policies or use a pretext to reimpose sanctions or walk away from an agreement. After all, the JCPOA was laboriously negotiated uh in 2015 and 2016 by real nuclear experts who came up with a a good agreement, and then Trump and the Senate just absolutely ripped it to shreds. So on what kind of sanctions and whether Iran will agree to something that is very flimsy and can get them into again another trap, I'm not in the route, but if I were Iran, I'd worry about it.
Yeah. Donald Trump's recent visit to Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar—and they were so generous to Donald Trump. What do they want from Donald Trump? They consider the United States as their friend. But when it comes to the Middle East, what's the main concern on their part?
They all host US uh military bases. They all want to stay in power. Uh they all think that the United States can provide them with the wherewithal to stay in power, and they all worry about being on the wrong side of the United States given the very strong military presence of the United States in in these countries. I think that that's the main motivation. Uh frankly, I don't think they get a lot out of this relationship. Um not not the way that they think. Uh the Middle East is unstable basically because of US foreign policy—defending an absolutely rogue state, Israel, um rather than defending international law uh and creating the state of Palestine. And the burden of that uh US uh defense of Israel hurts everybody in the Gulf region. So I don't think that they're getting what they think they're getting out of this relationship. I think I wish and I I think the Arab world should be more clear to the US. We want peace in the Middle East. Peace requires a two-state solution. You got to get on with it because otherwise this doesn't work. It's perpetual war. That's bad for business, bad for our security, bad for our stability. And that's the truth that uh I hope someone's explaining to Trump. I'm not sure. There was a lot of glad-handing and a lot of announcements of trillions of dollars that are going to be invested in the United States. But what did the counterparts get out of that? Not not clear.
The dangerous part of what's going on in the Middle East is an Israeli attack on Iran. They're talking about if they stop negotiating with the United States, we're going to attack them. If they progress in the negotiations, we're going to attack them. Is there any sort of limit on the part of the Trump administration for Netanyahu? For Netanyahu's Israel, for his administr—for Netanyahu and his administration when it comes to Iran?
This is the trillion-dollar question. Uh the United States has run US Middle East policy for decades. Whatever Israel has done, uh the US has backed. And during this whole uh disastrous period um of recent years when Israel is destroying Gaza uh and killing tens of thousands of people, there has basically hasn't been a peep from the United States to stop all of this. And so the question of whether the United States is ever going to stand up to an absolutely extremist Israeli government is a big question. The Israel lobby is extremely powerful in the United States. Um by the way, the in terms of votes, far and away the power of the Israel lobby is evangelical Christians. Uh it's not a Jewish lobby. It's uh very heavily, by the numbers, an evangelical Christian lobby, but it's a big part of Trump's base. And whether Trump uh can be president and do what's right for the United States or whether he'll follow uh this uh part of his base which is very extreme—a decided minority of voters but a significant part of Trump's own voters—remains to be seen. Of course, it's been a disaster for decades. The United States has basically done what Netanyahu has said, and it's not surprising, but it is terrible. We have war in Gaza. We have war in the West Bank. We have war in Lebanon. We have the threat of war in Iran. We have war in Libya. We have war in Sudan. And Israel's played a very bad role in uh fermenting or encouraging many of those conflicts, if if not all of them in some sense.
Can we say that the most important countries when it comes to their influence in the Middle East are Iran and the United States? Because I don't see Russia and China are somehow involved in that reproshma between Iran and Saudi Arabia. But overall, when you look at the Middle East, the United States and Iran are so bold. Is that the case in your mind?
I think it's more complicated. There are many actors that are significant in the Middle East. That's one of the reasons why it's so complicated. Um, but don't leave out Turkey uh and its role. Uh, don't leave out Saudi Arabia. Don't leave out Egypt with its 120 million people. Uh its fragility in some ways, its historical role in the region, uh its uh still significant role as home to Alakazar and other uh leading institutions. So for me, the Middle East is a confluence of uh grand civilizations that go back thousands of years. They're all still present: The Persians, the Turks, uh the Christians, the Jews, the Muslims across the region, um and the Arabs. I mean, it's it's complicated. Uh, so it is not just the United States and Iran, and great powers have been meddling in this region. Also, I think it's right to say 3,000 years. So you've had endless wars because this region is so important to the world as a a center of civilization, a crossroads of civilizations, a crossroads for physical trade routes. Uh and all of that remains true today.
Can you compare China's behavior and attitude in the Middle East to the United States one? Because there there's so much different attitudes there. And is the United States going to learn from China if they're much successful? They're much more successful than the United States.
Well, uh, state craft in China and state craft in the North Atlantic world, meaning whether it's the UK or the US or Western Europe, are completely different historically uh, and I think completely different in uh, self-perception and in future behavior. You know, in uh international relations theory as taught in the United States, it said, "Oh, states behave the same way no matter who they are." Uh I think that this is absolutely not the case. China has never had overseas empires. China never meddled in the Middle East. Um the Middle East was dominated by Britain and to a lesser extent France for a very long time. Uh after World War II, the United States carried the baton uh that Britain had before World War II as really the undoubted regional hegeimon in the Middle East. uh Britain and and uh the US of course overthrew Mosedc in 1953. The Iranian elected uh prime minister creating you know tumult that would follow for uh basically 70 years onward. Um so the US is an imperial power. uh it learned its uh its uh methods of imperial rule from Britain. Uh the US is an Anglo-Saxon country by origin and elite culture. Um and it behaves like an empire. It behaves like an imperial power in the Middle East, a colonizing power, um and a the the leading war power of the Middle East. China is completely different. Uh China is only present commercially. Uh it's only present as a calm stabilizing voice. It's only present as one of the permanent members of the UN Security Council. uh it China has a big interest in Middle East stability because of uh energy and other geopolitical uh conditions, but China's just has nothing to do with being an imperial power. It never was for an overseas in an overseas sense, and I don't think it's going to be.
Yeah, we had the conservative leader Kami Benedan on Sky News. She said something so much amazing. First time I've heard that. It's that was surprising. She said that Israel is fighting a proxy war on the part of the United Kingdom. How how can you make sense of that?
Wow, I missed the statement. Uh a proxy war visa v whom was she saying? It's about I don't know the region Palestinians. I I I look I can tell you I have a theorem that almost all world problems go back to the British. Uh so the British have made a mess in so many parts of the world. The the list is extremely long. Uh it's also true that while Britain lost its empire basically 80 years ago, it still fantasizes uh that it is a great imperial power. Um and when you hear a statement like you just said, which I haven't heard, so I can't fully interpret it, but it's a kind of absurdity. Let let me professor, let me play it for you. I think that would be helpful if you heard that the prime minister join. Do you um think that Mr. Netanyahu's language on this is justified? I'm not here to police uh the language of the prime minister. I'm not asking you to police it. I'm asking what he has said. He sees people need to know where you stand. But I've been very clear where I stand. Hamas is a terrorist group. They are not our friends. No, I'm talking about an Israeli. Yes, but it's all related. Who is who funds Hamas? Iran. An enemy of this country. An enemy of this country. Israel is fighting a proxy war on behalf of the UK just like Ukraine is on behalf of the West of Western Europe against Russia. We have to get serious. We have to get serious. There was a terrorist plot in London um against the Israeli embassy. We saw two Jewish members of the Israeli embassy in DC killed. Whose side are we on? We need to make sure that the hostages are returned. No one wants to see a war in Gaza. Palestinians are suffering. Um Netanyahu is complaining that he thinks our leaders are um are carrying out the wrong action. He has every right to say that. What I want to see is Karma making sure that he is on the right side of British national interest. That cannot be on the side. Yeah. British national interest. Oh my god. Something's happened to Britain. Uh it is so pathetic. One of one of these characters after the next, it's absolutely shocking. Now, if you put Star there, he'd be the same fool. Uh if you put Boris Johnson there before, the same idiocy one after another. It's I don't know where to start, but Britain uh is in such a tail spin. Of course, who am I to talk? We have Donald Trump. Uh the collapse of political leadership in the North Atlantic is kind of like a kota to the overall end of western hegemony. Not only is there the end of western dominance in the world, but you kind of put the icing on the cake by having this political idiocy that we were just watching on this film. I absolutely unaccountable, vulgar, uh but par for the course. Stars no better. It's just awful. uh the uh the degraination of British politics. The tragedy is that they're playing the same role in Ukraine. They're doing exactly the same role. All they know is war and these stupid comments and uh this vain glory of empire and telling people what to do. Idiocy. Starmer is just such a fool. But by the way, so was Boris Johnson, and Johnson played exactly the same role. So this is interesting because it's this is deep state phenomena. This transcends parties. We have basically the same thing in the United States. Though I want to say Trump is trying maybe not successfully, maybe fitfully, uh maybe episodically, but he's trying I think to end the war in Ukraine. Star is not even remotely trying to end the war in Ukraine.
And yesterday, Donald Trump said that Vladimir Putin is so crazy. He's killing lot of people, not so but not just soldiers, are killing. He was talking about civilians. What is the main goal of this mainstream policy? Because there when you go out and he talked recently with Vladimir Put on it was a phone call more than two hours. They were talking about many things not just Ukraine. But who's forcing Donald Trump is in in the position that he's taking right now which it seems that he's somehow feeling that he he he needs the to leave the scene to let it in the hand of in the hands of Ukrainians and Russians to to make it some sort of solution to make some sort of settlement.
No, but he's he said something even more than that now when he said Putin's absolutely crazy. He said we maybe we have to put on sanctions again. So it's not extricating the US. It's reverting to the mainstream deep state. Uh which is possible because he's surrounded by Marco Rubio and Waltz and Kellogg and Lindsey Graham. And we didn't have 30 years of war-mongering for nothing. And it didn't just go away on January 20th, 2025. We have a military-industrial complex that is the basis of the American empire. Uh and that still is there. And Trump's trying to end a war, but no one likes to end war among these imperial powers. Even even a country like Britain which lost its empire 80 years ago doesn't like to end war. France loves the war-mongering right now. The United States is uh is is the only country where the leader it seems once in a while to be trying to wind down the war. But then a statement like today could mean just a reversion to back to where we were before. Uh Putin didn't do anything quote absolutely crazy. The Iranians launched massive drone attacks including on Moscow in recent days. uh the Western European governments are uh so uh incredible in not saying one word about how to actually reach peace. They talk about a ceasefire but not how to actually reach peace. That uh to to call Putin crazy and not call Zalinski, Starmer, Macron, Tusk, Merz as war-mongering. You know, it's just strange and it's very disturbing because basically it may be that Trump doesn't have the stamina to persevere. uh maybe he doesn't understand, maybe he doesn't have the personal stamina, maybe he's so much under the assault of uh of the deep state, but the lines today were definitely not helpful to peace and definitely not helpful to Ukraine.
If you were to mention the main difficulty on the part of the Trump administration would be the technical parts of what going what's going on in Ukraine or somehow the bigger picture the strategy of the United States in dealing with Russia and the way that they're getting some sort of pressure from the deep state.
It's the latter. Look, basically the US gambled that it could pull Ukraine into the western orbit um and do it uh with NATO enlargement and uh make Russia fold. And that was the bet and that bet was wrong. uh for Russia this was uh such a core set of issues that when the United States helped to overthrow a pro-Russian government or Russia-friendly government in Ukraine next door, when uh the United States built up the largest army in Europe actually in Ukraine during Trump one period, when the United States refused to negotiate uh over the NATO question at all. Um this is the deep state at work, and Trump came in with the right idea that this isn't in America's interest and it's not working. Most importantly for from Trump's point of view is this failed. This was a gambit. This was a remember Americans play poker. This was, you know, trying to bet the pot uh with a pair of twos. Um and uh they vastly overplayed their hand. They bluffed or they believed their own press releases, but they thought that um that Putin would fold. If you keep the poker analogy, he didn't fold. So Trump came in and said, "I don't want to have I don't want to play this hand anymore. This is Biden's hand. That all makes sense." But as soon as he said it, the entire political class of the United States and Western Europe jumped up and down. Oh, that's appeasement. You can't do that. You're just doing Trump's uh uh Putin's uh Putin's line and Putin's interest. What do they think? What What's the plan that Starmer has? How many Ukrainians is he going to kill? According to his plan, it's another 500,000. What What is the plan? Is Is Starmer really going to defeat Russia? Britain, which can't even keep its clinics open anymore. It's really going to defeat Russia right now. So, they don't have a plan. They're just war-mongering. And as long as it's the Ukrainians dying, that's fine. And they portray themselves as friends of Ukraine. Part of the problem is Zalinski. He's a dictator. He can't let go either. But he's killing his own people. Plain and simple. For what? For what prospect? What are the costs, the benefits, and the likelihoods? People don't want to talk about any of that. But the vast likelihood is that all this is is a path to continued war that destroys Ukraine in the end. That's the path we're on. And um Trump is has been trying to get off that path, but whether he's really uh staying off the path or not remains to be seen. And his his posting today about uh Putin gone absolutely crazy. This is a very bad sign. It shows that he's succumbing to all the normal politics of Washington.
Can we understand why did Russia decide to talk directly with Ukrainians? Because before they said they're not going to talk with Zilinskin as his administration because they're Zilinski is not officially the president of Ukraine. Is that related to what Donald Trump wasn't able to get from Ukraine or somehow was manipulated by Europeans?
Go ahead, professor. No, I I think Russia has said all along for years they want to end this at the negotiating table, but they want the negotiations to be about ending the underlying causes of the war. It makes perfect sense. By the way, uh you want to end this war, it's not by freezing the conflict so that the war can start again. It's by going to the root causes: NATO enlargement, uh collective security, uh territorial issues and so on. So, um Russia has not resisted negotiating. It's laid out its position. It's probably negotiable in some parts, but to find out, you have to negotiate. Europe doesn't want to negotiate. Europe doesn't lay out any position. Silinsk's position is total victory, total capitulation of Russia, war crimes, trials, reparations. It's a kind of a delusional list that is the opposite of really trying to get an end to the conflict. So, I think it's not surprising that Putin said, "Let's negotiate." By the way, just as a footnote, they didn't say who they would sign with. They said they would negotiate terms. And they're going to exchange some papers uh on this. So, Russia will be stating here are the terms and why of ending this conflict. Ukraine apparently won't do that. The Western world won't do that. They don't talk.
About how to actually end the war, because that would force them to get into issues like, should NATO really expand? To this day, the Europeans are saying yes. This is nuts. By the way, this is just the recipe to completely destroy Ukraine, to carry on with such imbecilities. Sorry.
NATO should never have tried to expand Ukraine. It was reckless. It was warmongering. It was known by experienced people that it could lead to deadly conflict. It never should have been done. But my god, given what's happened since 2022, for Europeans to continue to say absolutely Ukraine will join NATO is shocking to me.
We're going to have to finish up shortly. Thank you so much, Professor Saxs.
Great pleasure as always. Well, great to be with you, and we'll we'll continue. Lots to talk about, and these issues are unfortunately not going away anytime soon.
Yeah. See you soon. Bye-bye. Thank you. Bye-bye. Bye-bye.