Transcription
This kind of sentiment is so vulgar and so illegal, by the way, under international law because countries are not, governments are not to say these things under the UN charter. They're not even to threaten the use of force, much less to use this kind of force.
So, Professor Sachs, you and I are talking right now minutes after the US president gave a national address on the latest situation, uh, regarding the war in, uh, Iran. Now, we understand among the facts that he gives, one is the conflict is likely to last two to three more weeks. What does that mean? I don't think anything is really in Donald Trump's control. The speech was a lot of bravado. Uh, the speech was a lot of, uh, delusion in my view. And during the speech, uh, the price of oil rose $5 a barrel just in the 25 minutes of the speech. Meaning the markets did not find any of it very credible. So I think we have to do what we normally have to do with Trump, which is filter these remarks. He said America has won, uh, two more weeks of bombing Iran back to the stone age and then it will go home. Okay. He also said that the US isn't going to open the strait to form. Very interesting. They can't. So if the US has won so decisively, why is that little fact left there?
>> Well, I think basically we have a speech with no credibility by a president with no credibility.
>> Now, Professor Sachs, let's go on to another question, uh, that's pretty much being mentioned. The US president argued that the US does not need oil coming from the Strait of Hormuz. That's not a concern of the United States because the US pretty much can depend on its own oil. Uh, is that true? And how much is the US likely to be impacted economically speaking by the ongoing conflict?
>> Well, Americans pay the same price of oil as everybody else. There's a world market for oil. Given that there's a world shortage, the prices of oil and all its derivative products and fertilizer and petrochemicals is soaring in the United States. Americans are, of course, feeling it the same way as everybody else. Uh, it may be true that some of our oil companies are making a fortune. Some of Trump's friends may be making a fortune, but the American people are suffering along with everybody else. Uh, his approval rating is plummeting, um, and it will continue to plummet. He's a, a first-class fool as far as I'm concerned.
>> Professor, so you are suggesting that yes indeed the US does not depend on oil coming from Iran or the Strait of Hormuz directly. However, the inflation is a problem for the United States given the fact that the Strait of Hormuz is crucial for all kinds of supply chains around the world. Of course, that's supporting the US consumers. Is that your argument?
>> Well, that's the fact that there's been a decline, a very significant decline of the supply of oil on world markets. Yeah. Uh, American companies are part of that world supply. When, uh, Americans buy oil, they're buying oil in an integrated world market. If you look at the price in West Texas, which is our benchmark, and the price of oil in the so-called Brent European pricing, they're basically the same. Not exactly, but they're in one market.
>> Yeah. I don't know if Trump understands any of this, but, uh, Americans understand it every moment. They're suffering from a global, uh, energy supply side shock that will, uh, cause the United States and the rest of the world to have a very, very serious economic contraction.
>> Right. We also noticed that the US leader in the national address, which is, uh, say, the first one of such kind since the conflict began, uh, compared this latest conflict of war to some of the earlier, uh, conflicts and wars. He compared that to World War I, II, Korea War, Vietnam War, Iraq War, uh, and suggested it's only 32 days compared to years of, um, wars in the earlier cases. Now, your take on that?
>> Well, it all depends on how long it takes to destroy things. Uh, we're very efficient at destroying things right now. Uh, the next two weeks could destroy a lot of the energy supplies in the Middle East. Uh, in which case, uh, Mr. Trump's argument isn't going to mean very much. Uh, two or three weeks, we could see the oil and the gas supplies, the pipelines, the refineries, the gas fields, uh, the, uh, uh, energy grids blown up across the region. Trump has threatened again tonight to blow up the energy infrastructure of Iran, >> despite his claims. Iran can readily hit, uh, the neighbors and it has ample missiles, probably thousands, to hit, uh, the neighbors and to hit Israel, by the way. So there's a lot of bravado. He cannot, uh, process anything other than complete bravado and declarations of ultimate might and ultimate victory. I don't think what we hear tonight is anything about facts. What we hear is spin. Uh, what we hear is Trump's state of mind. We heard basically the US will not open the Strait of Hormuz and there will be several more weeks of war, and during that period, the amount of damage that can be done to the world economy and to the Middle East countries is vast. If, uh, sensitive targets are hit, and I expect that they will be hit in Iran, Iran will retaliate, and we will read tomorrow or the next day about the, uh, unprecedented damage to the Emirates or to Saudi Arabia or to another country across the Gulf.
>> And so we should understand that's why the markets gave a thumbs down within minutes of Trump's remarks. They did not find it credible. I do not find any of it credible. Bravado is not the same thing as truth.
>> Right. It's not fair if we don't mention the other side of the conflict, uh, in this latest war. Of course, we also hear, uh, in the news, uh, with the so-called open letter by the current Iranian president, Ken. He, in an open letter, questioned whether the United States truly pursues so-called an American First policy or merely acts as a proxy for Israel. Also, in that same letter, he talked about, uh, that Israel and he talked about Iran is in no way, uh, thinking about harming the United States, which has been the arguments the US politicians made on one of the reasons why this war needs to happen. Now, your immediate takeaway on that as well.
>> I'm afraid he probably underestimates how violent the United States actually is because for the last two years at these meetings at the United Nations, he's been saying, "We want peace. We want negotiation." Uh, his country's leaders in return have been murdered by Israel and the United States. So, I, I feel sad because this is a letter saying to the American people, we have no animus against you. We don't like to be attacked by your government.
>> But the fact of the matter is that, um, the United States leadership and Israel's leadership are out to kill and destroy as much of Iran as possible. The president said in his speech, uh, that they would destroy Iran and bring it back to the stone age. This kind of sentiment is so vulgar and so illegal, by the way, under international law because countries are not, governments are not to say these things under the UN charter. They're not even to threaten the use of force, much less to use this kind of force.
So let's move on to some of the key questions related to the latest conflict and war and what does that mean both for the United States, Iran, and also, uh, for the rest of the world. Uh, one of the things is the key, the Strait of Hormuz. Now, we've seen several occasions, Professor Sachs, that the US president suggested it is not the US goal to control the Strait of Hormuz or to occupy the Strait of Hormuz, including this time in the national address. Um, so what would that mean for others? Uh, how is that going to reconcile with the earlier news leaking out suggesting the US will have the option of taking over, uh, the, uh, Car Island, uh, and also, uh, control the Strait of Hormuz?
>> So what he says is not dispositive of what the United States is going to do.
>> All we can say is the following. If the US government has decided that it's not an objective to open the Strait of Hormuz, it will remain under Iranian control. It will remain essentially closed. Whatever bombing they do in the next two or three weeks and whatever reciprocal response Iran gives will not open the Strait of Hormuz. And what it would mean if Trump is reflecting true American policy, which I have to caution again. But if he is, what it means is we are in for a completely massive global economic crisis at the hands of Israel and the United States. That's the bottom line. That's why the oil prices jumped within minutes of Trump's opening remarks as soon as he said what he said.
>> Right.
>> The Strait will close. What is not going to happen is Europeans or the Emirates or the Saudis opening the Strait of Hormuz. It's not within their power. Period. Iran is on the other side. It can shell the tankers and it is ready to sink the tankers that try to go through. And that's been seen since the start of this operation. It was the single most predictable point of this operation >> from the very beginning.
>> The other thing is regarding the Strait of Hormuz because it is in everybody's interests. Um, and therefore, what are likely to be the impacts of this if the Strait of Hormuz continues to be closed or if the Strait of Hormuz is going to be choked, either by the United States or by Iran, for the others? Professor Sachs,
>> It, it won't be choked by the United States. It will be closed by Iran as Iran fights for its survival. That's what will happen. And if that happens, there will be a worldwide economic crisis. But given that, what's also true and important to understand is if this war goes on even for weeks, there will be so much destruction of the oil and gas fields and infrastructure >> that it won't be the Strait of Hormuz essentially that's the issue. It will be the physical production in the Middle East that will be at issue. In other words, we are going to have a major energy supply reduction. Trump's speech tonight, again, if it can be taken, uh, at its word, has essentially made clear there will be a phenomenally sharp, probably unprecedented energy crisis, and that we have every reason to expect will create a worldwide economic crisis.
Professor, about the oil prices, we have seen the Brent price going up to $150 US, which is the highest, even higher than the first Gulf War. Um, meanwhile, we also see countries, particularly developing and emerging economies, cannot afford to have large storage. Some of them even purchase oil on a daily basis. Um, so what kind of disaster are we likely to see for humans on this earth?
>> We've seen, uh, oil supply shocks twice in the 1970s, and the effects were extremely negative, very severe sharp declines of, uh, living standards, uh, food supply disruptions, and this will be no exception. There will be a lot of suffering by people all over the world, care of Israel and the United States. This is what is underway. I heard nothing in the speech that gave me much solace about this. The bravado that two or three weeks more, we bomb them to the stone age and it's over and we go home and others can clean up our mess is not a, uh, cogent >> approach to what is a, an a very deep crisis. >> Given, I, I should add something that may seem a little, uh, subtle or beside the point, but I, it could be very serious. There are projections that the weather in the second half of this year, especially, I mean, the climate, because of possible serious El Niño, uh, which is hugely disruptive of food supplies, of rainfall patterns, of drought, >> right, >> if that comes and compounds this, we will have an absolutely unprecedented crisis on our hands. Right.
>> So this, the IMF is already giving reports of this. The International Energy Agency has said that the extent of the energy supply shock is unprecedented. Uh, and we heard nothing tonight of any intelligent response to this. Not even a concern about it, frankly.
>> Related to that, we've been hearing an orchestra of different voices coming from the region and also from other parts of the world whose interests obviously are directly impacted. We've been hearing from the Gulf States. Some have been calling on the United States and Israel to go all the way, so to speak, while others have been expressing concerns about the latest situations, especially the impacts on the region now and in the future. Meanwhile, we've also been hearing from some European governments, uh, talking about this is, quote, not their war, and therefore they are not going to be involved. Some of them refused to open the airspace for the US and Israel for their attacks against Iran. Some of them have been, according to media reports, in negotiations with Iran regarding the Strait of Hormuz. But there are a lot of different voices on so many different issues and actually looking at the war in different directions. Now, Professor Sachs, what would this mean? Is the US purposefully pushing everybody into a corner? Uh, if they, if it is, what does that mean for everybody else? Is this a critical moment for people to choose what kind of world they want?
>> A lot depends on the truth about the military situation.
>> Yeah.
>> The US and Israel say that they have defeated Iran for all intents and purposes, but the skies are open. It's a cleaning up operation and Iran will be back in the stone age. That is their claim. There is another very widespread view that Iran has thousands of missiles and, uh, much greater numbers of drones, uh, that it has not been seriously degraded. The US position is that the, uh, enriched uranium is buried under the ground and monitored by US satellite and no, uh, issue there. Uh, many other people think this is completely preposterous that the Iranians, even before the attack last summer, removed the enriched uranium to new locations.
>> And I don't know because I'm not in the information chain, but I could say that a lot of the issues that we're discussing depend on the military assessment. Stepping back, I can only make a couple of general points which I would like to make. First, I have never known the US government to tell the truth about the military situation during my lifetime, whether it is Vietnam or whether it is any of the other wars. So, I don't believe a word that is said until it's shown. I do not take the word of the US government at all straightforwardly. Second, a basic principle of war of the last 100 years is that aerial attacks are not sufficient, especially for a country of nearly 100 million people and a land area which is enormous and mountainous and protected and a regime that has known all along that it has two great enemies, the United States and Israel. It has not been the case that a few weeks of bombing has ever ended a war like this. So on general principles, though I am not any kind of definitive expert and I have zero inside information on this, I do not believe the US narrative, and many of the things that we're discussing will come down to who is right and wrong about the military situation. I think it is likely that Iran has very substantial military power, missile systems, hypersonic missile systems, the ability to cause grave damage across the Gulf and in Israel.
>> Yeah.
>> And that the US claim that this is not the case is will be proven to be false. If that is right, we are in a completely new world situation. If that conclusion is correct, if the United States is right in what President Trump said, then Iran will have been brutally subjected to aggression, but it will not change fundamentally the world balance. So unfortunately, there is no answer right now.
>> Right. Uh, that, that is clear. I believe that the weight of the evidence right now is that, uh, Trump is, uh, blowing a lot of hot air and, as usual, the United States government is not being straightforward about the real situation.
>> What about the funding for the war? We have been hearing from the White House spokesperson talking about the US president, uh, will ask Arab countries to cover the cost of the United States war against Iran, estimated, according to some media reports, uh, tens of billions. Uh, uh, of course, we have seen earlier, uh, in the Gulf War, there's, uh, US, uh, so-called coalition that eventually the rest has, uh, uh, put together $54 billion US dollars over the time, which is now likely to be $134 billion, uh, US dollars that was for the earlier Gulf War, but is this situation likely to be different because you've been hearing from the European counterparts of the US, at least that, that this is not their war, and many of them, at least, are saying that,
>> Anyone with their eyes open in the Gulf has to understand they've been had. And so on the other hand, if Iran is mortally wounded by all of this, as Trump claims, well, something will work out and Americans will pay the bill on debt, that's for sure. We'll just raise the, uh, the debt from this. But if it turns out that the military assessment is different from what Trump says, there will be a deep reordering of politics. These countries and their governments will have been profoundly exposed as having made fundamentally wrong decisions, and, uh, they're certainly not going to add to the US coffers after fundamentally wrong decisions. So again, a lot will depend on the military outcome. On general principles, it's hard to believe that Iran has been, quote, defeated in a four to eight week aerial campaign.
>> Earlier, we saw some negotiation reportedly in the press, of course, uh, between some of the special envoys and Trump family and also, uh, the, uh, relevant, uh, personalities coming from the Iranian side. Those two rounds, at least, reported being public, did not go very well with the US, uh, uh, went back on its words, as the Iranians accused. So, uh, do you see, Professor, there is any possibility, given the savviness that we have these days about international politics, behind the scenes discussions, or some kinds of lower-level interactions or pushing each other to the corners and eventually have some space for maneuver? Are we going to see some of this? Do you think that is on the horizon or not?
>> There is no possibility of US-Iranian negotiations. It's not even a meaningful concept. There is a possibility of an end to the conflict in which China, Russia, India, other countries help to create conditions in which the US goes home and Israel stops bombing and Iran has some security and the Strait opens up again. That's possible. That is not negotiation between the US and Iran. It can't even exist. You listen to Donald Trump. He says, "We will watch by satellite and we'll come in and bomb again." This is not a basis for negotiation. This is thug behavior, thuggish behavior. And that's, you can't negotiate with thugs. So there can be an arrangement in which this ends, but it would be one in which China and Russia broker the arrangement, not in which there are bilateral negotiations between Americans and Iranians. This is not a government and my country's government that negotiates. Listen to Trump. It's about blasting you back to the stone age. We will watch. We will come in again. Their idea is maximum force >> to get full, uh, obedience. This is the model. It is at a very unlikely model to succeed. Uh, but that, that is their model. They have their strategy.
>> Their strategy is overwhelming force and overwhelming obedience. For example, the US has threatened to withdraw or threatened to or to, uh, leave, uh, NATO, uh, just, uh, as one example. Uh, how much do you think the latest situation likely to shape others' understanding about exactly what's going on and what does the MAGA, specifically, mean for them, and how this is gradually or even drastically changing the world order that we know is already in transition? Professor Sachs,
>> The world order is fundamentally changing because China is a very powerful country. Russia is a powerful country. India is growing in superpower status as well. Those are the fundamental reasons, and those are irrevocable reasons, whether the US likes it or not or blusters or not. Uh, what is in discussion right now is what should other countries do about this fact? And in the Gulf region, the Gulf region threw in all of its chips with the United States. I told them for many years, as best I could, it's not a good bet. The US is too unreliable. China's too important for you. Other countries are too important for you. Do not throw in everything with the United States. Maybe they've seen that that was not a good bet. I've said the same thing with Europe, almost identically, that Europe has made a huge mistake thinking that somehow the US is its protector. And every time something comes along, whether it's Trump's trade wars or its threats to invade Greenland or now his statements about leaving NATO and the cowardice of Europe and you open the Strait of Hormuz, I have tried to explain over the years that the United States is neither a protector nor a friend for Europe, and that Europe needs to have its own independent policy and not to be in conflict with Russia or with China, for that matter. So I hope that there's more realism around the world as one sees this play out because we are in a new world. We have not, uh, understood, most regions have not understood this. The United States believes, and you listen to Trump and you can hear it. He believes the United States is the all-powerful, most mighty nation without a peer, can do anything in the world, can threaten anybody, can make any choice. That's his mental model. But for the rest of the world, they need to decide clearly what is the new world. Where do we, uh, how do we manage in a way that's prudent? And that means not putting in all your chips with the United States. I'm sorry to say, I wish my government were just mildly responsible, much less so thuggish. But the fact of the matter is, we're already in a new world. And it would be absolutely responsible for governments to understand this. Frankly, I was shocked at how dependent they were psychologically on the United States, despite all the warning signs. I tried, I didn't make much headway in, in my arguments with them. Similarly, in Europe, I have tried to say, adjust to the new realities. This could be a further wake-up call. Again, I have to stress, we will see in the next four or five weeks an outcome, one way or another, uh, that will absolutely reshape the world. If the US is right that it has destroyed Iran, >> the reshaping will be very small. Uh, the US will say, we're the big boss. We're the bully. We now own Iranian oil. We can do what we want. I think this is very, uh, unlikely as the truth. If the other, uh, situation proves to turn out to be right, that Iran has a lot of fighting power, it's not been defeated in six or eight weeks of aerial bombing, uh, it's got missiles galore and it can do grave damage to its neighbors who have sided with the United States. The situation from a geopolitical point of view will be >> entirely different. And this is why these next few weeks really are >> an incredible drama. It's a tragedy that the drama is playing out this way. It's a test of how thuggish and violent the United States can be, but it is going to play out one way or another. So we're going to see the rules of the jungle, so to speak, still the prevailing concept in the international relations for now, until a few weeks later to see where the military operations go. That is certainly a very logical argument, and yet, Professor, um, so based on what we are seeing over the past few years, especially since MAGA has become a prevailing concept from the United States and the US interaction with the rest of the world, Um, can we come to this conclusion that the international order led by the United States after World War II, is it just a makeup of a world order, in fact, decided by the United States, rallied by the others, were cheered by the others? And now we are seeing the fact of it ever clearly, or what we are, what we are in right now is a very different stage compared to, let's just say, 15 years ago, uh, uh, from the end of World War II to about 15 years ago, what we have, uh, uh, experienced together. Professor Sachs, your assessments so far.
>> During the period from 1945 to 1991, the United States was the predominant power, but it was in a Cold War competition with the Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union ended in December 1991, the US view was, now the United States is the unrivaled sole superpower of the world that has the ability essentially to run the world. That view, in my opinion, was delusional already back in December 1991, but it became wildly delusional by around 2010 with China's rise. As of 2026, it makes no sense whatsoever because the United States simply lacks, uh, any kind of dominance across major technologies, military force, and many other attributes. And it's the US is only 4% of the world economy. Sorry, 4% of the world population and about 14% of the world output, uh, by standard measure. So we're in a multipolar reality already. But if you listen to Trump, he reflects not MAGA, he reflects a mindset that goes back to 1991. And that is the mindset of hegemony by the United States over the world. And for Trump, this war, the way he described it, is going to be another proof of that. Just like the invasion of Venezuela was a proof of that. In Trump's mind, the United States is proving that not only are we not in a multipolar world, American dominance remains. In my opinion, this is wildly delusional, and, um, that it is leading the United States into multiple wars and creating havoc worldwide because the US is asserting control and power that it does not have.
>> Right. But a lot of this because of the jungle will come down to brute backs of force. And, uh, it won't take long. It won't take all those years of war that Trump talked about. It will take a few weeks for us to understand the military situation, which will shape our understanding of geopolitics in a very deep way.
Now, we've been hearing the concept over the past decades about the US being the leader of the free world. Now, of course, that is a political slogan. Some can even say it. It is really a propaganda slogan. But on the other hand, is there something called the free world?
>> No, there is something called the world in which America has military bases. There are about 80 countries in the world where the United States has military bases. That is the American Empire. And there are roughly 750 US military bases in around 80 countries. And those countries don't really breathe. When you host an American military base, you give up your sovereignty. That's what's happened to Bahrain, to the Emirates, to Qatar, to Saudi Arabia. And they did that because they thought that is protection for them. It's not protection. It is occupation. And so we don't have clear thought in any part of the world, but free world, freedom of US bombing missions. That's the freedom, uh, freedom to break any international law. But these slogans mean nothing right now. They don't characterize governments. They don't characterize behavior. They don't characterize lawfulness. I do a study each year on which countries are most aligned with the UN Charter. There are 193 UN member states. The United States comes out last on objective criteria. Last. Not at the bottom, not in the bottom 10%, not in the bottom 20%.
>> 193rd. The US obeys no international law right now. So what kind of order are we talking about? What we're talking about is force. The United States is an empire. It has its empire is reflected in the military bases around the world, in Asia, in Korea, in Japan. They've been there for 80 years, after all. 80 years. So that's the empire. When you are betting on that empire, you're betting on the US side of things.
>> The fact of the matter is, from the point of view of technology and innovation and markets and trade, that world doesn't even exist anymore.
>> Right. The BRICS countries are much larger than the G7 countries in economic size. China is ahead of the United States in innovation across huge swaths of the economy right now. So still, the bases are there. And when you watch government behavior of governments that host US military bases, it's a little bit like ventriloquism. You hear the US words coming out of the mouths of the leaders of these countries because to host a US military base is to give up your sovereignty to an important.
>> Right. That meanwhile, I would like to follow up on a few points, Professor Sachs, you just made. I, I would love to hear more of your in-depth, uh, uh, analysis. Uh, to say the least, the US role has been recalibrated in terms of global governance, that's for sure. To what degree? Well, we're going to observe over the next few weeks and months, probably, uh, even more clearly, as you argued. But Professor, the US did help to create and reinforce over the past decades since World War II, some of the international institutions, the United Nations, IMF, Bretton Woods, NATO, and some of the list goes on. So how much do you think the value of these different entities, mechanisms, and structures should be devalued in a way as a result that the US, which is one of the key creators of this system, are not believing in this system to begin with, in your argument, and now certainly want to leave all these international governance structures? So, um, how much do we still need to value these structures? That's an interesting question, isn't it? And a, and a logical question.
>> And my recommendation for the rest of the world, which is somewhat in shock about this, is don't wait for World War II to create a new organization. Save this one. Yeah.
>> And my recommendation for China, very strong recommendation, is make a major UN campus in Beijing because there is no major UN organization in Asia. It was born in the United States or in Europe. This is where almost all of the UN agencies are. But Asia is home to more than, it's 60% of the world population. True. Half the world output. And so we need to support the UN. You know, the UN is the second attempt. The League of Nations was the first attempt. It failed. It failed and it died in World War II. Now we have the UN. It's hanging by a thread because the host country, the inventor of it, has abandoned it to a large extent. And so the other 190-plus countries need to ask, what are we going to do? Let the United States flush this down the drain or save it? My advice is to save it because World War II is not an option for us. It is not the right approach to say we'll get the next one after the next world war, just like the past one. We need to save this. And we desperately need leaders to be saying to rogue nations, and we have two of them right now, the United States and Israel, you cannot do what you're doing. A president of the United States cannot give a speech declaring that they're going to bomb Iran back to the stone age. This has to be unacceptable on its face. It has to have a reaction from governments immediately. Not, hm, wonder if he's going to bomb them back to the stone age, but rather, that is completely unacceptable in the 21st century, in a nuclear age. We cannot even have that kind of talk, much less that kind of intention.
>> Right. Professor, my last questions related to, uh, the fear that some have been suggesting if things are not being managed well regarding the conflict among Israel, United States, and Iran, of course, rippling effect, we are likely to be on the verge of another world war. Well, that is maybe an exaggeration, or it might be a clear warning. Uh, what do you make of the latest situation and how much, uh, roles others could play in preventing things from further escalating into something that nobody wants to see?
>> We're on the verge of world war because of many dangerous delusional ideas right now, mainly in the United States. The US has essentially declared it runs the Western Hemisphere. It says that's the Monroe Doctrine. The Monroe Doctrine had nothing to do with that. The Monroe Doctrine was only a warning to Europe. Do not colonize the Western Hemisphere. It was not a claim by the United States to dominate the Western Hemisphere. So the mindset right now is very, very dangerous, and the mindset of the US is extremely dangerous because it's built on a fundamental delusion that the United States can do what it wants. But if we continue this way, there will be wars breaking out everywhere. And interestingly, by the way, I think it's important to say, with all the US attack on the evil of Iran, how many wars has Iran launched in the last decade? Zero. In the last 40 years, zero. In the last 80 years, zero. In the last century, zero. Iran has not been a country launching wars. How many has the United States launched? Nearly every year, some kind of new military adventure.
>> How do you see this part of the world? Well, you have a conflict going on, and its ripple effect likely to show the true colors of a lot of logics in the world and likely to change the world to a certain extent. You also have other players interacting with the United States in different ways. Um, and China, United States is only just one of those examples. You also had the EU, the Gulf regions, and Latin America, and the list goes on. So, how do you see these many moving factors? Uh, what kind of momentum do you read out of this?
>> Well, you know, China has a very stable, mature, and careful statecraft. So, uh, the Chinese government doesn't see any reason to provoke the United States in areas of trade, uh, finance, uh, and related topics, and so it's trying to have some kind of stability. We saw that in those areas too. However, Trump had his reciprocal tariffs and his trade wars and his threats and, uh, everything else. So there's no real stability there as well. As I read the situation, uh, China and, uh, others are trying to have as, uh, non-provocative relations as possible in these areas, but without illusions. Not believing the United States is a stable country or even, or is much less a stable partner. To believe so would be a huge mistake. China's stable partners are especially the emerging economies of the world. They need what China has. China trades with them. China has good diplomacy with them. Uh, and I think the idea is don't rock the boat for no reason. But the truth of the matter is, it's also not possible to duck the war and peace issues. China has an enormous role and stake in ending this war in the Gulf, just as one of the world's great powers and one of the world's responsible powers. Uh, and of course, a leader in the United Nations, Russia has the same responsibility. Uh, India, though it's not a UN Security Council member, has a very big responsibility. So in addition to trying to have a state visit, perhaps, and, uh, discussions about trade that don't blow up, the truth of the matter is, uh, the major powers, and I'm again, always coming back to China, to Russia, to the BRICS countries, really do need to help explain to Mr. Trump and to the United States, you cannot have wars to bomb countries to the stone age in the 21st century. The idea, the approach, the rhetoric can get us all killed, and it has to stop.
>> Do you see the danger about future attacks on Cuba or Greenland?
>> Of course.
>> And the list goes on.
>> Of course. Of course. They're absolutely going to invade Cuba one day. They're going to declare Greenland part of US territory one day. This is the mindset right now. Grab what you can. They're absolutely going to do this.
>> Jeffrey Sachs, Professor, always a pleasure. Thank you so much for your straightforwardness and insightful ideas. Appreciate it.
>> Great to be with you. Thank you.