John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs | All-In Summit 2024
54:27 Share

Hey, everybody, free broker, what you're about to hear is a panel discussion from our all in summit recorded in L. A. On september. We're gone to publish some of the best conversations once a week over the next month. If you want to see all the talks, subscribe to our youtube channel at youtube 点 com， slash at all in and follow us on acts at the all in pod.

Fluent and controversial .

thinkers in the world is known .

as one of the world's leading experts on economic development, one of the most famous political scientists in history.

What we're talking about moral and political principles here.

I would suggest that all four wars could .

be ended quickly is now back on the table.

If we are anything as a world community, we have to implement what we've said.

I'm excited for this panel are going to talk about foreign policy. I think two, the most interesting, imminent, renowned thinkers about foreign policy professor john masi from a chicago and fessor Jeffery sax from columbia. So great to have you guys here today.

It's a big world and there's a lot of things happening to licence jump into IT. The big news over the past week was that dictionary endorse commonly herr's for president. I think for people who see the world in partisan political terms, this might have been surprising, but I don't think that you guys were that surprised by that. Do you see an underlying logic to this, jeff? And I start with you.

I think it's obvious there is basically one deep state party, and that is the party of chinese spider Victoria newlin, my colleague, clumb university. Now h and newland's is kind of the face of all of this because he has been in every administration for the last thirty years.

He was in the clint administration, wrecking our policies towards russia in the one thousand nine hundred ninety SHE was in the bush's administration junior with chinese wrecking our policies. Korda, nato enlargement. Uh, SHE was in then the obama administration as Hillary a spokesperson first, and then making a coup in ukraine in february twenty fourteen.

Not a great move, started a war. Then he was a biden, a under secretary of state. Now that's both parties um it's a colossal mess and she's been chinese advisor.

She's been violence advisor SHE SHE a and makes perfect sense. This is the reality. We're trying to find out if there is another party that the big question and john.

what's your your thought on that? Do you see any different screeds republicans and democrats?

No, i'd like to refer to the republicans. And the democrats is tweet day and tweet that.

It's hard to any difference. I actually think the one exception is that former president trump, when he became president two thousand seventeen, was bent on beating back to deep state and becoming a different kind of leader on the foreign policy front. But he basically failed, and he has vowed that if he gets selected this time, IT will be different and he will beat back the deep state.

He will pursue a foreign policy that's fundamentally different then republicans and democrats have pursued up to now. And the big quest on the table is whether or not you think trump can beat the deep state of these two establish parties. And i'd bet against trump, john and jeff.

But let's sorry, john, can you actually define for us? For me? I don't understand when people say deep state, what is I almost viewed the term comically.

We have one of our friends in our group who he called deep state, who's deep, deep state. He's really in the deep state, but we said as a joke. But for maybe the uninitiated, what does that actually mean? What are their incentives? Who are they? Jeff, maybe on a star john on a start.

Yeah also a few words about when we talk about the deep state, we talk king really about the administration of state. It's very important to understand that starting in the late nineteen th, early twenty years century, given developments in the american economy, IT was imperative that we develop. And this was true of all western countries, a very powerful central state that could run the country.

And over time, that state has grown in power. And since world war two, the united states, as you all know, has been involved in every look in crane of the world, fighting wars here, there and everywhere. And to do that, you need a very powerful administrative state that can help manage that foreign policy.

But in the process, what happens if you get all of these high level bureaucrats, middleville and low level, who become established in positions in the pentagon, the state department, the intelligence community, you name IT, and they end up having a vested interest in pursuing a particular foreign policy. And the particular foreign policy that they like to pursue is the one that the democrats and the republicans are pushing. And that's why we talk about tweet d and tweet dome with regards to the two parties, you could throw in the deep state as being on the same pages those other two institutions.

There is a very interesting interview of putin in figure row in twenty seventeen, and he says, I dealt with three presidents now they come into office with some ideas even, but then the men in the dark suits and the blue ties. And then he says, I wear red ties, but they were blue ties. They come in and explain the way the world really is, and therefore the ideas.

And I think that's putin experience, that's our experience, that's my experience, which is that there is a deeply in trained foreign policy. IT has been in place in my interpretation, for many decades, but arguably a variant of IT has been in place since one thousand nine hundred ninety two. I got to watch some of IT early on because I was an advisor to gorbachev and I was an advisor to yell.

And so I saw early makings of this, though I didn't fully understand IT, except in retrospect. But that policy has been mostly in place pretty consistently for thirty years and I didn't really matter whether was born senior, whether was clinton, whether was bush junior, whether was obama, whether IT was trump after all, who did trump? Er he hire john bolton.

Well, the pretty deep state, and that was the end of, they told, you know, he explained, this is the way IT is. And by the way, bolton explained also in his memories, when trumping and degree, we figured out ways to trick in basically so and what what are their incentives is that war is itself, enrichment is that power? Is that all three? Is that .

some cards is is just is there a philosophical entrenchment? Or is IT just as a nerval issue that like once a policy begins, it's hard to change? And the systems just working with ten thousand people working towards IT.

You know, if I were lucky to sit next to the world's greatest political but philosopher, which I am, he'd give you a good answer, which is that the right answer, which is if you want to interpret american foreign policy IT, is to maximize power. And he gives john gives an explanation of that.

We have the some differences, but I think it's a very good description of american foreign policy, which is that it's trying to maximize global power, essentially to be global hedge amand. I think IT could get us all killed. This is because it's a little bit delusional in my mind but not not the not not his interpretation of their idea, but the fact that they hold that idea is a little weird to me.

But in any event, that's the idea. And every time a decision comes inside that i've seen, i'm an economist, so I don't see the security decisions the same way. But every decision that i've seen always leans in the same direction for the last thirty years, which is power as the central objective. So clinton faced an internal cabinet really debate, should nato be enlarged?

This is a post called war phenomenon.

It's wealth, ala. john.

Take that two very quick points. First, will I do believe that the people who earn favor of this foreign policy do believe in IT? It's not cynical. They really believe that we're doing the right.

Yeah yeah. The second point.

I would make you in this sort of bits onto what jeff said. Jeff said, power has a lot to with this and is a good real. I, of course, believe that.

But it's also very important, understand that the united states is a fundamentally liberal country. And we believe that we have a right, we have a responsibility, and we have the power to run around the world, and we make the world in america's image. Most people in the foreign policy establishment, the republic party, the democratic party, they believe that.

And that is what has motivated our foreign policy in large part since the cold war ended. Because remember, when the cold war ends, we have no rival great power left. So what are we going to do with all this power that we have? What we decide to do is go out and remake the world in our own image.

So that's a that's a values point of view though, right? There are values that they hold dear, that that many do hold dear, that liberalism, democracy does. Ultimately, I believe i've heard this reduce conflict worldwide, that there's an importance that we've never seen to democratic nations since rodwood to go to war, and that there's a reason why we want to see liberalism kind of breed throughout the world. And it's our responsibility for work, for global peace to make that a Mandate.

Let me step in for one moment, OK.

And by the way, what do you call IT where you pull the spirits of the the voice of others? But i'm just trying to channeling, channeling.

That's the world. I want to be very clear. I am forever thankful that I was born in a liberal democracy, and I love liberalism.

But the question here is, do you think that we can run around the world imposing liberal democracy and other countries, and in some cases, shoving IT down their throat, doing IT at the end of a rifle barrel. And my argument is that almost impossible to do is almost always backfires. They, iraq, afghanistan, so forth and so on.

And secondly, you begin to arrow liberalism in the united states because you build the deep state, right? And you want to understand that a lot of the complaints here about cracking king down on freedom of speech and so forth and so are related to the fact that we have this ambitious foreign policy. Those two things go together in very important ways.

but an arty limit.

Let me disagree just a bit because we agree actually on the behavior. And i've learned, i'd say, most of that from you that is power seeking. Truly, john, in my work forty years overseas, I don't think the us.

Government gives a damn about these other places. I don't think they really care if it's a liberal democracy, if it's a dictatorship. They want the right of ways.

They want the military bases. They want of the state to be in support of the united states. They want nato and largest. And I know you've written, and there are some who believe in state building god, if they do, they are so incompetent. It's unbelievable.

but.

So i'll give you an example, if I could, just one example. I'm a friend with one of the only PHD afghani economic senior person in the us. Academy over the last thirty years.

You would think that the state department, they were interested in state building, would ask him, one day, one moment, something about afghanistan never happened. Never happened. Not even one question never happened.

He asked me, can you get me a meeting with the state department? They were completely uninterested. This is, this is about power.

Your two idealistic john. They don't care about the other places. They may feel we should be whatever we want, free and so forth.

But freedom i've been, i've seen my, with my own eyes, the crews, the overthrows, the president's democratic presidents LED away. They don't care at all. This is washington. Be a realist.

Come on. First of mutimer when we talk about the power, there are other people in the world who are trying to accumulate power. We live in a multipolar world right now and they have in some cases very indefer ious or bad intent um and they do not have democracy so it's one thing to you know tell um people in afghanistan you need to evolve to be a perfect democracy like the one we have here.

I think we all agree that's unrealistic and insane and not practical but what about the free countries of the world uniting together to stop dictators from invading other three countries? Is that noble? Is that a good use of power and a good framework for amErica to evolve to?

No, I don't think so. I think that what the united states should do is worry about its own national interest. In some cases that's going to involve a line ourselves with a dictator.

If we're fighting world war two all over again, its december eighth, nineteen nineteen forty one, you surely would be in favor of a line with eight, not with eight of hitler with Joseph stolen and the serve union against eight of hitler in nazi germany. Y sometimes you have to make those kind of compromises. As I said before, I love liberal democracy. I have no problem a line with liberal democracy. But when you begin to think in the terms that you're thinking, you end up a with an impulse to do social engineering around the world and that get you all sorts of problem.

Well, what i'm proposing is when dictatorships invade other countries, then we take action and maybe defend them.

So yeah, of course. I mean, when russia invades ukraine, basically what you're saying is you want to go to war on behalf of ukraine against russia. Are you in favorite of that? No.

I would say diplomacy would obviously be what we want to exhaust. But if they do roll into other three countries, I there's an argument for the three countries of the world to get together and say, two dictators. We're not going to allow this.

Could I come in here? Could I clarify a few things? Yeah, no.

Look, first of all. Almost all the time that we intervene. It's because we view this is a power situation for the us. So whether it's ukraine or syria or libya or other places, even if we define IT as defending something, believe me, it's not about defending something. It's about a perception of us power and us interest, and it's in objectives of us global hegemony.

And if we analyze the ukraine conflict just even a little bit below the surface, this is not a conflict about putin invading ukraine. This is something a lot different that has to do with american power projection into the former soviet union. So it's completely different.

Second, if we decide where the police, which we do, you can't imagine how cynical bulls shit we used to justify our actions. We used the cynical bullshit that were defending the people of benghazi to bomb the hell out of libya, to kill more market adoption. Why did we do that? Well, i'm kind of an expert on that region.

And I can tell you, maybe because sarkozy didn't like a dove, I there's no much deeper reason except Hillary, like every bomb SHE could get her hands on. And obama was kind of convinced my secretarial states has go with IT. So why don't we go with the nature expedition? IT had nothing to do with libya IT unleased fifteen years of cash cheated the U.

N. Security council because, like everything else we have done, IT was on false pretenses. We did the same with trying to overthrow syria.

We did the same with conspiring to overthrow Victor yana coverage in ukraine and february twenty fourteen. So the problem with this argument is we're not nice guys. We're not trying to save the world. We're not trying to make democracies. We had a committee, by the way, of all the illumination ies you could mention, but the the newcastle zy, but the luminary, the committee for the people of chat.

China, are you kidding? Do you think they even know where matching is or cared about chacha? But IT was an opportunity to get at russia, to weaken russia, to support A G hardest movement inside russia.

To do this is a game, but it's a game that john has describe Better than anyone in the world. It's a game of power. It's not that we're defending real things.

If you want to defend real things, go to the U. N. Security council and vince others because the other countries are not crazy and they don't want maham in the world.

But we play game. So they say that's a game. Iraq, which was obviously a game before we went in IT was a obviously coin power could not move his lips without lying that day, obviously.

And so they said, no, but if we're real about our interest, then you go to the U. N. Security council. And then it's not just on us, it's actually been a collective security issue.

Professor measure, if we were to take Jeffery's position here um that we are exerting power for the sake of you know our reputation and in fact to weak in dictatorships if i'm summarizing correctly here um is that not a good strategy to weaken dictators around the world who might like to invade other countries?

Is there is there a framing in which you can see that being for, you know, a world where democracy and people living freely has gone down in our lifetime? Is that not noble? Is there are not a justification somebody can make for much thing.

I have that, but i'm just trying to steal me. On the other side of this is weakening dictators and death spots. A good strategy.

IT depends.

Well, let's talk about the two that we have a shesha ping I think you wanted to get to eventually and then ukraine and put now these people worth trying to you know, contain or even weekend.

Well, in terms of china, i'm fully in favor of containing china.

O contain change.

It's containment. I'm not interested in regime change. I'm not interested in trying to turn china into democracy.

Not gonna en you not going to happen. We tried IT actually, and I thought I was foolish. T ven. Pursue policy of engagement toward china with regard to russia.

I don't think russia is a serious threat to the united states, and indeed, I think the united states should have good relations with putting. It's a remarkably foolish policy to push him into the arms of the chinese. There are three great powers in the system, the united states, china and russia.

China is a peer competitor to the united states, is the most serious threat to the united states. Russia is the weakness of those three great powers. And it's not a serious threat.

Us, if you are playing baLance para politics and you're interested as the united states in containing china, you want russia on your side of the ledger. But what we have done, in effect, is we have pushed russia into the arms of the chinese. This is a remarkable, foolish policy. And furthermore, by getting bogged down in ukraine and now bogged down in the middle east, it's become very difficult for us to pivot to asia to deal with china, which is the principle threat that we face.

I think, I think, David.

could I just say two thirds, right? perfect.

So you gave him a bee for b plus eight minus. I don't.

That's great inflation. I just wanted to add a foot now, which is that china's also not a threat. It's just not a threat.

I mean.

we're going to get in a market. It's got great food, great culture, wonderful people, a civilization ten times older than ours. It's not a threat. Well.

as an economist, can you talk about the impact of a cold or hot conflict with china from an economic perspective, given the trade relationship?

Yeah, would red california for one thing, I would destroy the economy that you guys are making completely. This economy has been the biggest beneficiary of china's rise, probably in the whole world. So it's crazy maybe if you're worried if you really worried about whether a worker in ohio has a particular job on a particular assembly line, then you can be anti china. If you're worried about the industry, about california, about peace in the future, you should be pro china at all.

So why that becomes so universal to assume that we are already in a state of conflict with china on not just party lines, but like almost any spectrum? You could kind like consider na .

said IT exactly right. And he predicted IT Better than anyone in the whole world in two thousand. One, he said, when china becomes large, we're going to have conflict because that's john theory, and it's right as a description of american foreign policy that we are for power. They are big. Therefore, there an enemy.

They're an enemy of our .

aspiration to global.

To try to I think that what's interesting, I mean, you and jeff, I think, arrived at similar conclusions about ukraine, the different on china, right? As jeff, he's an economist and I think sees the world and fundamentally positive some ways based on the potential for trade economics, basically whether you see the world as more of a zero summer game based on the baLance of power. Want to explain that difference. So okay.

IT is very important, emphasizes, as David was saying, that jeff and I agree on all sorts of issues, including ukraine in israel, palestine. But we disagree fundamentally, as he just made clear on china. And let me explain to you why I think that's the case.

And then jeff can tell you why he thinks i'm wrong. IT has to do with security, whether you privilege security or survival, or whether you privilege prosperity. And economists, and I would imagine most of you in the audience, really cared greatly about maximum prosperity.

For someone like me, who's a real alist, what I care about is maxims ing the states prospects of survival. And when you live in an an arctic system and an airspeed, that means there's no higher authority. There's no night watchmen that can come down and rescue if you get into trouble.

And this is the international system. There's no high authority in that an arctic world, the best way to survive is to be really powerful. As we used to say, when I was a kid on new york city playgrounds, you want to be the biggest and batter stood on the block.

And that simply because it's the best way to survive. If you're really powerful, nobody falls around with you. The united states is a regional hedger mon.

It's the only regional hedging moon on the planet. We dominate the western hemisphere. And what china has begun to do, as it's got increasingly powerful economically, is translate that economic might into military might.

And IT is trying to dominate asia. IT wants to push us out beyond the first island chain. IT wants to push us out beyond the second island chain.

IT wants to be like we are in the western n hemisphere. And I don't blame the chinese one bit. If I was the national security advisor in beijing, that's what i'd be telling.

gg. P, we should be trying to do. But of course, from an american point of view, this is unacceptable. And we do not tolerate peer competitors. We do not want another regional hedge demon on the planet.

In the twenty years century, there were four countries that threatened to become regional hedge amount like us, imperial germany, imperial japan, not see germany in the soviet union. The united states played a key role in putting all four of those countries on the scrap peak of history. We want to remain the only region, al hedge, ammon in the world.

We are a ruthless, great power. Never want to lose side of that fact. And the end result of this is you get an intense security competition between china and the united states. And IT revolves around the concept of security, not process.

right? I think this .

is very quickly.

So what you see beginning to happen is that is in all domains where the competition takes place, especially high tech, we do not want defeating this, defeating us in the high tech war. We are competing with them economically. We are competing with the military. And this is because the best way to survive is for us, the united states of america, to be the only regional hedge amount on the planet.

So jeff, let me set IT up for jeff here. So jeff, you and john, I think I agree that that the game on on the board is power seeking. I think what JoNathan is there are smart and dumb way is to pursue power that containing china is a smart way.

What we're doing in ukraine is a dumb way. Whether IT seems like you are saying that all power's seeking behavior is bad, that's not game we should be playing. We should somehow opt out of. That is kind of .

where if you're going. So it's not a bad way to say, but I I would put IT in, in another way. I read A A very good book, johns.

And and john described, i'm going to quote him, but he can quote himself afterwards he he said that the regional hedged amends. I don't threaten each other actually. why? Because we have big ocean in between.

I deeply believe that china is not a threat to the united states, and I depty believe the only threat to the united states period in the world, given the oceans, given our size and given the military, is nuclear war. I deeply believe we're close to nuclear war because we have a mindset that leads us in that direction. We have a mindset that everything is a chAllenge for survival, and that escalate tion is therefore always the right approach.

My view is a little bit of prudence could save the whole planet. So why I don't like ukraine is that I don't see any reason in the world that nato has to be on rushes border with ukraine. E, I was, as I said, gorby job's advisor and yelled and advisor, and they wanted peace and they wanted CoOperation.

But whatever they wanted, they did not want the us. Military on their border. So if we continued to push as we did, we would get to war johna explain that Better than anybody.

We are now at war, and even this morning there is further escalation. Blinken has said, well, of the rain, give these missiles, then we will give missiles to hit deep into russia. This is a recipe.

And then we had Billy burns, the CIA director, say last week, an absurdity that he knows. But CIA directors never tell the truth that they do. They lose their job.

But he said, don't worry about nuclear war. Don't worry about sample reading. My advice to you is worry a lot about nuclear war, and so be prudent.

You don't have to put the U. S. Military on russian border. okay? And my advice to russia and a mexico, and i'm going to mexico tomorrow, i'll give them a piece of advice.

Don't let china or russia build a military base on the real grand. Not a good idea from mexico. Not a good idea for ukraine. Not a good idea for russia. Not a good idea for china, not a good idea for the united states. We need to stay a little bit away from each other so that we don't have a nuclear war by the way, I do recommend another good book and that is any Jacobson's nuclear war a scenario IT takes two hours to read the world ends in two hours in the book um and it's a very persuasive a guide that one nuke can ruin your .

whole day is so jeffrey.

my strong advice on this, therefore, is recognized. China, first of all, is not a threat to the united state's security, big oceans, big nuclear deterrent and so forth. Second, we don't have to be in china's face.

What do I mean by that? We don't have to provoke world worth three over taiwan. That's a long, complicated issue. But this would be the stupidest thing for my grandchildren to die ford imaginable.

And I resented every day when we play that game, we have three agreements with china that say, we're onna, stay out of that and we should and then china would have no reason for war, either china. And then on the economic side, let me just reiterate because I was asked yesterday and there was some surprise, was a good to let china into the, the W. T.

O. I said, of course, IT enriched all of you, by the way, IT enriching, IT enriched this country, IT enriched world, including enriching china. That's Normal.

Economics is not a zero sum game. We all agree on that. I believe that security doesn't have to be a zero sum game either.

We can stay a little bit away from each other. And china does not spend its time be moving amErica being a western hemisphere hedge amount. They don't. That's not their greatest interest to bring down american power in the stern hemisphere. Jeff.

what about the energy? Let's let that john respond .

to this just very quickly. Most of you have probably never asked yourself the question, why is the united states roaming all over the planet interface in every country's business? It's important because it's so powerful, but it's also because it's a regional hedge, ammon, which means we have no threats in the western hemisphere. So we are free pro me, the great danger, jeff, if china becomes a regional hedgehunter and doesn't have to worry about security .

and they .

behave like us, then they behave like us, that's exact. But my point to you, jeff, is let's prevent that from happening by preventing them from becoming a regional hedge. We don't want them to have freedom to rob. You were talking about them putting military bases in mexico that our great fear.

it's not my grade fear. They have no interest in doing so because they don't want to get blown up either.

So they do seem have a big interest, jeff, in africa, india, ruscha, and they are china has a major interest because there are well.

they're building nuclear .

power plants and trade, and they are building debt favorite .

that lets go compete that way. I'm all in favorite, jeff.

That's because they're not a regional head on yet yeah .

if you try to prevent them from being a reggio al hedger and we're onna end up in world world three because as you say yourself, that this can absolutely spill over into war, I don't want you to spill over into war on the theory that maybe someday they behave differently. It's not a good theory .

for me part so jon, can we contain china, prevent them from becoming a regional hon, without directly defending taiwan? Me that where the river meets to the road, no.

it's not just taiwan. I mean, one could argue there are sort of three flash points in each stage that you folks should keep your eyes. One is obviously taiwan.

Two is the south china see, and three is the east china see. And I think, David, that the place where a conflict is most likely today is not over taiwan. I could explain why.

I think taiwan is not a serious problem. The moment for the foreseeable future. South china to see is a very dangerous place.

We could end up in a war for sure, even if we did not defend taiwan. So taiwan, you don't want to over emphasize. I agree with, I agree with jeff that we definitely don't want a war and we certainly don't want a nuclear war.

And he is absolutely correct that there's a risk of a nuclear war if a war breaks out of any sort between china and the united states. Many of us in the audience remember the cold war, and this was an never present danger in the cold war. But my argument is that this is inevitable, because in a world where you don't have a higher authority and you care about your will, you have a deep seated interest as any state in the system to be as powerful as possible. And that means dominating .

your readers. There was one player on this chessboard that hasn't come up yet. And I maybe we can escape, ed, to where the puck is going.

You, when you talk about the south, trying to see, okay, sure, south korea, japan, australia, all of those major players there, are there just a couple of one hundred million people, but then china is in population decline. V apparently self destructing in terms of trade, seems like containments working pretty well there because of all the self inflicted wounds. But the fastest growing country, the fastest growing economy, the quicker to developed as india.

And they seem to have a very pragmatic approach. He theyll buy cheap oil for a putin, and they are their own sovereign country with their own point of view. Would we not be really well advised over the next tent to twenty years to make that our priority? And india's role, this, how do you look at them?

Will we definitely view india as an ally? right? It's part of the quite, which is this this room gold bert type I on structure that we put together any stage that includes australia, japan, the united states in india.

And india is smartly maintaining its good relations with russia. The indians understand, like jeff and I do, that the russians are no great threat. But from india's point to view, the real threat is china, right? right? And there are two places where india cares about china.

One is on the india china border, up in the himalayas, where we've actually had conflicts, right? And there's a real danger of war breaking out. The second place, which is may be even more dangerous, not at the moment, but we will be over time, is the indian ocean.

Because the chinese are imitating in the united states. They not only want to be a regional hegemon, they wanted develop power projection capability. So the chinese are building a blue water navy that can come out of east asia through the straight of oaa, throw the indian ocean to the person gulf. And once you started talking about going to the indian ocean, the indian gets poked right, and that's when the americans in the indians come together.

Okay, let's think of this from an engineering point of view, if we could. Um why are the chinese developing the navy? Because for forty years I read essays on all of the choke points are in the south china.

See the east china, see the indian ocean against china. That's our policy choke points. Look at the moloch straight.

Look what we can do here. First island chain. This is american strategy.

Can we keep the chinese submarines out of the pacifico tion, first china first island chain and so forth? So of course they react. They're rich. They are gonna build an navy so that they can get their oil ill on which their economy runs.

Can we be a little bit sensible with them and decide how we're not gonna choke points and then we don't have to have a nuclear awar, which is really gonna in our day. That's the point. We can think a little bit.

We can understand IT from their perspective. We can understand IT from our perspective. D confliction, by the way, I don't believe india is an ally.

India is a superpower. India is gonna have its own very distinctive interest. Thank you. It's not going to be an ally of the united states. I happened to like india enormously and were making their policies. But the idea that india is gonna lie with the united states, against china in somebody's dream in washington, because it's another delusion in washington, because they should get a passport and go see the world and and and understand something.

But jeffrey.

if these are these are my failed students in washington right now because they didn't listen to their professor.

jeffrey, we're making our iphones in india now. Is that not? And typically important, again, we're moving iphone production.

Cooped may be cooped. You're into economic year in that impact. You've got apple moving out of china. You've got japan funding people leaving china to vietnam, into india.

Is that not the solution here? As we did couple from china IT seems like they come back to the table. We had gegen pain kick all the venture capitalists all out of china. He got rid of all the education startups and then whatever. Two, three years later he's in separatist o asking all of us to invest more money and said, where you go?

Okay, first of all, invite me back ten years. Then we'll see how smart all these decisions are because it's increate. I'm talking about, yes, we move to india.

That's our great ally, and we're going to have other, other issues. okay. I think you said the cheering ping's trade policy is self imploding or something IT.

Seems like there's a lot .

of self inflicted wounds. Not let me explain what the wounds are. Okay, the wounds are the united states deliberate policy to stop you from selling things to china and to stop china buying things from you. That's not self inflicted. Say clear.

Just to say, let me say, please, because this very important for the economy of the people in this room, this is a decision that was taken around twenty fourteen to contain china, and it's spent systematically applied since then. And it's not a surprise that biden kept all the things that prompted and added more, and now trump says, i'm going to do all the things that by not kept them place and i'm going to do more. This is not a self inflicted wound.

The united states has closed the market to china. okay. Is that smart? No, it's not smart.

Is IT leading to? Is that, by the way, CoOperating american manufacturing jobs, zero. IT may shift them a bit.

IT may may make things less sufficient. IT may may make all of you lose a bit more money or not make as much money. But is IT going to solve any single economic problem in the united states? No way.

Yeah, yeah, no. I just want jeff .

a question on this. My argument is that this is the way the world works.

Yes.

I nit, and IT is. But if i'm describing how the world really works.

how do you beat me? The reason is you've described a world you've described, I think, Better than any person I ever read or know how american, foreign, icy works. I think it's likely to get us all blown up you, you and you title, not because of john, but because he's made an accurate description of a profoundly misguided approach, which is power seeking.

Even if you're safe as a regional hedged ammon, you're never safe if another regional hedger's does what you do. No, you can't allow that. That happens. So you have to metal every single place in the world. This now, just all I say, what let me just finish, because important that IT is important to say, try this in the nuclear age, you don't get a second chance. So this, to me, is the most definitive fact of our lives, which is we are now in a war, direct war, direct war, not proxy war, direct war with russia, which has six thousand nuclear warheads.

I can't think of anything more embassies than that, aside from the fact that I know stepped by step because I saw with my own eyes how we got into that mass, because we thought we had to metal up to including putting nato into georgia in the caucuses of all places, uh, and ukraine. So we made that because we have the metal because we couldn't let good enough stand. If we do the same with china, there will be a war.

But it's not like reading about the crime and war, or world war one or world war two. That's my difference. This is a fine theory that explains a lot of things. But dam, if you can make ChatGPT, or you can make optimistic, or you can make all the rest, we can avoid nuclear war. So just do a little bit Better than saying it's inevitable.

So really have a minute left.

I want to give you to join, I know, but really have a minute left.

We got, we've got a five minutes. This is the best panel I have been on in my life. Can we just at ten minutes, minutes, we've got to have five or ten minutes the best canal. Is this the best canal? I feel.

I think we got five minutes before before we leave this topic. John, your book is called the tragedy of great power politics. You clearly understand the tragic aspect of how great power rivalry, great power competition can lead to disaster. What jeff is saying is we're now in the nuclear age and it's going to lead to nuclear war. So do we have to be on this path or is our way off of IT?

Two points in my heart of with jeff, in my head of not with jeff. I wish you were right, but I don't believe he's right. To answer your question head on, I believe that there is no way out. We are in an iron cage.

This is just the way international politics works and is because you're in an anarchic system where you can never be sure that a really powerful state in the system won't come after you and inflict the century of national humiliation ation on you. So you go to great length to avoid that by try, and to gain power at the expense of another power. And that leads to all sorts trouble.

Can war be avoided? I like to distinguish between security competition, which I think is inevitable, and war, which is where security competition evolves into war. I think war can be avoided.

And we were thankfully successful in network ard during the cold war. And hopefully that will be the case in the U. S.

china. Competition moving forward. Can I guarantee that? no. Does this disturb greatly? yes. But again, this is just to try to come and .

then just ask one a bit. I know we were going to try to talk about middle east to for a good chunk of this. So I just want a scenario, a propose or or give you guys a scenario, get your reaction because that is kind of what feels to be the most imminent uh, matter of conflict.

Uh the west bank um uh the uh israelis are buttering the settlements. There is a lot of checkpoint ts. Things are getting very tense. They are running rates and it's becoming a very difficult to live for palestinians.

And there is a real concern that the west .

bank and it's release, but there's a real risk that the west being collapses and turns into A A real conflict zone. If that happens, the Jordan ans are sitting right there and they're not going to let palestinians get slaughter. They're gona have to do something. And there is such a strong of the united states, does that trigger a theater of response, where what is saudi going to do or others going to be drawn to the does the collapse of the west bank or the the conflict that seems to be growing in the west bank become this kind of tender box for everyone showing up and getting involved and um and create some sort of regional issue that we get drawn into a bigger way.

Can I start and have john have the last word I worked each day at the U. N. And discuss this issue with ambassadors from all over the world. There is over the last fifty years, a an agreement on what would make for peace.

And the agreement is, uh, two states, uh, maybe with a big wall between them on the fourth of june one thousand nine hundred sixty seven borders with a state of palestine being the hundred and ninety fourth U. N. Member state and its capital in east ju salem and control over the islamic holy sites and that is international law.

The international court of justice just reaffirmed that the israeli settlements in the west bank are illegal. Uh, the international criminal court, uh, is likely to find a icc j is likely define that israel in violation of the nineteen forty eight genocide convention, which I very much believe that to be in violation. So my own solution to this is implement international law.

Two states build the wall as higher you need to build. But, uh, you give palestinian rights, you establish state of palestine, you stop the israeli slaughter of palestinians, you stop the israeli apartheid state, and you have two states living side by side. Israel is dead set against that.

The entire israeli political governance now is dead set against that. Hundreds of thousands of illegal settles in the west bank are dead set against that. Smokers and give the net yahoo are dead set against that.

So my view is that has nothing to do with what israel wants. IT has to do with enforcement of international law. So I want to see this imposed, not because this real agrees to IT, but because IT is imposed.

And there is one country that stands in the way of imposing this, not iran, not the sauty, not egypt, russia, not china, not any country in the european union, one country and one country alone. And that is because of the united states, of an amErica and the israel lobby. Somebody wrote a very good book about that too, that I know the best book ever written about IT by john. And that's what stops the solution that could bring peace. And I believe we should bring peace, because not only would that bring peace to the palestinians and peace to the israelis, but I would avoid potentially another flash point that could easily end up in world or three.

Let me answer your question about escalation potential. The Jordanians coming in a israeli, faces three big problems, aside from problems with syria. c.

Forces inside the society. One is the palestinian problem, which is both in gaza and in the west, bag one. Two is hezbollah, three is iran. I think there is virtually no chance of what you described happening, which is if the israelis were to go on a RAM page in the west bank, similar what theyve done in gaza, that the Jordanians would come in with the egyptians of the saudis, they simply don't have the military capability. This is a scenario with the israeli completely dominate.

So in terms of escalation, with regard to the israel palestine problem, I don't think there's much potential hesba as a different issue, but mainly because it's linked with a ran right? And ran is a really dangerous flash point because, as you know, the russians are now closely alive with the iranians. Chinese are moving in that direction as well.

And if israel gets involved in a war with a rent, we're going to come in, in all likelihood. Remember when the israelis attacked the the iranian embassy in damascus on April first, on April four teeth, the iranians retaliated. The response.

yeah, but but we were involved.

We were forwarded.

And yes, we were forwarded.

but the print is that we were involved in the fighting. We were involved with the israelis, with the french, the british, the Jordanians and the sauces. We were all involved in the fighting.

So this gets at the escalation problem. Now to counter the iranian escalate tion scenario. The fact is iran does not want to war with the united states, and the united states does not want a war with a rain.

And it's these railways, especially Benjamin in ahoo has, who has been trying to sort of suckers into a war because he wants us, the united states, to really wake iran. We can IT military, and especially to go after its nuclear capabilities, because, as you will know, they are close to the point where they can develop new, clear weapons. So the israeli is are the ones who want us to get involved in a big war with the rent. That's the escalation tion flash point. And the sixty four thousand dollar question is whether you think the united states and iran kind of colluding can work together to prevent israelis .

from getting us that that that question will be answered based on the next who leads the next .

administration. Well, if you believe .

that IT matters.

who leaves the next? Let me just say jeffrey and john. Now I know why sex will not stop talking about you to evening. Ever give you up for jeffrey, sex and john.

mr. shamir.