Read the full transcript of a conversation between Dialogue Works host Nima R. Alkhorshid and economist and public policy analyst Prof. Jeffrey Sachs on “Trump is UNITING the World Against the US”, April 7, 2025.
The interview starts here:
US-Iran Relations and Middle East Tensions
NIMA R. ALKHORSHID: Threatening Iran with bombing Iran. And do you think that what’s going on right now between the United States and Iran is getting to the point that we can say that the United States finally would attack Iran, would bomb Iran? And what would be the benefit out of this sort of new attitude on the part of the Trump administration if they really want to talk and negotiate with Iran?
PROF. JEFFREY SACHS: In principle, I would say no, the United States does not want a war. But in practice, they might. Because the big surprise for me over the last several weeks is the complete collapse of any US interest in a ceasefire in Gaza, in a peace process. For whatever reason, the United States ended up giving the green light to Netanyahu to continue the Israeli murderous attacks throughout the region.
And of course, the US attacked the Houthis and is reportedly moving bombers and other material to the region, which could be presaging some kind of actual war. I would have said this is extremely unlikely before. On the other hand, the events of the last few weeks, both inside the United States and in the Middle East, are alarming, at least alarming to me.
They basically have seemed to signal the full control of the extremist Israeli government over US foreign policy in the Middle East. And if that’s the case, we would be headed to some kind of attack on Iran.
NIMA R. ALKHORSHID: The main issue, by the way, mentioned by the Trump administration is the nuclear program of Iran.
Do you see that if Donald Trump talks with Iran, instead of putting pressure because on the Iranian—when you look at the Iranian media, they’re talking about a lot of pressure comes from the United States. They’re trying to do everything to negotiate, but the negotiations can happen without putting pressure on Iran. Why they have decided to put pressure to force them to negotiate?
The Failed Nuclear Deal and US-Israel Relations
PROF. JEFFREY SACHS: Because they’re nasty. Look, the truth is Iran has been looking for a diplomatic solution for a decade, and that’s what brought us to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the JCPOA, in the first place. Roughly 10 years ago, as soon as Trump got into office in his first term under the leadership or the guidance or whatever you want to call it of Netanyahu, the US abandoned the JCPOA, killed it.
So it killed an agreement that was reached about denuclearizing or ending any kind of nuclear arms development in return for ending the sanctions regime. Netanyahu is a terrible force in this world. And his government is shockingly destructive and the progenitor of massive war crimes. And Netanyahu has had in his head for 30 years an attack on Iran and a regime change through war with Iran. This continues until today.
The United States gave up its sovereignty when it comes to Middle East policy to the Israeli government a long time ago, to these extremists in Israel a long time ago. Our foreign policy is reckless, ununderstandable from an American interest point of view, a world interest point of view. It only makes sense when seen through the eyes of Israeli extremists. And that’s what we have.
So the JCPOA was the agreement to end Iran’s nuclear program. The US willfully killed it. Then during the Biden years, the Iranians sent countless signals to Biden, we want to restart. We want to make JCPOA work. We want to negotiate with you. There were peace dealers all the time.
Then when President Raisi was elected, he came to the UN General Assembly this past September, and it was all about peace. Of course, Netanyahu, who is a man of murder and violence, wants to hear nothing of it. He wants the United States to attack.
I thought Trump was going to avoid war in the Middle East. Such is not the case right now that ceasefire evaporated. It was blatantly, crudely, violently, flagrantly blown up by the Israelis and Trump didn’t say one word.
So what we have is not a question of how to negotiate. It’s a question of threats and violence. And that’s where we are to this moment. If you try to ask me to rationalize this or explain what’s going on in the American mentality, all I can come up with is that the US officials are just doing the bidding of Netanyahu, who I regard as properly indicted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity.
Yemen Conflict and US Strategy
NIMA R. ALKHORSHID: With the case of Yemen, when they have started attacking Yemen, Pentagon said, this time is different. We’re going to hit you harder. We’re going to convince you not to attack Israel. Do you see anything new they’re bringing to the table that would be game changer on the part of the United States? Or maybe they’re considering as a game changer against Yemen because we are getting back to the same old policy of the Biden administration. Do you see anything new?
PROF. JEFFREY SACHS: No. But the whole point of this is that to have peace in the Middle East requires a political settlement. It requires a state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel. Netanyahu’s whole political career and his government is just rabidly against the state of Palestine. That’s the essence of this Israeli extremist government. They want to ethnically cleanse Palestine so that Israel will control all of the land. This is stated by these extremists.
And, well, this just means continued war. It means continued war, not only in Gaza, but really war in the West Bank, war in Lebanon, war in Syria, war in Yemen, and perhaps war in Iran. This is the game plan, actually, is for Israel, backed by, funded by, armed by the US to dominate the Middle East.
It’s an abomination in my view, because it’s just mass killing, mass destruction, mass slaughter in Gaza. And if anyone stands up to it, the Netanyahu doctrine is kill them, overthrow them. So this is where we are right now.
The Arabs in the Arab League in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, country by country, has said, look, we can have peace. We can normalize relations with Israel. It’s straightforward. Two states living side by side.
NIMA R. ALKHORSHID: That’s it.
PROF. JEFFREY SACHS: And this is the only path to peace. The only other way is ongoing slaughter, which is the Netanyahu policy, I’m afraid. And it seems like it’s the Trump policy, or could be the Trump policy. Seems like that’s the direction that things are moving. After a glimmer of hope of Trump insisting on a ceasefire in Gaza, you never know. But right now, things do not look good.
Lebanon’s Situation
NIMA R. ALKHORSHID: Lebanon, by the way, is somehow different from what it was before. We have a new government in Lebanon which tries to make these sort of communications with Hezbollah. And on the other hand, they’re trying to get closer to the west to communicate with the Western countries, with France, with the United States. But so far, they didn’t achieve anything. Do you see the sort of attempts are going to get somewhere? Macron was talking two days ago. He said that Israel should withdraw from the southern Lebanon. Is that achievable in your opinion?
PROF. JEFFREY SACHS: I don’t know. The west is pressing the government of Lebanon to normalize relations with Israel, whatever that means in the current context. It’s extraordinary. The whole point is that the US Government and Israel, side by side, don’t talk about the real path to peace, period.
What they want to do at gunpoint or at slaughter or at ethnic cleansing, is make way for this greater Israel and make everyone bow down to it. This is true with Lebanon. The same way the US is pressing for Lebanon, accept your fate, acceptance, recognize Israel, everything else be damned. And they’re trying to impose that at gunpoint. Maybe they’ll be successful in doing that. But this is not a path to peace. This is not diplomacy. This is just war across the region.
Syria and Regional Instability
NIMA R. ALKHORSHID: Do you see the role of Turkey? We know what has happened in Syria, I don’t see anybody benefiting from what’s going on in Syria in a long run. But it seems for the moment the United States and Israel are feeling so comfortable about that. Do you think that would be the case? Who are these people right now in Syria who are running the government? Is that possible to somehow stabilize the situation in Syria, even with the help coming from Turkey?
PROF. JEFFREY SACHS: Well, again, what’s happened in Syria is part of a long term plan that began in 2011 with Obama and Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, deciding on the overthrow of the Syrian government. It took essentially 13 plus years to do it. Killed hundreds of thousands of people, destroyed Syria, brought to power this regime, which was actually the jihadist backed by the United States from the start.
So what’s happened is their game plan worked, if you could call it working, which is to bring to power a violent, unpredictable government through overthrowing another government that Netanyahu didn’t like. And this is basically what’s been happening for 30 years, which is Netanyahu said, get rid of this one, get rid of this one. Invade Iraq, overthrow the Syrian government, topple Libya. And the United States and others have either found their own reasons or just backed this violent approach.
What is it getting us? The whole region is at war. This is what has been the predictable outcome of the failure of these Israeli extremists to—well, I should say their success in blocking the most basic rights of the Palestinian people. And by doing so they have inflamed the entire Middle East for decades and engulfed the entire Middle East in wars that were totally unnecessary but really provoked by Israel.
Iran’s Position and Potential Conflict
NIMA R. ALKHORSHID: The last country in that list that you’ve mentioned is Iran. Many people are trying to compare Iran to Syria and how fragile is that? Do you see any similarities between Iran and Syria in the current form that we are seeing the two governments?
PROF. JEFFREY SACHS: Well, I’m not an Iran expert and I’m not on the ground, but Iran is a formidable country and a formidable civilization. And it has been a country and a civilization for 5,000 years. And it has powerful military assets and it has a strategic military alliance with Russia.
So in this sense, nothing about Syria looks anything like the situation with Iran. If there were a war with Iran, it would be horrible, tragic, dangerous, and the potential tinder for World War 3.
Trump’s Tariff Policy and Global Relations
NIMA R. ALKHORSHID: The other point that Donald Trump has mentioned regarding Iran and Russia, both of these countries, is tariffs. He’s trying to put more tariffs even on China. How is it going to help the United States in a long run? How is it going to make America the way that Donald Trump is seeking for?
PROF. JEFFREY SACHS: Well, the one thing coming out of Trump’s tariffs as they get implemented is uniting the entire world against the United States. So I don’t think that anything good from a US point of view comes out of this.
To my mind, this is not only wrong headed policy from a global geopolitical point of view, it’s also economic ignorance. The idea that tariffs are somehow going to reduce a trade deficit that’s caused by American budgetary deficits, or that it’s going to restore American industry is completely fallacious.
What it’s going to do is isolate the United States both economically and diplomatically and geopolitically from the rest of the world. It will probably bring the rest of the world together to reinforce an open trading system among the rest of the world and it will weaken rather dramatically the role of the United States in the world if these tariffs actually are put in place and persist.
So this is, to my mind an utterly self-defeating proposition. I don’t think it has to bring down the world economy, but it certainly will do great damage to the US economy.
NIMA R. ALKHORSHID: The bigger picture in the strategy of the United States, how does it consider Iran and Russia? We know that the Trump administration, at least the way that they’re talking about it, the strategy is to compete China economically in that competition. Is there any sort of role for Iran and Russia to be part of that picture or they’re just totally dismissing Russia?
Trump’s Foreign Policy Approach
PROF. JEFFREY SACHS: I think strategy is a fancy word for the improvisation and actions taken by the Trump administration. So I don’t think that there is a grand strategy and I don’t think that there is a positive effect that’s going to come out of this in terms of the direction of change. I think the United States does not view Russia and Iran in the same context at all. They view Russia, according to what Trump says, as a nuclear superpower. We can divide up the turf, divide up the spoils with them. Let’s not have a war with Russia. Okay? I think that’s pretty reasonable, actually. Although the specifics of trying to grab Ukraine’s minerals and so forth is really gross. You can make peace without this kind of grotesque shakedown and this absolute display of uncontrolled greed and access.
In this sense at least, vis-a-vis Russia, I think Trump doesn’t want to have a fight. With Iran, at least my sense is that they don’t view Iran in that context at all. I don’t know whether Trump wants or doesn’t want a war with Iran, but Iran is not seen in geopolitical terms, say in relation to US and China as Russia might be. Iran is seen almost entirely through the Israel lens and Iranian policy is dictated largely through the Israel lobby rather than through any kind of global geopolitics.
And Iran is viewed as much weaker and I suppose much easier to attack from the point of view of the Trump officials. Now, mind you, I don’t think any of their analysis is sound, clear-headed, rational, sensible, but probably the way that they view Iran is as weak, subject to attack. And if for whatever reason the US and Israel decide to do that, they’re going to do that not because of more broad geopolitical terms, but because of Middle Eastern politics in their perspective.
NIMA R. ALKHORSHI: Where is Europe in the Middle East, Professor Sachs? You’re in Europe, you know, and where are they?
Europe’s Foreign Policy Confusion
PROF. JEFFREY SACHS: Europe basically doesn’t have any foreign policy right now. Europe is in a state of confusion. Of course, France has its traditional role, if I could call it that, in the Eastern Mediterranean. So it’s around. But Europe is not coherent on any issue right now. Not on Ukraine, not on Israel and Palestine, not on the United States, Israel. Europe is in a completely discombobulated state, not knowing what to do.
And I think probably by the hour, spending most of its time on the coming US tariffs and a little bit of time on Ukraine. And from what I can see, almost no time at all on the Middle East.
NIMA R. ALKHORSHI: You mentioned the Trump attitude in Ukraine, which is positive, it seems, and he tries to do something in Ukraine. And while they’re talking, Ukraine is just violating the ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine. Who’s running in Ukraine? Is that the United Kingdom? Who’s influencing the Zelensky administration? We know that that is not the Trump administration. It should be someone else.
Ukraine’s Situation and European Influence
PROF. JEFFREY SACHS: Frankly, again, I’m surprised because it’s suicidal what Ukraine is doing, but maybe it’s been suicidal for quite a while, which is the risk of losing everything in order to avoid any sort of serious negotiations to end the war. And Ukraine has found at least two supporters in that, Britain and France.
Britain’s Russophobia knows no bounds. So Britain is always ready, it seems, to hate Russia, to maybe provide some limited armaments and to talk tough. France again, I think unaccountably, is also warmongering. To what effect? None other than more destruction in Ukraine. And of course, the lead candidate for the presidency of France, Marine Le Pen, disliked the war. Now she’s under arrest and has been sentenced to crimes to prevent her from running for president.
It’s an ugly scene when the European Commission under Kallas. Kallas is the external affairs high representative. And when Starmer and Macron tried to rally the rest of Europe, most of them stayed away. And so Europe is without any coherence whatsoever.
Right now a new government is coming into Germany also talking tough. Whether it’s only about rearmament or whether it’s about German declarations to prepare for war with Russia, we don’t know yet. The government’s not in place. But it’s possible that there’s a quite militaristic front of Britain, France and Germany that tells Zelensky, who after all is a dictator right now—he operates under martial law despite whatever the public wants to save their lives or to end the war.
Maybe these three countries in Europe will urge him on and this will lead to just more mass deaths and more loss of territory by Ukraine and ultimately to the destruction of Ukraine. I believe they need to learn to stop this. And whether they will or not remains to be seen. But I regard the European policy as horrendously confused, divided and irrational.
NIMA R. ALKHORSHI: Isn’t that amazing that the new government in Germany doesn’t want Nord Stream, considering the suffering the economy is experiencing right now?
European Political Dysfunction
PROF. JEFFREY SACHS: Nothing amazes me right now, but nothing is very clear because no politician in Europe seems to act in the interest of his or her country. They all talk ridiculous things. Actually, they are all highly unpopular and increasingly elections are basically being called off in Europe. In Romania, the lead candidate is prevented from running. In France, the lead candidate is prevented from running. In other countries, a rising anti-establishment vote on the left and the right is manifesting. And the current leaders are highly unpopular.
So how to figure this behavior is a bit of a mystery to me. I have to say I wish I could come on and give you a thorough, convincing explanation of why Starmer and Macron and perhaps Mertz talk the way they do when it is an absolutely losing and deadly proposition. But we’ve had these terrible mistakes for years now, and maybe they’re just so uncreative and without understanding that a neutral Ukraine is the safest possible thing for Ukraine and for them. But they don’t get it and they haven’t gotten it for years.
NIMA R. ALKHORSHI: How come the Biden administration was so successful in order to convince Europeans? Even the sabotage of Northern pipeline. The German chancellor was next to Joe Biden. Next to Joe Biden. He said nothing about what Joe Biden was talking about, the Nord Stream. And right now they’re totally against Trump administration in Ukraine. How is it the problem, the communication on the part of the Trump administration. They cannot communicate the way that the Biden administration was capable of. Of something beyond that.
Europe’s Failure of Diplomacy
PROF. JEFFREY SACHS: No, it’s beyond that. It’s weird, honestly. Why Europe wants continued war, why Europe is incapable of sending an official to Moscow to discuss peace with the Russians is bewildering. It’s among every other consideration, shocking incompetence, period. Maybe that’s an explanation. It’s not a great explanation, but it is an explanation.
Europe should be speaking with Russia. It should be discussing, it should be negotiating, it should be expressing its security concerns. It should be trying to find a way forward. Maybe it would prove impossible, but they don’t even try. They do not even try. A moment of diplomacy. That is what is absolutely unforgivable.
Not a moment of diplomacy. And shame on Starmer, Macron and others for not even trying. They say they’ve tried. This is so bizarre, so ignorant of reality. Yes, Macron went to see Putin and he got turned down for what he offered. But that was at a time when Biden was gunning for war and Russia had its eyes on the United States. Now the US is giving them an exit ramp and they cannot find it. They can’t take it. They can’t understand that this is the best for Europe to have an exit ramp from this war and that it’s the best for Ukraine. They simply can’t understand that or refuse to.
NIMA R. ALKHORSHI: This policy mostly comes from the United Kingdom and France. Or you see the role of Germany. I don’t see Germany that much influential in the policy.
Sources of European Foreign Policy
PROF. JEFFREY SACHS: No, in the immediate context, it’s clear, even as Germany is in government formation and all the rest, and even with Scholz, who was to a small extent a moderator of this, by saying, don’t send Taurus missiles and try to find some way forward. The greatest Russophobia, of course, comes from the smaller states, comes from the Baltic states, comes from Poland. That’s history.
But in terms of the real continuation of the war, this comes from Britain first and foremost, which provides so-called intelligence. I would say it’s the opposite of real intelligence, but they provide military intelligence. What an oxymoron. But they provide the weapons and targeting and tactical approaches.
And Macron has joined us despite the clear opposition to this from the majority of the French people. And Macron has so little approval in his own country. And all of this last few years has been a big part of the mass disapproval of the French people. This war policy, the sanctions policy, the boomeranging of recession in Europe, all of this is profoundly unpopular. And that’s why Marine Le Pen was, of course, far ahead in the opinion polls for the next president and until her sentencing yesterday.
NIMA R. ALKHORSHI: Donald Trump in his policy toward Canada and Mexico. We know that Canada and Mexico are so important for the United States in terms of the economy, the way that the countries are important for the security of the United States. To look at the Trump administration and the way that we’re behaving in the Middle East, in Ukraine, we have to understand their important role in communicating with Canada and Mexico. Do you find that constructive? Because China is looking at that. Russia is eyeing that. Iran. Everybody is looking at the way that Donald Trump is communicating with the two countries, two important countries. Is that helpful for the agenda for the, I don’t know, strategy that Donald Trump has?
Trump’s Global Impact
PROF. JEFFREY SACHS: As I say, Donald Trump is uniting the world against the United States because he’s arrogant and crude vis-a-vis the entire world. By the way, even with Russia, where he says, oh, we should add sanctions. Okay, maybe we won’t add sanctions. This is his M.O. personally, his modus operandi, to talk tough, to make threats and so forth. It’s ugly stuff.
And all over the world, people are either scratching their heads or having all sorts of other interesting reactions. But it isn’t friendly reactions, I can tell you, and this is so it. You don’t have to look to Trump’s relations with Canada and Mexico to generate concern in China or elsewhere. They’re experiencing it directly in countless ways. On the tariff policy, on threats, on sanctions, on so many things.
Trump is full of bluster from morning till night and full of hostility and seemingly unable to think in cooperative terms with just about anybody except Benjamin Netanyahu. That seems to be the only place where there is a cooperative approach. Or maybe it’s the approach where Israel leads and the United States just follows along. But for all the rest, frankly, Trump’s making no friends anywhere, period.
Related Posts
- Nick Fuentes’ Interview on Tucker Carlson Show (Transcript)
- Transcript: Zohran Mamdani on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
- Transcript: Zohran Mamdani’s Historic Final Rally Speech Before NYC Election
- Transcript: President Trump’s Remarks At Cambodia-Thailand Peace Deal Signing Ceremony
- Transcript: Marjorie Taylor Greene on 5 Pillars of MAGA – Tucker Carlson Show