The Duran Podcast - Epic Disaster w/ Jeffrey Sachs (Live)

Episode Date: March 9, 2026

Epic Disaster w/ Jeffrey Sachs (Live)

All right, we are live with Alexander McCurris in London, and we are very honored to have with us, Professor Jeffrey Sachs. Professor Sachs, thank you for joining us on the Duran. It's a pleasure to have you with us. I have your information where you can follow Professor Sachs in the description box down below, and I will also add it as a pinned comment when the live stream is over. So definitely follow Professor Sachs of everything that he is writing about with regards to what is happening in the world.

And we have a lot going on. So a quick hello to everyone that is watching us on all of the platforms. And thank you to our moderators in the chat. Thank you for keeping everything running. Alexander, Professor Sacks. Let's talk about what is happening in the world. Let us indeed, and who better to discuss this, all of this whole situation, then Professor Sacks.

Professor Sachs, who understands international relations, who knows the region very well, who can talk to us about the economic consequences of this war for the region and for the world. Professor Sachs, let's begin straight with what is in some ways, I think, the single most important thing. President Trump talks about this being in some ways a war for necessity. He speaks about this being a war that must be. fought. I find this extraordinarily difficult to understand. We had negotiations ongoing. The negotiations seem to be succeeding. The Amani mediators were happy. The Iranians were making concessions. What is the moral, legal foundation for this war? Is the one? And if there is no such foundation, what conclusion can we draw? Well, good morning. to both of you and everybody.

This is the ultimate war of choice. The ultimate war that never should be, never had to be. This is the war of Beebe's choice decided 40 years ago in Bebe's fervid imagination, but also this is a US deep state war as well, with everything amplified by, a mentally unstable president, to just put it bluntly. What do I mean by this?

Well, first of all, there was no cause of war. Iran was not threatening the United States or Israel. In fact, it was virtually begging for negotiations over the past two years, even after the first time of negotiations last June was interesting. interrupted by a U.S.-Israeli war. So the Iranians wanted negotiations rather fervidly. And I met twice in the past two years with President Poshtian when he came to the United Nations. His entire remarks on both occasions were about peace, the desire for peace, the absolute

insistence that under religious doctrine, under the fatwa of the late Supreme leader, the one assassinated by Israel, they did not want nuclear weapons. They had already signed off against nuclear weapons. They just did not want to be attacked and overthrown the way that Israel and the United States are attempting today. So basically, this is not a war that came because of any exigency, any pressing matter, certainly not in any conceivable way, a war that is legal under the UN Charter. Article 51 allows for the use of force in the event of self-defense of an armed attack. Of course, there was nothing remotely. like that in the context of the Israeli U.S. attack here.

So what is going on? Well, the first point to emphasize is that the United States and Israel never wanted a negotiated outcome with Iran, not last year, not this year, and not during the past decade. How do we know that? because they had one when President Obama negotiated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the JCPOA in 2015, an agreement between Iran and the P-5 members of the Security Council, the U.S., UK, France, China, Russia, plus Germany, so the P-5 plus one, and then ratified immediately, unanimously by the U.N. Security Council.

there was an agreement for Iran to be under strict UN supervision, the International Atomic Energy Agency, to make sure that what Iran was saying and what it was saying repeatedly for decades, that it did not want a nuclear weapon, that its energy program was not for a nuclear weapon, was in fact the case. Now, important to know, under the JCPOA, Iran was in strict compliance. There was absolutely no sense in which what happened in 2018 was because of Iranian actions. What happened in 2018 is Donald Trump tore up the JCPOA. He said, we're not going to be party to it.

were not going to be party to an agreement not only duly reached and being implemented, but one that was unanimously adopted by the United Nations Security Council. Why did he tear it up? Well, his buddy, Bibi Netanyahu told him to. And Trump since then, and Netanyahu since then have been in active deluge. that they would simply overthrow the Iranian government, never wanting to negotiate. I had a very strange, unpleasant interaction with one of the U.S. negotiators last year when I thought I could be a little bit helpful to make a suggestion or two because I thought there were actual

negotiations going on, and I was extraordinarily rudely brushed off. And that was the the last time I tried to make any informal suggestion about how to move forward, and was clear to me from then something so weird is going on, because this was before the bombing last June, but it was absolutely clear how completely strange things were. There was no attempt at negotiation. Now, all of this became clear. I had to make one correction to what I've been saying. I've been saying for years that Iran is being targeted by Israel for 30 years. And I emphasized 30 years because 30 years ago, a political doctrine of Netanyahu and his American political advisors called Clean Break was issued as Netanyahu.

Netanyahu became prime minister of Israel. So I said this is a 30-year attempt to overthrow Iran. I stand corrected because Netanyahu himself has made clear that even for 10 years before that when he wasn't prime minister, it was also his dream. He's actually posted that this war is a 40-year dream. So that means it's not exactly driven by the events that the negotiating. cable, whether Iran was negotiating in good faith, whether what was happening with the Omani mediator was working. And of course, we also have to appreciate that the Omani mediator said

extremely clearly the negotiations are proceeding. They were essentially a fake, a cover, for a 40-year dream. Now, having said that, let me please. put this in context. I'll start 30 years ago with Clean Break. Clean Break is the prevailing doctrine of the Israeli right wing, which runs the country with a lot of broad support, I should say. So it's not the case in the United States that Netanyahu doesn't have support for his violence. It's more widespread in Israel. Clean Break was the doctrine that said there would never be a state of Palestine and that the way to ensure that there would never be a state of Palestine in the two-state solution would be not to resist the militants such as Hamas that were fighting for a Palestinian state, but rather to, to, take down every government in the Middle East, and I should add, in Africa that supported the

Palestinian cause. And this actually built on earlier Israeli doctrines, extreme militaristic doctrines called the periphery doctrine, which is side with the countries in Africa or the Middle that are non-Islamic if they can find them. So Christian countries or places with some Christian populations to fight the Islamic majority states and especially those that support Palestine. So the foreign policy of Israel has been a policy to overthrow governments in the Middle East that support the Palestinian cause with the ultimate objective being Greater Israel. Greater Israel is an ideological doctrine of right-wing Zionism, which says that Israel controls all

of the land of what was once Palestine under the British mandate. But for many of these zealots, especially the biblical literalists in Jewish Zionism and in Christian Zionism, much bigger, in fact, than mandatory Palestine. But as the U.S. ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee said a couple of weeks ago, in his interpretation of Genesis 15, Israel's rights extend from the great river of Egypt to the great river of Mesopotamia, the Euphrates. Okay, this is all mind-boggling. But let me come back to the main point.

The main point is that since 1996, it has been Netanyahu's political documents. to overthrow governments across the region that support the Palestinian cause. That's amazingly what this is about from Israel's point of view. The reason that the U.S. goes along with this has many potential threads and explanations. We can come back to that. Of course, part of it is the Zionist lobby in the United States, no doubt. Part of it may be blackmail under the Epstein files and that kind of thing. But part of it also is a U.S. doctrine of global hegemony that fits well together with the Israeli doctrine of regional hegemony.

So it's not simply Israel telling the U.S. what to do. but the U.S. neocons who are tightly linked, of course, with the right-wing Zionists, have a global doctrine in which Israel's clean break doctrine fits well, that Israel will be the agent or the partner in ensuring hegemony in the Middle East as part of a U.S. absolute doctrine to have global hegemony. Okay. So we're in something that's very long term. It has a couple of peculiar features to it.

One is that both the leader of the United States and of Israel are old, very sick men. They are mentally deranged. That's not a political judgment I'm making. It's my best guess listening to lots of psychologists and psychiatrists about the actual state of affairs. They are both megalomaniacs. And again, not in a kind of political cartoon sense, but I think in an actual clinical sense. They are extreme narcissists. And my view is that they're psychopaths, which is also a clinical.

condition, meaning a lack of remorse or sympathy for victims. And Trump seems to display this in massive extent. So you have an underlying political doctrine in two countries, U.S. global hegemony, Israeli regional hegemony for the sake of greater Israel. You have two leaders who are old, corrupt, unhinged. And this, to my mind, is the basic reason that we have this dreadful, dangerous, disastrous war underway. One final point, if I may say it, and then back to you. The Clean Break doctrine has been implemented by Israel and the United States for 30 years. So this is not a hypothetical.

This is the actual implementation. And General Wesley Clark, who was the NATO Supreme Commander under Bill Clinton, told us after 9-11 about the application of this doctrine. When he visited the Pentagon soon after 9-11, that's back in 2001, He was shown a document that said that the United States would engage in seven wars in five years. The idea was to remake the Middle East. This was, in effect, the post-9-11 application of clean break. The seven wars were Libya, Sudan, Somalia.

Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. We've had all seven wars now. It wasn't five years. We know from inside testimony that they chose as the first of those seven in West Asia, the attack on Iraq in March 2003. They expected that to be a walkover and then they would continue on with the rest of the wars. But that one proved not to be a walkover. The U.S. got bogged down in the local civil war and violence for many years.

And so they didn't reach Iran soon afterwards as they expected. But the fact of the matter is that all of the world, wars have now taken place. Libya was overthrown by brazen regime change operation in 2011. Sudan was destroyed by a heavily Mossad led and supported insurrection by South Sudan that broke Sudan in two. Now we have two civil wars, one in Sudan and one in South Sudan. Of course, Lebanon is in active destruction and Israel is invading again as we speak. Syria, the overthrow attempt began in 2011. noticed that Obama, our nice president, was leading the Libya and the Syrian wars. This is across all these presidencies, it doesn't really matter exactly who's president.

But the Syrian overthrow was expected to be quick in 2011. It turned into a 14-year protracted, deadly war in which hundreds of thousands. thousands of people died. But that was a CIA-led operation called Operation Kimber-Sicamore. And Iran was the great prize. Iran is something different from all the rest. It's nearly 100 million people. It's a powerful country.

Anyone who has read Herodotus, and I hope some people have know that these issues with Iran or Persia go back thousands of years. This is a great civilization. This is not Lebanon, if I may say so, or some post-World War I construction. And so Iran was the hard case. Iran has its own long history, by the way, because Britain and the United States subverted Iran

back in 1953, which was part of the long, sad saga of how the Western world has, desired to wreck Iran throughout the 20th century. But having said that, they couldn't quite get to Iran until now. So this is too old, destabilized, mentally imbalanced individuals leading two militaristic states working side by side, not one wagging the other, but both working in partnership for their respective dreams of hegemony.

Bottom line, this has nothing to do with choice. This is pure imperialism of the most vulgar and dangerous kind. Professor Sachs, thank you for that, masterly discussion. Now, I have a few points of my own to make, and they're partly derived from what you've said here and what you said in other places, because you've been active discussing this issue. Also, what your friend Michael Schulenberg, by the way, has been saying too.

And I'd like to start briefly with something which has disturbed me greatly. Firstly, that if we talk about the attack on Iraq, in the United States, Congress was consulted. The United Nations Security Council was consulted. Of course, the United Nations Security Council, it's. concerns were ultimately ignored, but it was consulted. The UN Charter makes it very clear that war can only be conducted in self-defense and preferably with the authority, in for ultimately always with the authority of the Security Council itself,

which is the institution created to preserve peace. Now, none of this has happened this time. There's been no attempt to consult Congress in the United States. There's been no attempt to consult the Security Council. The attack took place, as you say, in the midst of negotiations. The other side, Iran was making concessions. The Imani negotiators were talking about a further meeting in Vienna. The United States itself was giving indications.

that it would be going to that meeting. This is cynicism taken to the most extreme level. There was no proximate threat from Iran. The president of the United States had previously said many times that the attack the United States carried out on Iran back in June had destroyed its nuclear program, where he might have been overstating things, but that's what he said.

To me, this is not just a war of choice. That word, that expression war of choice makes me concerned. What this was was a war of aggression. Also, it seems to me. And if you go back to the Nuremberg hearings, which are the foundation of modern international law, it is clearly said that wars of aggression are the greatest, the worst form of crimes against peace.

Crimes against peace are the supreme crime from which all other crimes come, these international war crimes come. And of course, the jurists who formulated these ideas, included Joseph Jackson, who was the chief prosecutor. He was a member of the Supreme Court of the United States. He wrote a letter to President Truman, and President Truman came to the General Assembly of the United Nations

and said, we in the United States are going to be forever bound by this. We accept this, we formulated it. It applies to us to the same degree as it applies to everyone else. no one is talking about this. Where are the protests that at least we had on the eve of the conflict in Iran against Iraq? There was a small protest of perhaps a few thousand people in London, nothing comparable to the kind of protests that took place then.

Is it because we've had so many wars for all of these extraordinary... And I have to say what you described. I mean, the ultimate strategy, the strategic purpose behind this wall, the clean break idea, concepts of hegemony. I mean, not only are these grotesque and unrealistic and inhuman taken to the extreme, but they underline the extent to which this is a war of aggression. I mean, wars conducted for those kind of objectives are by definition wars of aggression. But have we become so accustomed to these wars now that we allow these things in the West to take place

and we have given up to a degree that I find incredibly concerning and very dangerous. we've given up pushing back or protesting against them. Not all of us, yourself, obviously. You've been a powerful and eloquent voice, one that many, many people listen to. But I don't get the sense of energy and opposition that I once did. I want to agree with every word you said, and I want to underscore one of the words I think you said is grotesque.

The aims are grotesque. Israel with around 10 million people wanting to assert control over hundreds of millions of people. It's the United States with around 340 million people wanting to assert control over 8.1 billion people. Nothing less than that. So these are not only wars of aggression. They are wars of blatant and brazen imperialism. We're watching very old-fashioned imperialism. They are reminiscent of the 19th century.

The point was, it had been for the world, that World War II was so devastating, so horrific, and the nuclear age was so dangerous, that this would not be allowed to happen again. It's not that we haven't seen wars of aggression before, and we had brazen imperialism by Europe and the United States for centuries, but the idea was that we had learned something, and the preamble of the United Nations Charter says this is to end the scourge of wars

that have twice visited humanity in the 20th century. So what we are witnessing is the unlearning of what we had learned. We have no instincts in Europe or the United States and certainly none whatsoever in Israel, which lives in the 4th century BC by many of its leaders, not, or 5th century BC. I shouldn't even be so generous as 4th century BC. This is brazen imperialism. And it raises many questions, of course.

But for me, it raises the question, is there still a constitutional republic in the United States? And it's a very interesting question, I think, a lot about, because we have the paradigm, the paradigmatic case of the Roman Republic becoming the Roman Empire, traditionally dated to 27 BC when Akavian declared himself Augustus and Princeps. This was the date usually given for the end of the Roman Republic. But what's very interesting, in fact, is two things.

One, the trappings of republicanism in Rome continued. after what we now call the start of the Roman Empire, because the Senate still met, they still were their togas, they still had consuls and magistrates. And to someone living at that time, they might not have said, oh, now we're an empire. We once were a republic. This was a continuation, not an event. And secondly, 27 BC, the traditional date after Augustus defeats, Mark Antony and so forth and declares himself principles, was itself a gradual process that goes back throughout the first century BC with Sulla Pompeii, the Triumvirate, Julius Caesar, etc., etc. Okay, the point is the U.S. has slid into empire for sure. At some point,

we have the trappings of constitutional republicanism, but when it comes to, to foreign policy, we are not a republic. We're not governed even by the sense of law. And when the Senate was asked itself last week, do we want to have anything to do with it? They didn't say, well, under Article 1 of our Constitution, it's our job to declare war. They said, no, no, no, no, thank you. We don't want to get involved in this. This is something for the emperor. This isn't something for us. So we're already in that mode of behavior. Of course, we've seen this for decades. The imperial presidency has been noted for decades.

When did it really begin? Well, clearly it's a post-World War II phenomenon. 1947, it was a kind of clean break for us. This is when the CIA was established. That created the mechanisms for U.S. post-World War II imperialism. In January 17, precisely, 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was our most celebrated general, the Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in World War II, and then later the president, issued a stark warning that the military industrial complex

was threatening the U.S. democracy. We used to read that. that as a warning about the future. I now read it as a statement of the time about the existing reality that Eisenhower was telling us we've been taken over. And I think we need to re-read that. Arguably, just like you could date the decisive turn of Rome in 44 BC with the murder of Julius Caesar,

arguably you could say that the American Empire came into full force on November 22nd, 1963 with the assassination of John F. Kennedy, which I think overwhelmingly likely was a CIA operation and was empirically the last time that a president stood up to the military industrial state. So it is, in my view, not shocking that we see these wars of choice. They've been true all through my career. The brazenness of this is something different, as you note. There's not even an attempt at an excuse.

There's not even an attempt at any kind of process. The American people are completely against this. Why is this? Two reasons. One, we have slid into. imperial behavior over decades. And so all of the real institutions of control were long ago pushed aside. But second is the particular personality of Donald Trump, a dark triad personality of megalomania, malignant narcissism and psychopathy. This is something different.

You should not have a person like this as president. This is. especially of such a powerful country. This is extremely dangerous. So we have this mix, but the underlying reasons is the erosion of the most basic constitutional checks. After all, I have to point out from a juridical point of view, the U.N. charter is not only something that the U.S. subscribes to, it is the law of the land. It is a treaty duly ratified by the United States Senate in July 1945, which under our Constitution makes it the law of the land.

But we hear little of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, thank God, rallied a few weeks ago and said Trump can't set the whole trade regime. That's unconstitutional. That was a glimmer of light. But when it comes to foreign policy, sadly, those same. nine justices would like, I don't want to put words in their mouth, God forbid, but would likely side with the imperial presidency. Why does Europe have not a word about this? Well, this is what we've been asking for years. How did Europe become a complete vassal of the United States, which it is? And it is a little hard to understand.

Partly it's the selection of the leaders which have to go through the U.S. approval mill or they get pushed aside easily. Partly it is simple mechanics. If you have U.S. military bases on your soil, you are an occupied country whether you like it or not. You have the CIA there. You have subversion. You have U.S. direct political interference. You are a semi-occupied country. But I have to just tell you how shocking it is to hear this.

I was at the UN Security Council last week. I had been invited to testify about the war, and then the UK and the U.S. blocked me from testifying. And this is far for the course. That's the least of it. But as I listened, of all people, the Danish ambassador launched in to a tirade against Iran on the day that the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran. She couldn't mention that Iran had been bombed or that 150 schoolgirls had been murdered or that this was a bomb. violation of the UN

charter, an unprovoked attack by Israel and the United States. She didn't even mention that. She just went into a tirade against Iran. This is the one that someday will turn to the UN and say, how can you not help us with Greenland

after the United States has invaded her country? I went up to her afterwards to have a word. I wanted to point out that this is not safe for Denmark. She looked up from her, no, looked at me, turned around and walked away. I called after her. Could I have a word with you? Walked away. And so this is the state of affairs in our world today. Europe is useless.

We know it. We bemoan it every day. useless. Not a voice of sanity except for Pedro Sanchez. Let's champion him because he's been very great. And President Connolly of Ireland. who knows about this, but for the rest of Europe, nothing right now on this point. And so the U.S. and Europe don't uphold the learnings of World War II or the law of the international community in the U.N. Charter. we've lost the reflexes for that. And sorry to ramble on, but in 2003, many European countries, and I remember walking across the green with Dominique de Villapin, who had just spoken at the UN Security Council,

France objected to the U.S. Iraq war. Wonderful. We don't hear a voice like that. in a major European country now? No, we don't. Let's talk about Iran, because my own clear sense is that there's been very little understanding of that country.

There were a lot of assumptions that this war was going to end very quickly. There's been a universal belief among Western leaders that the government is not only unpopular, but illegitimate in some way, never exactly explained. that the course of the war has come as a terrible surprise, that nobody expected that it would have dragged on in the way that it has. And you are starting to see in the media, certainly here in Britain, what you might call the worm of doubt, people are asking,

is this going to go on for a long time? Is this going to turn out? Well, What if it doesn't? What if we've underestimated Iran? What if we've underestimated the strength of its institutions and its armed forces and its level of economic and social cohesion? Well, if they have underestimated all of those things, that really does argue about their planning, their quality of planning. being completely wrong because, as you say, they've been thinking about doing this for years, to decades. They should have a very clear understanding of Iran, and it seems that they don't. I mean, is that also your perception? I mean, it's certainly mine that they really don't understand

Iran, perhaps because they've fallen in with these grotesque ideas of domination of the Middle East, domination of hegemony, domination of all sorts of things. And one of the things I've learned in my life is that people who lose touch with reality on one thing, eventually lose touch with reality on everything. Is that what the problem is? I have a general principle which I've tried to get instated for many, many years, which is that the United States should not be allowed to bomb any country. when more than, unless more than half the U.S. population can name two cities in that country.

This would end all American wars. Americans know nothing about Iran. And that includes our leadership. Of course, I'm being jocular. We should not be bombing other countries, period. But the ignorance is beyond imagining. Donald Trump, of course, knows zero about everything. everything. The man is a complete total ignoramus. And that is not my testimony. That is what I hear from

leaders around the world that deal with him. He's simple-minded. And this is also extraordinarily concerning. No, they don't have a plan. They don't have a strategy. They are relying basically on an old CIA failed ploy, which is get the U.S. into something and then escalate as needed. So that's not a military strategy. It could take us back again, 64 years to another CIA concoction, which was the invasion of Cuba, the Bay of Pigs in April, 1961. They had no plan. But Alan Dolos thought once we get people on the ground and if they get under attack, Kennedy will have to call an air cover and we will be in a full-fledged invasion of Cuba. Now the plan is will escalate as needed.

That's why Trump talks about now openly. Well, we're going to have to put soldiers in. We're going to have to put the boots on the ground as it's called. I don't think this is going to happen, by the way, because the United States public is so much against this, at least three to one against it. And it's going to go to much longer, stronger opposition very, very soon as people see how completely reckless, violent, boneheaded all of this is. But the answer to the question is they do not have a plan. Netanyahu's plan is get the U.S. involved. Those who favor this have the plan that once we're involved will just escalate as necessary.

The whole thing is a complete concoction and debacle. And the best evidence of that is the market judgment, because that's a kind of summary of those who are whose money is directly at stake. Today, oil prices have soared well above $100 a barrel by some quotes that I saw just in the few minutes before we started up to about $120 a barrel. Oil is on the route to doubling in price over this very early stretch from pre-war price until today. It's not quite there yet, but it's headed there. This is an economic calamity, but the point is that those who put their money down in bets and the market bet on energy is the cleanest and clearest of this bets is that we have a disaster unfolding. Let's talk about that because you're perhaps the best person to discuss this. $120 a barrel oil. We have already a very difficult economic situation in U.S.

Europe altogether. In Germany, they've been talking about de-industrialization. In Britain, there's a strong sense of economic malaise. In every Western country, people's living standards are under very, very great stress. $120 a barrel oil. What is that going to do to the world economy now, especially if this shock, continues very long. And did the people who made the proximate decisions to start this now, did they not realize that this might happen? It was so likely that it would happen. How could they miss it? But tell us, first of all, about what are the possible outcomes? And by the way, before you do, Can I just point to people what a prescient economic commentator you are in some respects? I remember when Trump brought in the tariffs, you said that the tariffs would not reduce the American trade deficit. They did, just to say.

So given that kind of exemplary track record, what are your thoughts about this? Yeah, if I could just say on the tariffs very briefly, I said, A, they're illegal. brazenly illegal. B, they wouldn't reduce the trade deficit. Three, they wouldn't create manufacturing jobs, which on our February report are down 100,000 jobs from last year to this year. The whole thing is so incredibly imbecilic. Okay, I'll put that aside.

On this one, you know, this is weird, but my PhD dissertation, 46 years ago, was on oil shocks. It was doing the first modeling of the oil shocks of the 1973, 74, and 197980. And I wrote the first book about that the economics of worldwide stagflation published in 1982. So I've been thinking about this for decades, actually. The fact of the matter is this is an extremely, extremely serious shock to the world economy. It is likely to be prolonged. Of course, we're in the very first days, so things can change.

But it doesn't seem like the U.S. is backing down, and it does seem like the energy facilities of the Gulf region and Iran are being. destroyed or heavily damaged. And one country after another is shutting in its production because you can't produce if you can't store or ship. And they can doubt do neither right now. So we're seeing soaring oil prices. We're seeing another important indicator. The volatility of the stock market soar once again.

That's called the VIX index. is also a predictor of a serious economic crisis. So I believe we're entering into a worldwide economic crisis this year. When it happened in the 1970s, output relative to trend, in other words, taking into account that world output has an underlying upward trend and then comparing where things were a year after the oil shock from where they were, would have been expected to be, the downturns in both 73, 74, and 79, 80 were on the order of 4 or 5% of world output relative to trend. Very sizable shocks.

A lot of economic pain, a lot of unemployment. I think we're heading for that right now. Of course, things can change. These are early days. But at least as of the past few days, those who really are watching in my new detail, what's being blown up, what production is stopping, what the chances of the U.S. military,

military opening the Strait of Hormuz and so forth. What they're telling us is this is a very, very serious economic crisis lying ahead. And I think that it comes in the context of a lot of weakness in the U.S. already. The jobs declined in February. They've basically been stagnant or in decline for several months. Europe is in persistent crisis in a very weak state across Europe. So I would expect that this would be a downturn in both the United States and Europe this year, Trump being insane, actually. Oh, so oil prices will go up.

So it's the price we have to bear. The voters will have a different idea very soon. soon. This will be true across Europe. There is revulsion at the political class in Europe. There is revulsion of Trump. And we need to remember, these are the people we see strutting on the stage. They are not like, they are not popular, they are not following public opinion whatsoever. and occasionally, rarely, but occasionally, the public gets a say in this, and the say is not going to be a happy one. Of course, all of this depends on U.S. ballots actually being counted in November,

which is going to be another drama coming up. We're just having an election, by the way, in Boughton-Wiltenberg in Germany, And the early reports are that the CDU has lost ground significantly and might lose the states. So anyway, we'll see. Is there any way back? Are we, is there any way out of this mess? I mean, I have to say that the idea of sending in the U.S. Navy to provide escorts to tankers. Yes, it's a delusion on a delusion on a delusion.

Exactly. Yeah, so that's not going to happen. That's not going to happen. So what can be done? Because the other great change in the world is that the United States does not have the overwhelming monopoly overpower that he did say 30 years ago. There are other very, very big players now. There's China where Donald Trump is supposed to go at the end of this month. There's Russia, of course. There's India too. There's all sorts of countries. One gets the sense that none of them are happy. What might happen, might we actually see an international movement to end this war outside the West? That would be something very new if it was to be effective.

Yes. There will be a world rising demand to end the war as the economic pain hits. And that economic pain is, going to hit quite quickly in prices, of course, for petrol and diesel and in electricity costs and in other ways. So it won't take that long for the pain to be widely felt. This is one point. That will cause politicians to scramble. What do we do? How do we survive? What do we say to our publics. The way that this war ends and the only way in my view that it ends is that the United

States and Israel stop their war of aggression, period. I don't think it's going to end at the negotiating table. I don't see what the negotiations would be about. I don't see there being a possibility of negotiating right now. But there is absolutely the possibility that Israel and the United States stop the attack. Of course, that is a loss of face. Who gives a, and I won't say it, but basically, who could care that Trump and Netanyahu lose face? Dispicable people who went against the world good. Of course, they should lose face. They're disgraceful. We need the fighting to stop. It could stop if there is a crescendo of voices for it to stop. That crescendo will not start in Europe because they don't even have a voice that they know how to utilize right now.

But even that will come later. The voices have to start with where you absolutely indicated. And that is with the BRICS countries. China and Russia, of course, are allies of Iran. They're supporting Iran. The idea that, oh, they're giving intelligence. Are you kidding? Why not?

This is also a U.S. war directed against Russia and China, have no doubt about it. This is world hegemony at stake. Of course, they are going to give. material support, financial support, military support, probably not direct troops, but a lot of other kinds of support. Of course, that's going to happen. But diplomatically, what I find most interesting is India. India, to my mind, is actually the decisive factor in this right now. But sad to say, India plays two roles, one of them completely erroneous for India and the other very important.

The erroneous role is India thinking that it will replace China as America's supplier and that it will replace China as America's supplier and that it will. will reap benefits as together with the United States and Israel against, well, with the United States against China and Israel as a provider of military technology and intelligence technology. So India has sidled up to the United States despite all the abuses. And it hasn't really ended that. Modi was in Israel a few days ago, for God's sake. What the heck is that? And there's also, well, there's other considerations, but that's one side.

The other side is India should remember that its colonization by the British Empire wasn't a great party. It was a disaster. And the same with the United States to become a very. vassal of the United States, to play with the United States and the quad, to suffer a calamitous energy crisis because India is completely energy import dependent from the Middle East, because of a U.S. Israeli war of imperialism is not what India wants. So India has the presidency of the Bricks this year. If India, Russia, China, Brazil, South Africa,

Africa, the African Union, Egypt, Ethiopia, all stand up and say, this is outrageous. And if Europe, God help us, would follow Pedro Sanchez and say, this is not good for us. Actually, the fighting will stop. After that, I think the consequences will be extremely significant. Of course, the U.S. will have been exposed as exactly Kissinger's adage has it. To be a friend of the United States is fatal. This will be proved yet again. I don't think Israel can continue in this mad,

violent way after this, it will have created a worldwide crisis, not just a regional crisis. I think Israel, if it continues in this way, should be expelled or suspended from the UN, as South Africa was. It is a violent, vicious state that either regains its senses or is going to lose its hold. So this is going to be a... another reckoning that will come. But I think the way this war will end is the world telling the United States and Israel, stop, it's over. You're wrecking the whole world. Professor Sacks, thank you very much. That is all I wanted to ask you. And I want to say thank you again for your extremely helpful, comprehensive, thorough, insightful answers. I don't know whether you have.

I didn't know. Now I'm going to have to run right now. You have to run right now. So terrific to be with you. We'll see you soon. Thank you, thank you. All right, Alexander. You there?

Yes, absolutely, very much. So. Okay, great discussion. Always with Professor Sachs, always an extraordinary discussion. I've read his book, the way, the 1982 book, that he wrote on oil prices, on oil shocks. already many years ago. It is not there in the library.

I will try and get myself another copy, just to say. I think it bears rereading. Yeah. Well, we have some breaking news, kind of breaking news, that Bahrain's state oil company has declared force major. It's the first one.

Well, I think, their oil refinery was smashed yesterday, or this morning, yeah. Absolutely. Yeah. So force major. That's going to be one of many, I believe. Yes.

They will all follow. The Saudis will be the last, but all the others will start tumbling, one after the other, probably this week. Trump tells us not to worry, though. It's all going to come down. No course for concern. Everything is going exactly according to plan. Trust the plan. Just trust the plan.

Absolutely. All right. Let's begin one second with Elsie. How is the situation for Stammer in the UK? Trump and Blair are angry with Britain, but the Iran conflict seems to have made the Epstein problem go away, at least at the moment. Thanks. Well, one says this, but the British public still seem to be very, very angry with Kirsten.

I suspect they're getting angrier, actually. And the latest opinion poll suggests that in the local elections, in London in May, Labor is going to be driven to fourth place. Now, London has always been a Labour stronghold since the 1930s. For Labor to be pushed into fourth place in London would be absolutely existential territory. I mean, it would be its extinction territory for the Labour Party. From Russell Hall, that moment when you realize the entire strategy for starting World War III

was taken from an old episode of South Park. They're coming right for us. You know, Pete Higgs says actually looks like he's walked straight out of that South Park cartoon. I mean, that's all I can say about him. Yeah. Commander Crossfire says, if I could tell the world just one thing,

it would be that we're all okay and not to worry because worry is wasteful and useless in times like these. That is a very, very wise, counsel. Commander Crossfire says, I won't be made useless. I won't be idle with despair. I'll gather myself around my faith for lights, the darkness, most fear. Very good.

Haruka, thank you for that super sticker. Elsa says, Mr. Sachs, you said that you wouldn't vote for Trump because he wasn't a president of peace. Even though, have you still been disappointed, have you persevered your idealism and optimism? Well, I think, I think Professor Sachs feel. vindicated. He never had thought very much of Donald Trump, and I'm afraid he's turned out to be completely right. No, Banja says, is it possible war in Ukraine won't end because the West is accumulating immense training data for future wars using AI? It could be a data harvest. Well, it will end, and it will end, I think, much sooner now than it would otherwise have done,

perhaps even this year, actually, because without the military and technological and intelligence of systems of the United States, the war cannot go on and wouldn't have gone on anyway for as long as it has done. Now that has all been withdrawn, and as Alex pointed out, they're all panicking. The Europeans are now getting scared about this because, and you can read about this, I think was it Axiore. Political. Political had an article. Yeah, exactly. They bought the weapons, but now they're afraid they paid for the weapons. They say, but now they're afraid they're not going to get them.

Yeah. Well, there you go. I guess they can ask for their money back from Trump. Trump will give them their money back. Of course you will. With interest. Yes, of course. Jeffrey Severs says, great to catch you all live during these troubling times.

Addie Petrault gifted the Deraa at five memberships. Thank you for that. Valerie of Russia says, what's the best way to contact you two directly? Locals, I hear Alexander often talking about emailing with viewers, but no details. Yes, you can write to us at editor at the Duran, and we will respond. Or telegram. You can also find us.

Telegram is another good place, actually. Last C3D says two seconds before World War III, Jeffrey Sachs still wanted a two-state solution. He probably still wants it. That fake promise two-state solution is part of why we're in World War III now. Get your bedroom ready for your bedroom ready for your cousins. Well, the two-stage solution was proposed back in 1967 directly after the Six-Day War, UN Security Council Resolution 242. It has, of course, never been implemented.

We've never moved forward with anything remotely like it's implemented. It has been systematically sabotaged ever since. I think back in 1967, it might have formed a way towards some kind of long-term peace agreement. Even someone like Sergei Lavrov, who has been one of the strongest advocates of it, is now, by his own admission, starting to have doubts. that he's recently said that given the realities on the ground now, it might not be capable of being implemented at all. And that, by the way, is a terrible thing.

Because without it, what is the plan? What is the way forward? How can you construct a consensus in the Middle East to water peace? Valerie of Russia says, I would love a video revisiting the Russian Olympic doping scandal. I'm still not sure what happened there. Has your assessment changed from seven years ago? No, it hasn't changed at all.

And you sound like you might have read some of the things that we were writing about it seven years ago. Because I remember writing extensively about it on our website at the Duran. The articles that I wrote then are still there. But no, yes, let us indeed revisit it because it looks. as if Russia is now being readmitted into the Olympic movement. So this is perhaps a good moment to do it. The Onusia says, how should we view the claim that Iran is a sponsor of terrorism? Well, the first thing, this is what I would say about this.

First of all, there is no Middle East country, none, none at all, that hasn't dabbled in terrorism to a greater or lesser degree. So to say that Iran has never engaged in terrorism whatsoever or involved itself in it, I think would be wrong. To say that it has, by itself, given the region, doesn't tell you very much. Where I would push back strongly is against the claim that many people, including Donald Trump, make, which is that Iran is the biggest and most important sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East or indeed anywhere. And I have to say that simply doesn't seem to me to accord with the facts at all. In terms of terrorism, Iran has been much more often the victim than the perpetrator.

From Flipper Zero, Trump is pure id for sure. But what if he launched this war so that the deep state doesn't facilitate his overthrow after the midterms? It seems like a weird endeavor to undertake purely on his own volition. Well, if that is he's thinking, then I have to say this. He's not an adequate or proper person to be president of the United States. If he is so worried that he's going to be overthrown in November that he launches a war, that he's got to ask himself, is he putting his own private interests over the wider public interest and that of the United States?

Surely, anyway, the better thing to do in response to that, to that possibility that he might be challenged in that kind of way, is to go out into the country as he used to do, talk to his supporters, as he used to do, meet them, explain to them what the risks are, and try to win them round and to get them to support him in the face of the crisis that is to come. Trump has retreated into this bunker in the Oval Office and the White House,

and he's completely lost touch with the sentiments of his base and indeed with reality altogether. Valerie of Russia says, Also, I would love some videos discussing Orthodoxy, both in terms of your individual beliefs, but also in regards to nefarious political. meddling. We have we have plans to do precisely that. Alex has been in discussion with a particular individual who would assist us greatly in having precisely those sort of discussions. Sampras

1268 says China is not as strong as the Soviet Union was in protecting deterrence versus the USA they need to step in or else they will be isolated with Russia. The Americans will not stop. China is not the Soviet Union and it has repeatedly said that it is not intent to mimic the policies of the Soviet Union. It looks as also what the Soviet Union would become of the Soviet Union and says to itself, we don't want to be there. China is primarily about its own economic and social development and which it has been extraordinarily successful. It is unrealistic to expect China to play the same kind of role in world affairs that the Soviet Union did, which, remember, was a European country caught up in a Cold War with the West, which was ultimately a conflict about Europe, just to say.

So, you know, one shouldn't have expectations that cannot be realized. Upam Deck says greetings from northeast India. I'm a doctor by profession and my day always ends with Alexander's videos. Also a great fan of Mr. Sachs and to be able to hear his masterful words is such an honor. Thank you very much for those very kind words. Francis 74. Thank you for that super chat. Johann 83 says Alex Alexander Jeffrey.

Thank you for all the work you do. Hopefully the Wi-Fi works when I check into the bush so I can keep listening to you guys for some sanity. Thank you. Thank you for that. Ralph Steiner says, as a ruling God king or even a demigod, a modern day Achilles will Trump lead his American Christian soldiers to victory over the Muslim infidels? Well, they won't. I mean, I again, I mean, these these are dangerous thoughts. And to repeat again, we had somebody talk about orthodoxy. I mean, orthodoxy is very, very mistrustful of, you know, demigods. heroes amongst human beings. It says, you know, we're all human beings and we need to accept those conditions. We should never aspire to be more than human beings because if we do, we cease to be

human, we cease being human beings. We become something else and that is a terrible thing. Blank, blank says almost at the timeline of BB Sun Bobo leading. James Bondish says 70 years born in 1956, old school dropout born in New England, and have so much respect for Professor Sachs and the Duran for telling the truth. Thank you. Thank you for that. Magnolia Vulcan says this will drag into a multi-year quagmire. I'm afraid it will.

Eccles Bourne says, hi, Hi, Duran. What was the shortest functioning empire? What was the shortest functioning? Yeah, that's a very good question. I'm not sure. I'd have to go through history to find out. Stefan G6-1 says, great to see Mr. Sacks back. Ralph Steiner says, beware of when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gaze is also into you. Absolutely true.

Lisa 5156 says Trump speaks as if he's divinely chosen to save the world. It sounds crazier every day. Is there a mechanism for Americans to remove him from office? Well, there is this impeachment. There's the 25th Amendment. These are matters for the Americans themselves to think about and decide what they're going to do about. I will say this.

After the assassination attempt, the one that did damage to him, the one that he, escaped very, very narrowly. I've always felt, and I've always been worried that he was indeed developing some kind of idea. People in that kind of situation do, that they've been chosen in some way, preserved in some way to do some great thing. And that is a, I find that a rather dangerous thing altogether. And I, well, it worries me that this is completely, completely consumed him now and is leading us to this disaster that we're seen today.

Jungle Jin says Zionist control of the U.S. and its imperialism reminds one of the kind of cordycept bungal infection of insects that create zombie hosts. Oh, well. Nick Maslovich, thank you for that super sticker. The man, right. She says it will all stop if Israel lays down their arms. Well, they're not going to lay down their realms. I mean, we shouldn't, if we're going to look for somewhere where it will stop,

where the decision to stop it must be made, it must be made in Washington. Ross Dinah says, is Oceana now at war with Eurasia? Oceana, Oceana, Tis for thee, deed, every thought, tis for thee. 1984 was indeed a prophetic book. It was in many ways, not just that one. Zabinator says, wonder how many U.S. soldiers died for Israel today? Who knows?

I've seen many reports say that the number that they're giving, which is nine, is wrong. I am not going to second guess behind this. I find this a difficult and impossible and disturbing thing to do. Some press says, what do the right-wing populists say about Iran war, Le Pen or Bon Farage? Exactly. This is why I miss the old left in Europe, these populist right, Right, want hegemony. This is why I don't trust them. Don't talk about the liberals. Well, as an old, as an old leftist, as somebody who used to be part of that, I understand completely what you mean. One of the reasons we don't have a great organized anti-war movement

resisting this at this moment is precisely because that old left of which historically, once upon a time long ago, I used to be a part no longer exists. Mussel Flash says, what happened to the climate change cult? Well, the Greens apparently have won in Bath and Veltenberg. Don't underestimate them. Ralph Steiner says in the book in 1984, why did George Orwell omit the obvious evangelical Christian Zionist apocalyptic vision that is accompanying the real turn of events? Because he had many, many other very important things to discuss. and that was not the most important one in that book.

The book couldn't cover everything. MCH parody, thank you for a super sticker. Hafez, Hafez says Iran must charge a toll for Hormuz. Edward Bernay says, is the only way for the Global South to end this terrible war against Iran to abandon reliance on the petro dollar? Well, yes. And by the way, I think Professor Sacks's comments about India are well said.

This is a catastrophe for India. I mean, the country that is going to be, one of the countries that's going to be most exposed by $120 oil is going to be India. And India's voice has been silent. They should be loudly calling for an end of the war. Well, Modi went to Israel to get on board with the war. Well, indeed, absolutely. He thought he would. He was another one of these people who thought it would be easy.

Yeah, he thought it was easy. And he remained silent when the warship was sunk after attending a military exercise in India. In other words, coming to India at India's invitation. There's been much criticism of this. If he isn't careful, his entire political position in India could unravel and the people who are voting for, who vote for him in their tens of millions. If they see the oil price, the energy costs, which offer them an existential issue, a surge in the way that they are, they could turn on him and they would be right to. Ralph Steiner says there's strong movement to have Baron Trump included in any American military draft for boots on the ground in Iran. Could Prince Harry join two?

Well, of course. With those two, how can we lose? Nico says for the first time since one year of Trump, President Putin has condemned the entire West for both Iran and Ukraine. He returned back to his Biden language. Then Peskov came out and said that international law doesn't. apply anymore and as Putin said they should focus on themselves negotiations are over i think you're right i mean i'm not fully up to date yet with Putin's latest words but i think this has been a drift of discussion that really began in russia not as a result of the valdi

attack even before we talked about this we talked about how Putin was um going increasingly out on a limb by persisting in the negotiations then the valdaia attack came and that was an enormous moment but now we've had this sorry go ahead i've just said the valdaity i said how crazy that was well absolutely yeah it's the same so it's the same people making the same kind of decisions trying to do the same things or again and again and again um and i i think this is it i think this is a moment i this is the the moment when even Putin says enough. Ruzer 76 says, what do you think Putin will do if the war continues for a while? Will he just limit the assistance with the intel and weapons or will he do more?

What if the U.S. is successful in Iran? Well, if the U.S. is successful in Iran, that will be a major problem for Russia and the brakes, but it will also be a very, very major problem for the United States, because it would then have a broken Iran. And as I think it was Colin Powell said to George W. Bush about Iraq, you broke it, you own it. We will have chaos in the Middle East. The chaos will be even greater.

And the Russians being in the region probably would be in a better position long term to get a handle over it than the United States would be. But of course, it would be a problem. As to what they will do, If the war drags on, the Russians will gradually step up. Has Trump defined what a win is? I mean, he hasn't even defined any of his. Has he defined the objectives?

Has he defined why they're even in this war? Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Well, there was an article yesterday in The Intercept. And of course, it is the intercept. So, you know, be careful. They don't like Trump. And they do all sorts of things. But they say that all sorts of people have been coming and speaking to them

and have been telling that this is people from within the administration. And they said that they cannot discern any kind of strategy or plan at all. It's all been made up from one day to the next. And I have to say to me, for the moment, that's how it looks. That's how it looks, yeah. Mike Flyer says, thank you, gentlemen of the Duran sanity in chaos. Ralph Steiner says, have you heard that Trump is building the ball room? Miko says Iran is handling the media optics very well.

The hatred towards the expats from the younger generation is insane after they showed them dancing. Nico says, Chaminet's son is now the new supreme leader. Seems people like it. Also, Pesesh Gyan is doing what he does best, treating the injured. He was a doctor. Yes, he was. Absolutely. I mean, you know, they are doing these things.

Now, as I said, we've replaced one Harmony with another more hardline Hamlet who is very, very angry because he's father, he's mother, and his daughter. Daughter of son, yeah. And son, I believe, have all been killed. Yeah, Taliban for Taliban, Hamlet, Hamlet for Hamlet, yeah. Like that.

Matthew says, Trump will soon declare victory, and that's that. Well, he might do, but. he won't be able to get away with it this time Nico says I spoke too soon about the ships Sweden seized another ship people demanding that Putin do what the US does to Europe they are blockading Russia

well then this has been this has been happening for a while all in the middle of an energy crisis as I said the Russians will deal with it they won't do anything you said but the Russians will deal with it oh I'm sorry they'll deal with it They will create their convoys.

They will do all of these things. But bear in mind, with exploding energy prices, this policy of blockading ships trying to interfere even further with the oil is unsustainable. Yeah. CSJ001 says India's position as growing economy is different to all others. China, US, UK have all supported Pakistan apart from Israel, They forgot the pressure we withstood for Russia.

And now with one meeting, we are vassal state. Well, I know. I understand all of this. But again, I think that on this particular issue that we're talking about now, India has not been wise. I'm not suggesting India is a vassal state. I'm saying that India has made mistakes in its handling of this particular affair. India should have been a strong advocate before the war of the negotiations.

And it should be leading the calls now for an end to the fighting and ultimately for a return to negotiations. And Modi should have issued some sort of statement about the ship. Absolutely. Absolutely. Zareel says, Empire of China, 15, 16 by Yadin Shikai. You're welcome. Thank you for that, Zaryl. Uzar 76 says, do you think that Russia is going this slow in Ukraine because of Putin? This war is about diplomacy and not territory that ultimately he gets an agreement with the U.S.

or will he just take Ukraine? Well, Stanislav at Krapivnik, and we've spoken to many times, says that the sentiment in the military is that they would like to move faster and they've been held back by restraints from the political leadership in Moscow. And I think that there's been, certainly up to now, a sense in Moscow that taking this thing reasonably slow actually worked overall to Russia's diplomatic advantage. It kept the other brick states happy. And it did perhaps provide for a possibility of some sort of long-term agreement with the United States.

I think as of now, none of that applies any longer. So we might start to see things move more quickly. But I'm also going to say something about the way in which the war has been conducted. I think it also reflects the style of the Russian general staff, which is running this war, which tends to be very systematic and very long-term, looking for a complete

and decisive, long-term, permanent victory. Nico says it's not just the ship seizures that need to stop. The Russian air defense in the south is depleted. Belgorod and Krasnodar can't take any more. I think that is a, a huge overstatement. I've not seen anybody suggest this.

Well, maybe one or two bloggers have done. But overall, and I get to repeat what I've said, the drone attacks that the Ukrainians have conducted have had only a peripheral, a minimal impact on Russia itself. The Hockey Gole says, is Iran's willingness to directly strike U.S. and Gulf putting pressure on Putin to be more directed in Ukraine?

a weaker nation calling the West's bluff. Well, I think there is some element of this. I mean, Lavrov gave a very interesting summary in which he was saying that, yes, there's been an awful lot of opposition to the whole diplomatic dialogue with the Americans. He finally admitted that there have been many people in Russia who have been very, very critical of this process. and he spoke about it rather defensively. And he said, look, we did come to an agreement with the Americans in Anchorage, and we're going to stick by that.

The Americans so far have not been, but we're not making any concessions, any concessions beyond it, and that the good feelings that had briefly existed in Anchorage have completely dissipated. Now, he'd clearly been in discussion with Booty, It was very carefully worded language, but it was constructed, I think, to signal that we tried it, we went as far as we could. This is where basically it ends.

Nico says the main problem with the West is unprecedented arrogance, and it showcased in the media. How dare they lecture Russia and Iran about civilians. arrogance is off the scale. And you're completely right about that. Leo Gong, thank you for that super sticker. Monty says, what with the left in Britain and politics in general

beyond the protest vote for the Greens? I can't imagine people being very impressed with the Greens beyond the wheel. Well, I think myself that if the Greens ever get hold of the wheel, they will lose support very quickly. Because,

to be frank, I think their program, if one could call it that, is a fantastic one. Just to say. Gio Stone says history is being made of China being a superpower. Joker 84D says the U.S. needs a new party, hard anti-imperial, anti-Zionist, domestic-focused, anti-war. There's good people on the left and right. It's about corrupt elites and globalists and the people, not the left and the right.

Trying to create such a party in the US is almost impossible in my experience. I've seen the attempts made many, many times, and they never quite succeed. Besides, you have the libertarians. They're already saying many of these things. Nico says, as an aspiring nuclear physicist, I must talk about the environmental contamination. Acid rain is falling in Tehran. Satellites show Boucher is damaged. Yes.

Sam Prese says Russia will not just take the whole of Ukraine. When Ukraine really runs out of money, weapons, then Ukraine will come to the table, and Russia will get the four regions and parts of Kharkov and Tsumi, very clear to me. Well, quite possibly. Uzer says, what is your opinion the worst-case scenario that could happen with the U.S.-Israel-Iran war and the best case? The worst case scenario is that we have a kind of collapse in Iran and enormous waves of chaos across the Middle East and enormous refugee flows in Europe and a spread of violence across the Middle East. And I mean, that would be an appalling disaster. The optimal outcome, which isn't going to happen, is that there is a cessation of hostilities.

I think that's a better word, by the way, the Nassi, ceasefire, a cessation of hostilities. It means finally the idea of war taken off the table and a return to long-term constructive negotiations. But that's not going to happen. Nuclear war is also a very well that that is maybe that's true. I mean nuclear war cannot be cannot be ruled out in this. I think we are I think of all of the various conflicts that have been bought since Vietnam, when there was serious thought given to using nuclear weapons, by the way. This is the one that that possibility is closest. Ralph Steiner says Trump's closest advisor and the leader of the USA, B.B. Netanyahu,

would like to deal with Turkey as well in this conflict. Will this be a problem? Well, we talked about this with Professor Sachs. I mean, grotesque ambitions. I mean, you go after Iran, you then go after Turkey as well. I mean, this is, I mean, this isn't folly. It's outright madness. Murmmer Mike, who at the UN is even considering Israel's suspension or expulsion,

as Professor Sachs suggests, Hexeth does look like a South Park character. Yes, well, so far, nobody does. Nobody is. But then the effect of this crisis is going to change the politics of the Middle East. One of the reasons why pressure of that kind on, to suspend Israel, for example, has never been there, is because the Arab Gulf states have always opposed it. Now, of course, they are in crisis. if the crisis continues, they're going to start to lose their diplomatic traction anyway. Uzer 76 says, thank you. Always a pleasure to listen to you.

Salim Mulya says, what's next for Palestine? Well, I'm afraid a continuation and a prolification of the existing crisis, which has been a crisis ever since, I can remember. remember, of course, if this war develops in a particular way, then, of course, that might lead to openings, which could be used to improve the situation. But we are very far from that point now. Little Falker 187 says, what would the U.S. do if China decided now is a good time to take Taiwan? Well, what indeed? I think the U.S. has no plan for that, by the way.

Does China have a plan for that? Well, that's a good question. I don't think they do as it happens. Nikki Ball says, can nuclear facilities at Demona be destroyed or incapacitated without causing nuclear fallout? I don't know. I don't know what the design of Demona is like, what the fail-safes. are. I am not able to answer those questions. And I doubt that many people can, by the way. I mean, I don't know to what extent of Mona has been hardened. My guess, and it's purely a guess,

is not very much because I don't think Israel or the United States have ever given any forethought, any, ever contemplated this possibility. Josie Riel says, Julia Caesar, and Octavian Augustus had popular support from the people, unlike Trump. Indeed, they did. Very, very much so. And by the way, going back to some of the things that Professor Sacks was saying about the transition in Rome from Republic to Empire, just to demonstrate the cynicism of the time.

Of course, what Caesar Augustus always said he was doing was restoring the Republic. that was his program. There's a great book about all of this, by the way, just to quickly say by a man called Ronald Seine written before the Second World War called the Roman Revolution. If you want to read about the whole history here and how it happened, it's probably still the best place. All right, we will end the live stream there.

Thank you to Professor Sachs for joining us. Thank you to everyone that watched us on this live stream, and thank you to our moderators. Take care, everybody. Thank you.