Sachs Accuses US and Israel of Pursuing Hegemony in Middle East
In a scathing critique of the escalating conflict in the Middle East, economist Jeffrey Sachs has characterized recent military actions by the United States and Israel against Iran as a “premeditated” campaign driven by ambitions for regional and global dominance. Sachs alleges a coordinated effort to exert control, warning of potential consequences including a wider global conflict.
Claims of Premeditation and False Justifications
Speaking with India Today TV, Sachs asserted that the latest US strikes were “premeditated” and dangerous to the world order. He dismissed official justifications offered by the US and Israel, labeling them “a lie” and arguing that the conflict is not a matter of defensive necessity. Sachs stated, “There was no imminent threat whatsoever,” challenging claims made by US President Donald Trump regarding the demand to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions. He noted that negotiations to revive the 2015 nuclear agreement were reportedly underway at the time of the strikes.
A Plan for Hegemony
Sachs contends that the conflict stems from broader power ambitions. “This is a plan for US control over the Middle East and for Israeli hegemony militarily in the Middle East,” he explained. He warned of serious escalation risks, suggesting the situation “could become World War III,” and accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of pushing the US toward open war. According to Sachs, “Israel wants hegemony in the Middle East. The United States wants global hegemony. So that’s what the partnership is about.”
US Deep State and Israeli Influence
Expanding on the motivations behind the conflict, Sachs pointed to the influence of the US “deep state,” led by the CIA, and a long-standing plan by Israel. Recapio.com reports Sachs believes the CIA, with its global hegemonic aspirations, is a primary driver of American foreign policy. He further asserts that Israel, through its close partnership with the CIA via Mossad, exerts an unusual level of influence on the United States, impacting its foreign policy decisions.
Domestic Opposition and Political Fallout
Sachs claims there is significant public resistance to the conflict within the United States. “The disconnect is between our military security state which runs the United States and the American people,” he stated, adding that “roughly three quarters of the American people are against it.” He predicted that if the conflict is prolonged, President Trump’s approval ratings would decline further, given his already unpopular standing.
Economic Risks and BRICS Role
Sachs cautioned that disruption in the Strait of Hormuz could trigger a major economic shock, particularly for energy-importing countries, potentially driving oil prices above $100 per barrel. He also suggested that insurers and shipping companies might avoid the waterway if tensions persist. He urged countries within the BRICS economic alliance to take a more active diplomatic role in resolving the crisis, advising India to maintain its strategic autonomy and avoid joining the Quad.
European Dependence and Potential for De-escalation
The economist was critical of European governments, describing the continent as “very poorly led” and overly reliant on Washington. He believes most European governments supported the US strikes due to their security dependence. Despite his grim assessment, Sachs indicated that the conflict could be halted if the US changes course, stating, “The glimmer of hope is the United States says this does not work… We go home. The fighting will stop.”
On March 3, 2026, Sachs told CNN-News18 that “The United States and Israel should go back to their own homes and stop bothering other people, and the war would conclude.”