Sep 16, 2024, 2:48 PM ETPanel, Conference Presentation

Deep State, Hegemony & U.S. Foreign Policy: John Mearsheimer vs. Jeffrey Sachs | All-In Summit

Participants include Professor John Mearsheimer (University of Chicago) and Professor Jeffrey Sachs (Columbia University), moderated by David.
The panel examines the US "deep state," great power competition, and foreign policy decisions regarding China, Russia, and the Middle East.

Jeff Sachs identifies a continuous "deep state party" comprising figures like Dick Cheney, Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, and Victoria Nuland, who have held power across Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Biden administrations.
Sachs argues Victoria Nuland has been central to "wrecking policies" toward Russia since the 1990s, including the 2014 Ukraine coup.
John Mearsheimer characterizes Republicans and Democrats as "Tweedledee and Tweedledee," noting almost no policy difference except for Donald Trump's failed attempt (2017–2021) to dismantle the deep state.
Mearsheimer predicts Trump's future ability to beat the deep state will fail, betting "against Trump" regarding this capability.
Sachs defines the deep state as the entrenched administrative state (Pentagon, State Department, intelligence community) with a vested interest in continuous US global power projection.
Putin's 2017 observation cited by Sachs notes that US bureaucrats ("men in dark suits and blue ties") override presidential ideas regarding the "way the world really is."
The established foreign policy consensus, dating to 1992, views the objective as maximizing US global power to maintain hegemony, driven by both realpolitik and a belief in the universal responsibility to spread liberalism.

Jeff Sachs' Position:
- Argues China is not a security threat to the US due to geographic separation (oceans) and mutual nuclear deterrence.
- Claims US-China conflict is driven by US anxiety over losing "global hegemony" rather than genuine security threats.
- Warns that current US posture risks direct nuclear war with Russia (6,000 warheads) and China, stating "we have a mindset that everything is a challenge for survival."
- Advocates for "deconfliction" and staying out of Russia's border, comparing US actions in Ukraine to "imbecilic" policy choices that provoke war.
- States that US economic policy (WTO entry) enriched all parties and that decoupling via trade wars is not a solution to domestic economic problems.
John Mearsheimer's Position:
- Views international relations as an "anarchic system" where states must maximize power to ensure survival.
- Argues China is attempting to become a regional hegemon in Asia, which the US will not tolerate as it has historically done to Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union.
- Predicts inevitable "security competition" with China, focusing on the South China Sea, East China Sea, and Taiwan.
- Describes the US-China dynamic as a "tragedy" where war is avoidable but security competition is inevitable due to the lack of a higher authority.
- Contends that India is a "superpower" with distinct interests, not a true US ally, despite US hopes for a Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) alignment.

Ukraine:
- Sachs argues NATO expansion to Ukraine's border was a mistake that pushed Russia into the arms of China.
- Mearsheimer agrees that the US views the conflict through the lens of "power projection" and "hegemony" rather than simple defense of sovereignty.
- Both agree the US is effectively in a direct war with Russia, though they disagree on the inevitability of escalation versus the possibility of de-escalation.
China Strategy:
- Mearsheimer supports "containing" China to prevent it from dominating Asia, distinguishing this from regime change.
- Sachs argues containment is a delusion and that US trade wars are "self-inflicted wounds" imposed by the US to stop China, not inherent to China's policy.
- Mearsheimer notes that China's economic rise is being translated into military might to challenge US dominance in the Western Hemisphere's peer region (Asia).
Middle East:
- Sachs proposes a two-state solution based on the June 4, 1967 borders as the only viable path to peace, stating the US and the Israel lobby are the primary obstacles to enforcing international law.
- Mearsheimer disputes the likelihood of Arab neighbors (Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia) intervening in a potential West Bank collapse due to lack of military capability against Israel.
- Both identify Iran and Israel as the primary escalation risks, with Mearsheimer noting Benjamin Netanyahu actively seeks to draw the US into war with Iran.

Nuclear Risk: Sachs warns that current escalation risks lead to a scenario where "the world ends in two hours," citing Annie Jacobson's Nuclear War, A Scenario.
US-China Conflict: Mearsheimer predicts conflict is "inevitable" in the security realm due to the zero-sum nature of regional hegemony, though he distinguishes this from actual war.
US-China Economic Decoupling: Sachs predicts continued friction but argues it will not restore US manufacturing jobs or solve economic issues, only shifting inefficiencies.
Political Outlook: The panel suggests the next US administration's leadership (Trump vs. Harris/Biden) will determine whether the US can avoid war with Iran and manage the China threat, implying significant policy continuity regardless of the winner.
India's Role: Mearsheimer predicts India will prioritize its own sovereignty over US interests, specifically regarding relations with Russia and its own border security with China.

Nature of the Game: Sachs views the current power-seeking framework as a destructive delusion that must be abandoned to avoid nuclear war; Mearsheimer views it as the tragic, inescapable reality of an anarchic international system.
Threat Assessment: Sachs views China as a non-threat due to geography; Mearsheimer views China as an existential threat to US hegemony due to its rise to regional dominance.
Solution to Ukraine: Sachs advocates for immediate de-escalation and removing NATO from Russia's border; Mearsheimer suggests diplomacy but acknowledges the US cannot tolerate a peer competitor or loss of influence.
Motivation: Sachs views US interventions as cynical power plays disguised as moral imperatives; Mearsheimer views them as sincere beliefs in the "right" of the US to remake the world, mixed with realpolitik.