WW3 HAS ALREADY STARTED — And Washington Is Lost | Prof. Jeffrey Sachs

We are probably in the early days of World War II and the question will be whether it uh is contained but we're already in a global war because there's a war in the Western Hemisphere underway. Uh and even as uh the attention is on Iran, Trump is signaling in his not so subtle way that the US will take Cuba. uh this could very well happen. Uh the war in Ukraine uh of course continues. The war in the Middle East is now across the Middle East. Uh the war between Pakistan and Afghanistan uh is perhaps somehow related to this. Uh Iranian vessels, an Iranian naval vessel was sunk off the coast of India. Um and uh for all of these reasons uh uh fighting is uh across the world. The uh fighting is uh at least loosely linked. We don't know how closely linked it is. Part of uh American strategy seems to be to try to corner and control the energy markets. uh this is not playing too well because the energy supplies are being blown up by the hour. Um and so we're entering also a worldwide energy crisis that is likely to be extremely serious and uh as they say it's not yet been priced into the markets. This is uh the usual way that cataclysmic global events are turned into financial jargon. But the point is we're going to enter a an energy crisis that is extraordinarily severe as well. This will hurt Europe considerably. It will threaten Asian countries deeply. It will probably mean spreading war. So there's no doubt, by the way, or I shouldn't say no doubt. I'd be shocked absolutely if Russia and China were not supporting Iran. Why wouldn't they? They have a strategic relationship with Iran. China depends on Iran for oil. The United States is basically at war with China. And uh much of what the United States is doing is really aimed at China. For example, cutting off Venezuelan oil supplies to China. now uh aiming to cut off Russian oil supplies to China, though the waiver was just lifted because of the chaos. Uh aiming to cut off Iranian supplies to China. So if China isn't supporting Iran, something's wrong with all our textbooks. That's for sure. If China were to stand by and let the US take over the world, that would be quite strange. >> Yeah. Just Well, this efforts to take over the world energy markets, it's very blatant. I mean, I just watched a clip on Fox News where they have an interview going, "Well, yes, any any price we're paying in this war will be outweighed by the massive benefits once we get uh control of Iran's oil as well." And um it made me think about the article you wrote um recently about uh arguing that the USIsraeli attack on Iran is also an attack on the United Nations. And indeed, well, international law obviously has been violated in the past, but now there doesn't even seem to be a pretense to abide by it. Indeed, there seems to be a pride in it. For example, Hegath, he dismisses the rule of engagement as being uh politically correct and weak. So, there seems to be almost um direct efforts to dismantle international law as you know, the board of peace or less uh makes this clear. I I was wondering if you can flesh out that argument. >> Well, the uh US government uh under Trump, but I would say more generally, but still to a dramatic extent under Trump uh despises the UN uh wants to kill it. uh is aiming to kill it uh both through a thousand cuts and through a devastating blow. If you believe that you are the world's hegeimon, as Emperor Donald believes, uh then anything that tries in lily pian ways to hold you down is pathetic. So they want to smash the United Nations. Uh and they've been absolutely clear about it. Uh earlier this year, the United States walked out of more than 30 UN agencies. Uh the US has repudiated fundamental UN treaties and objectives. Uh we've had an end of the nuclear arms control agreements which were part of the UN system. Uh the US doesn't pay it bill its bills to the United Nations. uh the US doesn't respect the institutions of the United Nations and it's clear uh at least Trump and this US government and I would say the CIA and the deep state more generally aim for global hegemony and the UN is the opposite of that or not maybe not quite the opposite of it but it's co-responsibility with other countries and the US does not accept co-responsibility with anybody. So everything that is being done uh completely sneers at the UN and if the topic is raised those are as you said whether it's by HEG or by the White House those are pathetic nicities in a world of power we've not really seen this kind of brutality of sentiment of rhetoric and of action since 1945 by anybody by the way whether it's by the Soviet Union or by the United States in an earlier vintage uh or by any other country nothing remotely close to this. I calculate each year with my colleagues an index of UN aligned multilateralism which we report annually in a report called the sustainable development report and even before this war the United States far and away and not even close Glenn was the least aligned with the United Nations of all 193 UN member states in terms of engagement with UN processes, including votes in the General Assembly, where the US almost always votes in a tiny minority with Israel and Paraguay and a couple of other countries against the will of the rest of the world uh in terms of uh not signing treaties or leaving treaties. uh the US is simply uh rogue or out to destroy the UN. Let's put it that way. And um this is all accelerated in recent weeks. What is disturbing, if I could use a light term because I love to use stronger terms, Europe is completely complicit in this. uh Europe doesn't show one morsel of uh support for the UN system processes or most importantly the UN charter. The core of the UN charter, the very purpose that you find in the preamble uh and then in the opening articles is to stop the use of force and the threat of force by one nation against another nation. This is the essence of the whole UN system. Article two, paragraph 4 of the UN charter, which I encourage people to go online and read, says that no nation may threaten force or use force against another nation. It's simple and as the uh opening words of the UN charter make clear, this is to prevent the scourge of war. Well, we have a US president who does believe that the US rules the world and that violence is a core instrument of ruling the world and that if countries don't exceed to US demands, what Trump calls unconditional surrender, with Trump picking the new leader of Iran, well and force will be continued until that outcome occurs. It's in the mold of Hitler or Napoleon or other delusional actors who thought that they could uh rule. But even in those earlier cases, they did not believe that they ruled the world. They aimed to rule their neighborhood. They aimed to rule Europe. They Hitler aimed for living space in the Slavic lands. Uh Trump Trump's rhetoric and behavior is that he believes that he rules the world. By the way, he believes it on a personalistic level as well as at a political level. And I'm not exaggerating and it's not Trump delusion syndrome. It's just the overt behavior. The man's loony. Uh and you can watch it. He's got every trait of megalomania, grandiosity, narcissism. And it's quite clear by the way that the US governmental processes where US foreign policy is typically run by the CIA is a little bit uh being run ragged right now because they can't keep up with this madness. Uh so there's a lot of unpredictability and a lot of danger in what's happening because we have a mix of US normal grandiosity which is a deep trait of the United States. It was true during Bush Jr. Obama and Biden, but with Trump, it adds uh the usual US institutional grandiosity and militarism with a uh a personal level delusion of leaders. We know this through history. This is not for the first time. It is for the first time though in the nuclear age. We've never had uh a circumstance like this in the nuclear age. Uh and I would say the world is in a more dangerous situation than it is ever been period. You mentioned um the European response to this and uh well we see that Germany is trying to position itself as the number one supporter of Trump uh hoping almost explicitly that this obedience in Iran would be rewarded by with deeper US involvement in Ukraine war also for US to make no concessions towards peace in Ukraine. uh while UK and France are looking now to enter the war in a more direct way and this of course comes at the backdrop as Macron arguing that uh the reason why they need more nuclear weapons is because for France to be secure it has to be feared same as Europe they have to be feared this is the path to security right how how do you make sense of this this is very different than the peace project uh that you know I was uh teaching students only 15 20 years ago. >> Yeah, Europe has completely lost uh any uh any identity and any sense. I would say that just as the European uh as the UN is uh dying uh right now um the European Union project uh is not coming together uh in strategic autonomy. The European project is falling to pieces uh as a vassel of the United States. We have the weakest leadership in Europe uh in generations. again we have the the worst German leadership in particular and Germany is key to the European project. Uh if you think about uh German chancellors, I'd known uh several of them. Uh if you think about Billy Bront or uh Helmet Schmidt uh or Helmet Cole or Schroeder or Merkel. These were personalities. Uh they were also decent. uh they understood German interests, but they also understood uh the idea of Europe as uh a an aim of peace after uh centuries of European devastating war. Um the last two German chancellors have been uh out of uh this uh um approach. Schultz was simply the weakest uh chancellor, a complete non- entity. People said that the US had the goods on him so that he was suborned in one way or another. I don't I have no idea whether that's true. Uh, and uh, with Mertz, you get the idea that um, oh my god, you you get the idea that uh, this man wants a reversion to German militarism. I I could be less polite, but uh, when when you look at Mertz, you see somebody who seems to know nothing of modern history. He's belligerent, ignorant, uh a mix of fawning to the US on the one hand um and uh wararm mongering uh on the other hand, incoherent and uh not in Europe's interest or Germany's interest in the slightest. He doesn't understand his job. I'm sorry to say his job on the first day should have been to pick up the the phone and called his counterpart in Russia, President Putin, and begun to discuss uh this vital uh relationship between Germany and Russia to head off disaster uh and to rebuild some kind of collective security on the continent. He hasn't lifted the finger one time, hasn't even hasn't even crossed his mind that this is his job. So between Trump's madness uh and Europe's subservience, it's really uh an extraordinarily depressing scene. I was at the UN Security Council last week uh after Israel and the US attacked Iran uh and there were the German uh I'm sorry, not the German, the European ambassadors, excuse me, at the UN Security Council one after another on the day that the US and Iran on the day that the US and Israel had attacked Iran. All of them berating Iran. Most of them not mentioning the Israel US attack on Iran. You can't even believe, Glenn, how surrealistic it is. I was especially uh perturbed and beused by the Danish ambassador. Denmark is a country that will be invaded by the United States sometime soon with very very high likelihood. The US will declare that Greenland is America's because of national security. Watch that space. That is basically underway right now. So you might think that uh Denmark would have some notion that international law uh might be important because someday they're going to come crying to the world. Look how unfair uh Emperor Donald is to us. He's taking away our territory. But there was the Danish ambassador uh full out fulminating against Iran without mentioning the war that Israel and the United States had started against Iran. I went up to her afterwards to exchange my concern about this, but she looked at me and turned around and walked away. Uh they don't want to engage. they don't want to have the discussion. Um, but the pathetic nature of this is really something sad for Europe. Uh, to simply completely fall into line with American and Israeli madness is something that you wouldn't not have thought of Schumann or Monet or the other architects of Europe. people who knew what World War II had meant uh and who aimed to stop a World War III uh they would have behaved differently as would generations of leaders in Europe. Uh again whether it was Billy Bront or Helmet Cole or De Gal or Mitron uh you would have had a completely different idea a Europe that's Europe that is the error of thousands of years of civilization that knows something or two that has seen war and wants peace. But this is not at all what we see. We have Vanderlayan, we have Mertz. Uh you just can't make this up right now. Uh how this project has collapsed. And that's why we're in the early days of World War II because nobody has sense right now to say to Emperor Donald that this is not a good idea. Well, not only it's becoming more wararmongering though, but we also see as in many wars the the rule of law weakens. Uh and I want to ask how you see the rule of law and the division of power is being weakened because uh um again well unlike continental Europe the US has strong traditions on on you know democracy the division of power um and ask because democracy and freedom uh doesn't tend to farewell uh under a wars uh as we saw during the cold war this was not great either for liberalism and during times of external threats We see governments often develop very authoritarian tendencies and we had this now for more than a decade. That is we went from Russia gate to the Ukraine war. We had the we have the economic war with China. None of these things actually stop by the way. They just you know stack on top of each other and now of course the Middle East is set on fire. Uh under these conditions it one would expect that the rule of law would weaken. Certainly I see the case here in Europe as well. We we have the EU sanctioning u you know its own citizens. We have any disscent or criticism of the government's wars is essentially well then you stand with the enemy and you will be punished accordingly. But how do you see it in the United States though? Because u you know if if it's game over there on the rule of law then it doesn't uh bode well for Europe. I think in the United States uh foreign policy has been uh in the hands of the CIA as lead for many decades. Uh and CIA is convenient because it can be completely secret. Uh it uh is uh operating through a network of so-called intelligence agencies. These are not intelligence agencies. These are offthebook militaries. uh and this has been true for many decades. Uh especially if you are a the US government where the foreign policy is an imperial policy of uh regime choice and regime change. Trump just says out loud and in a crazier way I have to say what has been US policy. Trump because he is really uh what he is psychologically says that he will pick the next Supreme Leader of Iran. Okay, this is uh rather startling. Of course, I have to add, no European leader murmurss a word that this is at all strange, that this is a good way to have a war escalate and continue and on its way to getting us all killed. Not a single European leader scratches her head or his head to say, "Oh, that's our ally saying the weirdest goddamn things you could possibly imagine." No, they don't say that. But in any event, that mindset you might think is a little odd, but remember the CIA has always had that mindset. Uh, and in 1953, without public scrutiny, without explanation, uh, the US did choose who would lead Iran. They installed uh the uh uh police state that overthrew a democratic government in 1953 and the US backed that police state until 1979 when lo and behold the public revolted against it as that police state leader was dying of cancer. That's where the Iranian revolution came from in the first place in 1979. not out of the blue but out of a USimposed police state. Well, you look all over the world, including in Europe, the US imposes governments of choice. And that means that the rule of law in the United States when it comes to foreign policy has always been a veneer. I find it very notable. I think it's very important for historians and analysts to reflect on the famous farewell address of Dwight D. Eisenhower uh who was the supreme allied commander, the top general of the United States who became president uh from 19 January 1953 to January 1961. And in his farewell address of the 17th of January 1961, he warned famously of the military-industrial complex. We should understand that farewell message in in a different way. What Eisenhower was saying to the American people is it's already happened. This is already a military state. uh the institutions of government have already been fundamentally weakened. I think Glenn, and you know, not to take us too far aside, um but I think the evidence is quite overwhelming that the CIA killed Kennedy in 1963. And that's not meant as a, you know, flamboyant remark or as conspiracy theory or something else. It's meant in an explanatory way that no American president since Kennedy took on the uh security state. Uh Johnson reversed all of Kennedy's peace uh initiatives and every president since has essentially gone along with the uh agenda of the US security state, including nice people like Obama who came in and then presided over several regime change operations. And Obama thought, "Yes, I'll choose who leads Syria. I'll choose who leads Libya. They didn't put it that way. They had manners. Trump has no manners. Trump has grandiosity. But it was the same. Uh Obama and his deputy who's now my colleague Victoria Nuland and Hillary Clinton also my colleague at Columbia University. And I say it uh with interest. Um they decided who would lead uh Ukraine in February. Uh actually it's probably late January uh 2014. Victoria Nuland is uh picked up by the Russians on a phone call on an open line to the US ambassador talking literally about who would lead Ukraine and she picks a man in Yatsanuk who became the leader after the coup. Uh, so when Trump says, "I'll choose who the supreme leader is," it sounds outlandish, and it is, and it is a step of World War II, but it's also US behavior. Uh, it just is the usually unsaid part of US behavior. So, I'm unfortunately not very impressed with the so-called checks and balances of the US system uh or with the constitution. We've had a military state for decades. I often think that just as the Roman Republic became uh the Roman Empire and the US Republic has become the US empire. uh what is the actual date of that happening? I in the normal discourse, people point to the Roman history as a warning to the US. Don't let this happen. But I think it's quite arguable that not only has it happened, but that it happened several decades ago. And I wonder if we were in Rome in 27 BC uh when Augustus declared himself princes whether we would have felt that that was a dividing line. That's historians dividing line. But there was still the Senate. They still the senators still wore toggas. Uh there were still consoles. It looked like the Roman Republic institutions were still intact. And I I have a sense that this is the US situation that maybe the US Republic ended in November 1963 with Kennedy's assassination. Uh and since then we've been in the US Empire. I don't know. But I just raised the point to say that Trump is uh outlandish. He's he he has this dark triad personality of extreme machavelianism uh malignant narcissism and uh and psych psychopathy which we can see when he expresses absolute lack of interest in who's dying. There is no feeling there. So, we know that this is a very unusual psychological character, but he's on top of a machine that already existed. Well, on this issue though, this is the last question. The this insistence of choosing other leaders of other countries and uh the reluctance to find peaceful solutions with adversaries and primarily other rising powers be it Russia, China, Iran um To what extent do you think this is linked to the reluctance or the the unwillingness to see uh hedgeimonyy go away? Because the Europeans at least they they very much bought into the whole idea after the cold war about a world order based on the collective hedgeimonyy of the political west led by the US. But I remember this whole unipolar moment when it was introduced that as a concept by Charles Crowutamemer back in 1990. you know he just he framed as you know this is the distribution of power all power is in America but he was making a point as well in this article once um the world shifts to a more multipolar international distribution of power then we shift away as if this will be a rational uh decision that will be made but uh after 35 years of having this uh political class raised on the ideology that the dominance on perpetual hedgemony of the west would essentially be this you know democratic peace theory. It would destabilize the world. It would transcend the chaos of the past. So essentially the hedgeimonyy was yeah essentially humanity salvation after you had 35 years of politicians like this. Uh it you know there there won't be a peaceful transition to multiparity. Just do you see this as being the reluctance to even accept to have other powers to that the that the west won't dominate anymore? Why there's no alternative to plunging the world into World War II? Because uh you know this a lot of people criticize Marco Rubio at the Munich Security Conference, but I don't see this is essentially the logic I hear from political leaders across Europe as well. Well, not all but many. >> Well, I I think this is another case where this is a a profound uh process that has been underway actually for 80 years. The idea of multipolarity was both born and died in 1945 for the following basic reason. uh the brainchild of the United Nations uh was also the brainchild uh of uh the victory in uh in World War II. uh and that was Franklin Roosevelt who understood that he and Stalin and Churchill uh and uh with the Franklin Roosevelt's insistence Shankai who was head of a struggling and invaded China in the 1940s invaded by Japan of course um jointly had to operate uh to defeat Hitler. uh this was a collective enterprise. It was an enterprise of the United Nations, a term that was used early in World War II. And uh Roosevelt believed in the that unity uh that these uh nations together uh had to stick together to defeat Hitler and then afterwards to make the world safe. and he really believed in world peace and safety. Now on the ground uh the Soviet Union bore the brunt of defeating Hitler by far, losing 27 million people and being uh the the uh key to breaking uh Hitler's war machine. And Roosevelt knew that the United States played its particular role as the industrial backbone of the defeat of World War II, providing uh weapons, air airplanes, technologies, radar, and so forth. Uh that helped this. But the Soviet Union bore the brunt of the war. Roosevelt was absolutely intent and capable of cooperating with Stalin uh throughout the war, often pushing Churchill to the side. Uh Roosevelt wasn't much taken with the British Empire. Uh Roosevelt saw that major powers and that there really would be major powers after the war for in particular. uh the US, Britain, uh Russia and China. France was let in uh late in the day for tactical reasons. But the idea was that these countries would cooperate. Cooperate, not fight each other, not veto each other in the UN, but cooperate to help keep the global peace. And Roosevelt believed that lesser powers the rest of the world should have its place. And he was the opposite of US arrogance. He had that he introduced from the first moment he came in as president, the good neighbor policy towards the Americas. He said, "We've got to stop invading the Americas like Trump has done recently in Venezuela and is about to do in Cuba." So that's how the UN was born. just one problem. Roosevelt had uh untreated high blood pressure and he died on April 12th, 1945. And that was the end of uh the American multipolar vision because Truman, his successor, was a much lesser person, not experienced. FDR was a gifted individual also. and Truman bought in immediately to the idea that this is now a war with bullsheism. FDR wasn't much impressed with these labels. I have to say he was just a great pragmatist. Uh he didn't care who called what whom what labels, titles, ideologies. He was going to get along and he was going to get along and he was going to be practical. But already in the second half of 1945 uh and that's why the bomb was dropped twice on Japan to impress Mr. Stalin uh the US was now at war for global control. The idea of uh shared responsibilities was already out the window in the American mentality. And this was of course put most vividly in uh in NSC memo 68 in 1950 uh that this was going to be the US battling world communism for dominance. I say all of this, Glenn, because when the Soviet Union fell in 1991, the insanity of a country of 4% of the world population deciding it would run the world went into overdrive. And it went into overdrive and it's been in overdrive since 1991. uh the US has viewed itself and by US I mean the CIA uh the militaryindustrial digital complex uh the ones that uh make the war decisions that have brought us non-stop into war uh that allocate the trillions of dollars and so on they believe they run the world when China uh rose in power uh over several decades and and that noticed by the United States sometime around 2010. This freaked out these would be hegeminists. Now there's an enemy. Russia was dismissed as any way has been useless. Uh so not really to worry. So we don't have to listen to anything Russia says. Uh but the attention turned to China and we have to defeat China the same way. That's been the US foreign policy for the last 15 years. Just quickly, a couple Floy flies in the ointment. First, uh, all of this is delusional. That's the first starting point. The idea that the US runs the world, rules the world, dominates the world, can have its way is a madness. It's been a madness for decades. uh but it's been a repeated madness that leads to millions of deaths all over the world whether in Vietnam or across wars of the Middle East. Second, the misjudgment about Russia is the reason for the Ukraine war. The US never expected Russia to resist NATO enlargement. Uh never expected to be able to stand up to the United States for one moment. This is a both a denigration of Russia and a profoundly delusional exaggeration of American power. Both go hand in hand. But the war in Ukraine is fundamentally the result of an American delusion spelled out helpfully by big new Bjinsky in 1997 cuz he spelled out in the grand chessboard exactly what the delusion is and he concluded Russia could not resist the uh eastward enlargement of NATO and Europe. So that's uh and then the the other fly in the ointment is Israel. Israel is a crazy rogue state with the half its political leadership in the mindset of the fifth century BC. reading some text from King Josiah. Uh and there Israel has just plunged the world into probably the third world war but into a phenomenal economic crisis. This is the the timing the instigation is Israel's. Uh the fact that the US goes along with it is because it's completely coherent with the US hegemonic project. But this is Israel complete madness. And uh because of the hold of the Israel lobby in the United States, that madness isn't even examined. Excuse me. We had a have an ambassador in Israel. The US has an ambassador named Mike Huckabe who is a uh let's just say a minor uh Protestant evangelical theologian if I could put it that way, but that's a very polite way to put it. Uh and um he said two weeks ago, yes, Israel owns the land from the Nile to the Euphrates. And when Tucker Carlson asked him, excuse me, they own the land, could they take it? said, "Sure. Yeah, sure. They could take it." This is again uh what's sometimes called by psychologists or psychiatrists fully ad. Uh this is a craziness of Israel matched by a craziness of the United States. Israel wants to be the hegeimon from the Nile to the Euphrates or beyond. The United States wants to be the hegeimon of the world. Uh that's a long-standing project. And here we are uh in the early shooting of World War II unless unless somehow somebody stands up and stops the madness. The ones that are most likely to do it in the end uh are China and Russia uh because they are mature aware and not really uh so happy about this US hegemonic project. If India would recognize its own interests clearly it would also play a very major role in this. But India has signed on to the US project to some extent. Uh and it raises a big question. What is India thinking? Uh what are the Indian leaders thinking? They had the British Empire for a couple of centuries. It should have been enough. Uh they should have good instincts to know don't follow the US Empire in this kind of madness. >> Yeah. Well, I think u pragmatism as you say is what we need. In 2003, Condalisa Rice, she made the comment that the multipolarity. It's a she called it a theory, not the distribution of power about competing interest and competing values. So, she said no, no one should want this at all because uh this is uh you know, if you value freedom, you don't want to put a check on it. So, this is kind of the logic that is we need to have dominance. Without dominance, there can't be freedom. And I think this is uh the Europeans as well. We buy fully into this. When I listen to our politicians, journalists, this is why they're willing to go to war with Russia. They're willing to go to war with uh China. They're willing to go to war with Iran and burn down the world because uh otherwise there can't be freedom. This there has to be dominance. This is kind of the virtue of dominance that is selling it as freedom. Absolutely. And incidentally, you know, I've been thinking about this from the especially the Angloamerican mindset because Britain and the US have done the most to wreck things for a couple of centuries uh in this way. Um the mindset goes back uh to the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes uh who said that in the state of nature life is uh life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. And uh Hobbes said that to get out of the war of all against all you need a Leviathan, he called it. you need a uh a superior power. And that was his theory of national government uh that uh people would give up their sovereignty to kill each other, their their freedom to kill each other uh to a sovereign who would then keep order and everyone would be better off because they wouldn't be killing each other. Then you turn that logic to the global order. And the way that that is turned into the global order by the CIA or by MI6 or by these intelligence agencies in the west is to say well we don't have a supreme ruling uh Leviathan. So it is a war of all against all and we have to be brutally realistic. uh it's us or them. Uh and uh sometimes you have to strike first like uh Israel and the United States striking Iran. That's the mindset. But another part of the mindset is the United States says um we'll be the Leviathan. Thank you. Uh Britain was the Leviathan in the 19th century. The only way to be safe is if we are the Leviathan. In other words, there can only be one that runs the world and will be the one that runs the world. Now, uh there is another way in life, which is that you get along with each other. You make some common rules. You share the sandbox. We teach our five-year-olds uh to to do this. uh it's not impossible uh that you don't need one ruler of the world to have peace and this is what the American uh hegeminists or supremacists cannot understand but I think it's partly they're trapped at an emotional level maybe before age five I don't know uh they don't really see that there's another way that in a multipolar world we actually really could get along. We could make some rules of the road. We could have some cooperation. The one who understood that, as I said, in the United States was Franklin Roosevelt. Uh, another one who understood that more recently was John F. Kennedy and probably he died because he held that belief and he was killed from the inside because he held that belief. So, this is a tough struggle and we're in an extraordinarily dangerous moment in the world. uh were if this continues, if uh Mr. Trump continues uh to believe that he will pick Iran's next leader and that this is going for unconditional surrender, of course, things will then depend on military outcomes. But one real possibility is uh an economic crisis globally uh instigated by Israel and the United States, the likes of which we've not seen for a long times.