TEHRAN - In the wake of the unprecedented joint military aggression by Israel and the United States against Iran, international observers have turned their attention to the deeper motivations behind the attack, its geopolitical implications, and the broader trajectory of U.S. policy in the Middle East.

In an exclusive interview with the Tehran Times, Professor Jeffrey D. Sachs offers a comprehensive analysis of the historical context and strategic objectives driving the assault.

Sachs’s insight provides a compelling framework for understanding the recent developments in the region.

In this in-depth interview, Professor Sachs emphasizes several key themes: Israel’s long-standing objective of regime change in Iran, the broader U.S.-Israeli strategy for regional dominance, and the rejection of a two-state solution.

Saches, one of the world’s leading economists and political analysts teaching at Columbia University discusses the historical roots of this policy, including the 1996 “Clean Break” doctrine, and highlights the failure of diplomacy due to U.S. and Israeli obstruction. 

Sachs critiques the role of U.S. domestic politics and media in shaping public perception and calls for global action to recognize Palestine as a UN member state and uphold international law.

The following is the text of the interview: 

Question: What are the main strategic motives of the U.S. and Israel in attacking Iran?  How do these motives align with the broader history of U.S. policy in the Middle East?

Answer: The core idea of Israel’s attack is regime change in Iran.  Israel seeks to be the region’s dominant power, without serious military competition and without allowing a State of Palestine alongside Israel based on the two-state solution.  Israel, in short, seeks to annex all of Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem, as well as parts of other neighboring countries, such as Syria.  

In 1996, Netanyahu came to office with a political strategy called the Clean Break.  This meant that there would be no “land for peace” (that is, no two-state solution), and that Israel, with U.S. military support, would overthrow governments in the Middle East that support Palestinian resistance to Israel’s dominance of the occupied territories.  This has led to the Israeli-U.S. wars in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and now Iran.   

All the major powers of the region should together make the call for a comprehensive peace deal based on Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy, the two-state solution, collective security for all nations, and an immediate end to Israel’s genocidal and militaristic behavior.  

Q: You have argued that Israel is seeking regime change in Iran and opposes a Palestinian state. How effective and risky is this strategy for regional stability?

A: There can be no peace or justice in the region except through the two-state solution.  The basic fact is that there are (roughly) 8 million Jews and 8 million Palestinian Arabs in Israel and the occupied territories.

The only practical approach to avoid unconscionable disaster is the two-state solution, based on international law, and with Palestine being admitted to the UN as the 194th member state on the borders of 4 June 1967, and with its capital in East Jerusalem and its control over the Muslim Holy Sites.  

More than 180 countries in the UN (out of 193), with around 95% of the world’s population, support the two-state approach, and so it can be implemented with global support.  Israel will not agree to it, so the two-state solution should be imposed by the UN Security Council as part of a comprehensive peace deal that makes the Middle East and Western Asia safe for all countries, including, of course, Iran.  

The UN Security Council should act this way in accordance with international law and in accord with the UNSC’s responsibilities to keep the peace, including ending the slaughter by Israel in Gaza and the West Bank. 

The U.S. has so far vetoed this obvious and just solution, acting instead on behalf of Israel’s extremist government.  The key now is for the 180-plus countries to tell the U.S., clearly and unequivocally, that there is no other path to peace than a State of Palestine admitted now to the UN.

The only alternative is continued illegality, bloodshed, and war, with U.S. complicity that will undermine America’s own security and well-being.  
 
“The governments of the U.S. and Israel also witnessed Iran’s ability to retaliate and do serious damage to Israel in response to Israel’s brazen attack.”  Q: How do internal political divisions in the U.S. affect its capacity and decisions regarding military engagement with Iran?

A: U.S. politics has been completely supportive of Israel’s extremist position for decades.  The Israel Lobby is very real, yet it is not well understood.  For example, around 45% of Donald Trump’s vote in 2024 came from Evangelical Christian Zionists (Christians who are arch supporters of Israel).

So, the Israel Lobby in the U.S. draws upon far more Christian votes than Jewish votes, a point often overlooked.  Modern Zionism began in Britain in the first half of the 19th century as a project of British Evangelical Protestant Christians!  And many of those Christian Zionists were antisemitic.  This is strange but true!  

Q: You have stated that Iran does not seek nuclear weapons and has allowed inspections. Why is this narrative often ignored or distorted by Western officials and media?

A: All Western foreign policy, perhaps especially U.S. and British foreign policy, is justified to the broad public using propaganda, not truth.  The polite word for propaganda is “narrative,” but the real meaning of “narrative” is public relations, selling foreign policy like cheap and deceptive advertising.  The mass media follow the government’s lead, and the U.S. government lies relentlessly to the public.  

“Israel and the U.S. killed the JCPOA.  This is very much part of the divide and conquer strategy.”  Q: Why have diplomatic efforts, including the JCPOA, failed to prevent escalation?

A: The key to U.S. power is the old tactic of “Divide and Conquer.”  Rather than aiming for a just peace settlement in the Middle East, the U.S. aims to divide the Muslim world.  The U.S. has pitted Iran against the Arab countries, and also repeatedly divided the Arab countries among themselves.  The U.S. plays Turkey against the Arabs against Iran, and so forth.  The Abraham Accords aim to divide the Arab world in order to avoid a State of Palestine and the implementation of the two-state solution.  

Israel and the U.S. killed the JCPOA.  This is very much part of the divide and conquer strategy.  According to Israel, it is better for the U.S. to overthrow the Iranian government than make peace with it. Israel seeks to end all sources of support for Palestine.  

The solution for the countries of the region is for Iran to work closely with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, and with the support of the BRICS group (including Brazil, Russia, China, Indonesia, and others) to insist firmly and unequivocally to the U.S. government that there is no other way to peace than admitting Palestine to the UN, and at the very start of peace, not at the end of some phony “peace process” that never delivers peace.    

The U.S. and Israel dream of bringing Saudi Arabia into the Abraham Accords, thereby killing forever the possibility of a State of Palestine.  Saudi Arabia has been clear and strong: peace depends on the State of Palestine as a UN member state.  

All the major powers of the region – Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey -- should together make the call for a comprehensive peace deal based on Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy, the two-state solution starting with Palestine’s admission to the UN as 194th member state, collective security for all nations, and an immediate end to Israel’s genocidal and militaristic behavior.  

“The U.S. and Israel dream of bringing Saudi Arabia into the Abraham Accords, thereby killing forever the possibility of a State of Palestine.”  Q: What role have the U.S. and Israel played in undermining these diplomatic channels?

A: They have played an overwhelming role in killing the peace process.  This has been going on for decades.  

Q: You have suggested that U.S. global dominance is waning. How does the confrontation with Iran reflect this shift? What might a new multipolar international order look like?

A: The U.S. did not want another prolonged war and can’t afford one.  The broad public and Trump’s voter base are strongly against the U.S. engaging in more wars in the Middle East.  The governments of the U.S. and Israel also witnessed Iran’s ability to retaliate and do serious damage to Israel in response to Israel’s brazen attack.  

The U.S. is a bully, but it is not all-powerful.  Almost all the world’s nations, more than 180, want peace in the Middle East based on collective security – including Iran’s – and based on the two-state solution, as opposed to Israel’s unjust continued rule over the Palestinian people.

Israel is now widely regarded around the world as a rogue state because of its murderous behavior. This opens the way to true global diplomacy, in which the UN member states insist firmly and irresistibly on peace, justice, and the international rule of law, and push the U.S. finally to end its long complicity in Israel’s illegal and brutal behavior.