From: allin
US foreign policy is a complex and often controversial subject, debated by leading thinkers like Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Professor Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University [00:00:48]. They discuss the underlying logic, incentives, and philosophical underpinnings of American global engagement, often arriving at differing conclusions on specific issues while agreeing on broader dynamics.
The “Deep State” and US Foreign Policy Consensus
The apparent bipartisan consensus in US foreign policy, exemplified by figures like Dick Cheney endorsing Kamala Harris, suggests a “deep state” party [00:01:11]. Jeffrey Sachs identifies this as a consistent force, naming Victoria Nuland as the “face of all of this” [00:01:46]. Nuland has served in multiple administrations for 30 years, allegedly influencing policies such as “wrecking our policies towards Russia in the 1990s,” contributing to NATO enlargement during the Bush Jr. administration, and instigating a coup in Ukraine in February 2014, which “started a war” [00:01:50]. John Mearsheimer refers to the Republican and Democratic parties as “Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum” due to their similar foreign policy stances [00:02:55].
Former President Trump attempted to “beat back the deep state” and pursue a different foreign policy but “basically failed” [00:03:09]. He has vowed to try again if elected, but experts question his ability to overcome this entrenched system [00:03:23].
Defining the “Deep State”
The “deep state” is largely understood as the administrative state [00:04:17]. Since the late 19th/early 20th century, Western countries, including the United States, developed powerful central states to manage their economies [00:04:22]. After World War II, the US became globally involved, necessitating an even more powerful administrative state to manage foreign policy [00:04:45]. High-level bureaucrats in institutions like the Pentagon, State Department, and intelligence community develop a vested interest in a particular foreign policy, one generally aligned with both major parties [00:05:02].
Vladimir Putin’s observation in 2017 highlights this phenomenon: presidents come into office with ideas, but then “the men in the dark suits and the blue ties” explain “the way the world really is,” leading to the abandonment of original ideas [00:05:48]. This perspective suggests a consistent foreign policy approach over the last 30 years, regardless of who occupies the White House [00:06:42]. Even when Trump hired John Bolton, a “pretty deep state” figure, his ideas were reportedly subverted [00:06:50].
Incentives and Philosophy of US Foreign Policy
The core incentive driving this consistent foreign policy is often debated: is it war, self-enrichment, power, or philosophical conviction [00:07:10]?
According to Mearsheimer, the driving force is to “maximize power” and achieve “Global hegemon[y]” [00:07:41]. He argues that those who favor this foreign policy genuinely believe it’s the “right thing” [00:09:06]. This conviction stems from the belief that the United States, as a “fundamentally liberal country,” has a right, responsibility, and power to “remake the world in America’s image” [00:09:22]. This liberal internationalism, especially since the Cold War, aims to spread democracy, believing it reduces conflict [00:10:09].
However, Mearsheimer critiques this approach, arguing that imposing liberal democracy, especially by force, is “almost impossible,” “almost always backfires” (e.g., Iraq, Afghanistan), and can “erode liberalism in the United States” by building a “deep state” that cracks down on freedoms like speech [00:10:51].
Sachs counters this, stating that from his 40 years of experience overseas, the US government “doesn’t give a damn about these other places” or whether they are democracies or dictatorships [00:11:50]. Instead, he claims the focus is solely on power: securing “right of ways,” military bases, and support for US interests, such as NATO enlargement [00:11:58]. He cites the lack of engagement with Afghan economists by the State Department as evidence of disinterest in genuine state-building [00:12:38]. Sachs concludes that US actions are “about power,” and the justification is often cynical, as seen in interventions in Libya and Syria [00:13:01].
US Foreign Policy in a Multi-Polar World
The question arises whether “free countries of the world uniting together to stop dictators from invading other free countries” is a noble use of power [00:14:04].
Mearsheimer argues that the United States should primarily “worry about its own National interest” and may align with dictators if necessary, as seen in the alliance with Joseph Stalin against Nazi Germany in World War II [00:14:19]. He warns against the “impulse to do social engineering around the world,” which leads to problems [00:14:57].
Sachs reinforces that US interventions are usually power-driven, not genuinely defensive [00:15:52]. He asserts that the Ukraine-Russia conflict, for example, is not simply about Putin invading Ukraine but relates to “American power projection into the former Soviet Union” [00:16:21]. He criticizes the cynical justifications for US actions, such as “defending the people of Benghazi” to bomb Libya and overthrow Muammar Gaddafi, leading to “15 years of chaos” [00:16:59]. He advocates for using the UN Security Council for genuine collective security, as “the other countries are not crazy and they don’t want mayhem in the world” [00:18:33].
US Relations with Russia and China
The discussion highlights significant differences in views on US foreign policy and military spending towards major powers:
- Russia: Mearsheimer believes Russia is “not a serious threat to the United States” and that the US should have good relations with Putin to prevent pushing Russia into China’s arms [00:20:26]. He views Russia as the weakest of the three great powers (US, China, Russia) [00:20:40]. Getting “bogged down in Ukraine and now bogged down in the Middle East” hinders the US pivot to Asia to deal with China [00:21:13].
- China: Mearsheimer is “fully in favor of containing China,” but not interested in regime change [00:20:04]. He sees China as a “peer competitor” and the “most serious threat” to the United States [00:20:45].
- Sachs, conversely, argues that China is “not a threat” but a “market” with “great food, great culture, wonderful people, a civilization 10 times older than ours” [00:21:49]. From an economic perspective, a cold or hot conflict with China would “wreck California” and destroy economies that have benefited from China’s rise [00:22:11]. He stresses that the current US-China conflict is due to a deliberate US policy to contain China, not self-inflicted wounds by China [00:40:52]. This policy has led to the US closing its market to China, which Sachs deems “not smart” and ineffective in recuperating American manufacturing jobs [00:41:40].
Security vs. Prosperity: Competing Worldviews
The fundamental disagreement on China stems from different priorities: security (survival) versus prosperity [00:24:15].
- Mearsheimer (Realist): In an anarchic international system with “no higher authority,” states must prioritize survival by maximizing power [00:24:34]. The United States is a “regional hegemon” in the Western Hemisphere [00:25:06]. As China translates economic power into military might to dominate Asia, this becomes “unacceptable” for the US, which “do[es] not tolerate peer competitors” [00:25:14]. Historically, the US played a key role in dismantling potential regional hegemons like Imperial Germany, Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union [00:25:59]. This leads to intense security competition in all domains, including high-tech [00:26:28]. Mearsheimer believes this path is inevitable due to the nature of international politics, an “iron cage” where states must seek power to ensure survival [00:45:38]. While security competition is inevitable, he hopes war can be avoided, as it was during the Cold War [00:46:10].
- Sachs: While agreeing that the US pursues power, Sachs believes Mearsheimer’s analysis describes a “profoundly misguided approach” that risks global nuclear war [00:42:43]. He argues that China is not a threat to US security due to “big oceans [and] big nuclear deterrent” [00:28:13]. The only threat to the United States is “nuclear war,” driven by a mindset that sees everything as a challenge for survival and favors escalation [00:28:33]. Sachs advocates for “prudence” to save the planet, arguing against NATO enlargement to Russia’s border with Ukraine [00:28:53]. He warns against provoking World War III over Taiwan, advocating for respecting existing agreements with China [00:31:19]. Sachs also believes that security “doesn’t have to be a zero sum game” and calls for avoiding “choke points” that provoke other powers [00:38:40]. He believes the US has entered a “direct war with Russia,” a nuclear power, which he calls “imbecilic” [00:43:35].
US Engagement in the Middle East
The potential for escalation in the Middle East, particularly concerning Israel-Palestine, is a concern [00:46:45].
Sachs points out that international law, repeatedly affirmed by bodies like the International Court of Justice, supports a two-state solution based on the June 4, 1967 borders, with a Palestinian state and East Jerusalem as its capital [00:48:08]. He argues that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal and that Israel is likely in violation of the 1948 genocide convention [00:48:41]. Sachs advocates for the “enforcement of international law” and attributes the lack of peace to the United States and the Israel Lobby [00:49:49].
Mearsheimer downplays the risk of immediate regional escalation from a West Bank collapse, stating that Jordan, Egypt, or Saudi Arabia lack the “military capability” to intervene against Israeli dominance [00:50:48]. However, he identifies Iran as the “really dangerous flashpoint” due to its alliances with Russia and China [00:51:08]. He notes that if Israel engages in a war with Iran, the US would likely be drawn in [00:51:57]. Mearsheimer suggests that Israel, particularly Benjamin Netanyahu, has been trying to “suck us into a war” with Iran to weaken its military and nuclear capabilities [00:52:51]. The key question is whether the United States and Iran can work together to prevent Israel from initiating such a conflict [00:53:19].