Joshua Scheer
For weeks, the world stood on the edge of a wider regional war as the United States and Israel launched attacks on Iran, threatening to ignite a conflict that could engulf the Middle East and destabilize the global economy. Now, with Washington announcing that a deal has been reached with Tehran, the question is no longer whether the fighting will continue—but whether this agreement represents genuine peace or merely a temporary pause before the next crisis.
In this conversation with Glenn Diesen, economist and geopolitical analyst Jeffrey Sachs argues that the war achieved none of its stated objectives. Rather than demonstrating American or Israeli strength, Sachs contends the conflict exposed the limits of military power, accelerated the decline of U.S. global dominance, and left all sides weakened. While reports suggest the agreement could reopen the Strait of Hormuz, ease sanctions, and restart negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, Sachs warns that the deal remains fragile, its details unclear, and its success far from guaranteed—especially with Israel remaining outside the formal framework.
More broadly, Sachs sees the conflict as part of a larger historical turning point. From Ukraine to Iran to China, he argues that Washington is confronting a reality it has long resisted: the unipolar moment is over. The United States can still inflict enormous damage, but it can no longer dictate outcomes across Eurasia through military force alone. Whether this agreement marks the beginning of a more diplomatic era or simply another pause in a cycle of escalation remains an open question. What is clear, Sachs argues, is that the assumptions that guided American foreign policy for the last three decades are increasingly colliding with reality.
Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen: Substack: https://glenndiesen.substack.com/ X/Twitter: https://x.com/Glenn_Diesen Patreon: / glenndiesen
Jeffrey Sachs: The Iran War Failed. Now Comes the Real Test.
The announcement that Washington and Tehran have reached an agreement has been greeted with a mixture of relief, skepticism, and confusion. After months of escalating tensions, direct military confrontation, and fears of a wider regional war, the prospect of diplomacy returning to center stage is undeniably significant.
But according to economist and geopolitical analyst Jeffrey Sachs, the most important lesson from the conflict is not what the deal contains. It is what the war itself revealed.
Speaking with political scientist Glenn Diesen, Sachs argued that the conflict was a strategic disaster that achieved none of its stated objectives while exposing the limits of American and Israeli power.
“This war accomplished absolutely nothing,” Sachs said. “It was useless. It was stupid. It killed a lot of people. It created a lot of harm.”
A Fragile Agreement
The details of the agreement remain unclear.
According to reports cited during the discussion, the deal appears to involve a ceasefire, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping, and a 60-day negotiating process focused on Iran’s nuclear program. There are also reports that the United States could unfreeze billions of dollars in Iranian assets and ease some sanctions.
Yet Sachs repeatedly emphasized that much remains unknown.
Israel, notably, does not appear to be a formal party to the agreement. That omission may prove crucial.
If previous ceasefires and diplomatic efforts are any guide, Sachs warned, Israel could attempt to undermine the agreement through continued military operations in Lebanon or other actions designed to reignite hostilities.
“The agreement is extremely fragile,” he cautioned.
While many observers predict the arrangement could collapse quickly, Sachs stopped short of making that claim. Both Washington and Tehran, he argued, have compelling reasons to avoid renewed fighting.
The question is whether outside actors will allow the agreement to survive.
The War That Changed Nothing
Perhaps Sachs’ most striking argument was that the conflict produced no meaningful strategic gains for either side.
The war was initially framed by supporters as an effort to weaken Iran, halt its regional influence, and potentially force political change in Tehran.
None of those goals were achieved.
Instead, Iran absorbed significant damage while maintaining its political system and strategic position. Israel suffered growing international isolation. The United States spent enormous resources and further eroded its credibility abroad.
Wars often produce winners and losers. Sachs suggested this conflict produced only losers.
“It was a lose-lose war,” he said.
Iran suffered thousands of casualties and extensive economic damage. Israel’s global standing deteriorated further amid widespread criticism of its military actions. The United States demonstrated that even overwhelming military power cannot easily impose political outcomes on a determined adversary.
The result, Sachs argued, was a costly exercise in destruction without any corresponding political achievement.
The End of the Unipolar Illusion
Beyond the immediate conflict, Sachs sees the war as evidence of a much larger historical shift.
For more than three decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, American foreign policy operated on the assumption that the United States was the world’s uncontested power. Policymakers spoke openly about a “unipolar moment” in which Washington could shape outcomes across the globe.
That era, Sachs argues, is ending.
The Ukraine war, tensions with China, and now the confrontation with Iran all point toward the same conclusion: the United States remains powerful, but it can no longer dictate outcomes through military force.
“The United States is certainly not the world hegemon,” Sachs said.
He pointed to the growing alignment among China, Russia, and Iran as evidence that attempts to isolate adversaries have often produced the opposite effect.
Rather than dividing rivals, American pressure has encouraged them to cooperate more closely.
This trend directly contradicts the geopolitical vision outlined by strategists such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, who argued that maintaining American primacy required preventing the emergence of a Eurasian bloc capable of challenging U.S. dominance.
Today, Sachs noted, that bloc is increasingly taking shape.
Military Power Has Limits
A central theme of the discussion was the gap between military capability and political success.
Washington still possesses unmatched military resources. Yet recent conflicts have demonstrated that those resources do not automatically translate into strategic victories.
The United States could not impose its preferred outcome in Ukraine. It could not force Iran to capitulate. And it remains highly unlikely that it could compel China to accept American demands through military pressure.
This reality, Sachs suggested, is gradually forcing a reassessment inside Washington.
The issue is not whether the United States remains powerful. It clearly does.
The issue is whether that power is sufficient to sustain the ambitions of a global empire.
The answer increasingly appears to be no.
The Myth of Technological Dominance
Another assumption challenged by the war is the belief that Western technological superiority guarantees geopolitical dominance.
For decades, American policymakers assumed that advanced technology would provide a decisive edge over rivals.
Sachs argues that this assumption is becoming obsolete.
China now competes with or surpasses the United States in several technological sectors. Russia has demonstrated advanced military capabilities that many Western analysts underestimated. Iran, despite decades of sanctions and isolation, has developed sophisticated missile and drone systems capable of imposing real costs on its adversaries.
Technology is no longer concentrated in a handful of Western capitals.
“There are a lot of smart people in a lot of places,” Sachs observed.
That diffusion of technological capability has altered the global balance of power and made traditional forms of military coercion far less effective.
A Warning for Washington
Perhaps the most significant takeaway from Sachs’ analysis is that the agreement with Iran may represent more than a temporary ceasefire.
It could also signal the gradual recognition that the world has changed.
For decades, American foreign policy has relied on sanctions, military interventions, covert operations, and economic pressure to maintain global influence.
The Iran conflict demonstrated the limits of that approach.
Whether Washington learns that lesson remains uncertain.
Sachs is hardly optimistic about the immediate future. He describes American foreign policy as increasingly driven by short-term calculations, militarized thinking, and what he bluntly calls a “gangster mentality.”
Yet even empires, he noted, eventually encounter limits.
The Roman Empire eventually stopped expanding because it could no longer sustain endless conquest. Modern America may be confronting a similar reality.
The question now is whether policymakers adapt to that reality through diplomacy and cooperation—or continue pursuing strategies that have repeatedly failed.
For the moment, the guns may be falling silent.
Whether that silence marks the beginning of peace or merely the pause before another conflict remains to be seen.
Editor’s Note: At a moment when the once vaunted model of responsible journalism is overwhelmingly the play thing of self-serving billionaires and their corporate scribes, alternatives of integrity are desperately needed, and ScheerPost is one of them. Please support our independent journalism by contributing to our online donation platform, Network for Good, or send a check to our new PO Box. We can’t thank you enough, and promise to keep bringing you this kind of vital news.
You can also make a donation to our PayPal or subscribe to our Patreon.