It’s a long shot but here are five steps to stop this war, which could easily turn into a global conflagration, effectively into World War III, write Jeffrey Sachs and Sybil Fares.
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, with President Donald Trump during a meeting on Gaza, Sept. 29, 2025, in the Oval Office. (White House /Daniel Took)
By Jeffrey D. Sachs and Sybil Fares
Common Dreams
The Israel-U.S. war on Iran is engulfing the entire Middle East and could escalate to global war.
The economic consequences are already severe and could become catastrophic. The Strait of Hormuz carries approximately one-fifth of all oil traded globally, and 30 percent of the world’s liquefied natural gas (LNG).
A sustained closure of the Strait would trigger an energy shock without modern precedent.
The conflict is likely to spiral out of control because the U.S. and Israel are dead set on hegemony in the Arab world and West Asia – one that combines Israeli territorial expansion with American-backed regime control across the region.
The ultimate goal is a Greater Israel that absorbs all historic Palestine, combined with compliant Arab and Islamic governments stripped of genuine sovereignty, including on choices as to how and where they export their oil and gas.
This is delusional. No country across the region wants Israel to run wild as it is doing, murdering civilians across the entire region, destroying Gaza and the West Bank, invading Lebanon, striking Iraq and Yemen, and carpet-bombing Tehran.
No country wants its hydrocarbon exports under effective U.S. control. The war will end if and only if global revulsion at U.S. and Israeli aggression force these countries to stop.
Short of that, we are likely to see the Middle East in flames and the world in an energy and economic crisis unprecedented in modern history. The war could easily turn into a global conflagration, effectively into World War III.
Yet, there exists an alternative.
The war could stop on rational grounds if Israel and the U.S. are decisively called to account by the rest of the world.
Ending the war requires a set of interlinked steps to provide basic security for all parties, and indeed for the world.
Iran needs a permanent end to the U.S.-Israel aggression. The Gulf countries need an end to Iran’s retaliatory strikes.
The Palestinians need an independent state. Israel needs lasting security and the disarmament of Hamas and Hezbollah. The whole world needs the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, and international monitoring of Iran’s nuclear program to ensure it abides by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, as Iran says it wants to do.
And all countries want, or should want, real sovereignty for themselves and their region.
Collective security could be achieved in five interconnected measures.
First, the U.S. and Israel would immediately end their armed aggression across the entire region and withdraw their forces.
Second, Iran would stop its retaliatory strikes across the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and resubmit to monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) under a revised Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which President Trump recklessly abandoned in 2018.
Third, the Strait of Hormuz would reopen with mutual agreement of Iran and the GCC.
Fourth, the two-state solution would be immediately implemented by admitting Palestine as a full member state of the U.N.
Israel would be required to end its occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem and to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and Syria.
Fifth, the U.N. recognition of the State of Palestine would form the basis for a comprehensive regional disarmament of all non-state actors, verified under international monitoring. The end result would be a return to international law and the U.N. Charter.
Israeli Settlers vandalizing Palestinian property, Shikara bedouin encampment east of Douma, Nablus, on March 3. (Douma Village Council/Wikimedia Commons/CC BY 4.0)
Who would win in this plan?
The people of the region, of Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and the rest of the world. Who would lose?
Only the backers of Greater Israel, led by Benjamin Netanyahu, Itamar Ben-Gvir, Bezalel Smotrich, and Mike Huckabee, who have brought the world to the brink of destruction.
Here are the five steps in more detail.
First: End the U.S.-Israeli Armed Aggression
Israel and the U.S. would stop their aggression and withdraw their forces. In turn, Iran would cease its retaliatory strikes. This would not be a mere ceasefire. Rather, it would be the first step of an overall peace agreement and collective security arrangement.
Second: Return to the JCPOA
IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi meeting with IAEA representatives LI Song of China, HE Reza Najafi of Iran and Mikhail Ulyanov of Russia about Iran’s nuclear program, April 24, 2025. (Dean Calma / IAEA/Flickr/CC BY 2.0)
The nuclear question would be resolved through strict monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency, not through bombing campaigns that merely put Iran’s enriched uranium beyond international monitoring.
The U.N. Security Council would immediately reinstate the basic framework of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), under which Iran must strictly comply with IAEA monitoring and agreed limits on its nuclear program, while economic sanctions on Iran would be lifted.
Third: Reopen the Strait of Hormuz in an Iran-GCC Framework
The Strait of Hormuz would be quickly reopened, with safe passage jointly guaranteed by Iran and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). The GCC countries would assert sovereignty over the military bases in their countries to ensure that the bases would not be used as launchpads for renewed offensive strikes against Iran. [Emphasis added: CN]
Fourth: The Two-State Solution
The two-state solution would be implemented, by admitting Palestine into the U.N. as the 194th permanent member state. This requires nothing more than the U.S. lifting its veto.
Palestinian statehood is in accord with international law and with the Arab Peace Initiative, which has been on the table since 2002. In turn, the countries in the region would establish diplomatic relations with Israel, and the U.N. Security Council would introduce peacekeepers to ensure the security of both Palestine and Israel.
Fifth: An End to Armed Belligerency
In conjunction with the two-state solution, all armed belligerency in the region would end forthwith, including the disarmament of Hamas, Hezbollah and other armed non-state actors.
In the case of Palestine, the disarmament of Hamas would underpin the authority of the Palestinian state. In the case of Lebanon, the disarmament of Hezbollah would restore Lebanon’s full sovereignty, with the Lebanese Armed Forces as the sole military authority in the country.
The disarmament would be verified by international monitors and guaranteed by the U.N. Security Council.
The key point is that the Israel-U.S. war on Iran has not occurred in a vacuum.
The Clean Break strategy, developed by Netanyahu and his American neocon backers in 1996, and implemented since then, calls for Israel to establish hegemony in the region through wars of regime change, with the U.S. as the implementing partner.
As NATO Supreme Commander Wesley Clark revealed after 9/11, the U.S. drew up plans a quarter century ago to overthrow governments in seven countries: “starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”
We are therefore living through the culmination of a long-standing plan by Israel and the U.S. to dominate the Arab world and West Asia, create a Greater Israel, and permanently block Palestinian statehood.
We are not optimistic about the likelihood of our plan.
The Israeli government is murderous and Trump is delusional about U.S. power.
We are perhaps already in the early days of WWIII. Yet because the stakes are so high, it’s worth laying out real solutions even if they are long shots.
We do believe, however, that the non-Western world — the part that is not vassal states to U.S. power — understands the urgency of peace and security.
Country leaders at the 17th BRICS Summit in Rio de Janeiro on July 6, 2025. (Prime Minister’s Office /Wikimedia Commons/GODL-India)
Who, then, could champion a peace plan that the U.S. and Israel will resist with every means at their disposal, until the weight of global opposition and economic catastrophe leaves them no choice but to accept it?
There is one main group, and that is the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) nations.
Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and the bloc’s expanded membership, which now includes the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, and Indonesia, represent approximately half of the world’s population and more than 40 percent of global gross domestic product (GDP) (compared to 28 percent for the vaunted but overblown G7 countries).
The BRICS have the credibility, the economic weight, and the absence of the historical complicity in Middle East imperialism to bring the world to its senses.
The BRICS should convene an emergency summit and present a unified framework incorporating the conditions for peace and security, which in turn would be pressed at the U.N. Security Council.
There, world opinion would tell the U.S. and Israel to stop pushing the world towards catastrophe and would remind all countries to adhere to the U.N. Charter.
Jeffrey D. Sachs is a university professor and director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, where he directed The Earth Institute from 2002 until 2016. He is also president of the U.N. Sustainable Development Solutions Network and a commissioner of the U.N. Broadband Commission for Development.
Sybil Fares is a specialist and adviser in Middle East policy and sustainable development at SDSN.
This article is from Common Dreams
Views expressed in this article and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.
Sachs is of course a force for good and a towering intellect but I’m afraid this is claptrap. What would cause point one to come about? It all just magically comes to a halt? Nonsense. What is required is a UN resolution (passed only by majority but binding on all states, no vetos) implementing total import bans on US and Israeli goods by all countries including petroleum. Personal financial sanctions (the equivalent of OFAC) and travel bans on all leaders of those countries. All oil producing countries including Iran and Russia agree to produce to the max. The straights are opened. A neutral mediator is appointed. Then point one and the rest can follow.
I’d add another condition to that list – the denuclearisation of Israel, or at the very least, a major reduction of its nuclear arsenal, to then be placed [like Iran] under the scrutiny and monitoring of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Iran needs more than these actions; it needs a reliable counterweight to the nuclear threat from Israel. As long as Israel’s nuclear arsenal is outside the visibility and control of the international community, it poses a major threat to all of its Middle Eastern neighbours, not just Iran.
IAEA – Israeli Agency Enabling Aggression.
I’ve pretty much stopped watching Jeffrey Sachs because he still appears to believe a two state solution is possible. This is simply delusional; it makes one wonder if he’s ever heard any Israelis speak. (I shouldn’t have to tell him that it’s not just Israel’s leaders who long for “Greater Israel,” for God’s sake.) There are too many other, more reality-based commentators out there for anyone to waste time on Sachs anymore.
Mr. Sachs neglects to include in his suggestions that Israel must be open to inspection and removal of all nuclear weapons and then to be subjected to the same IAEA monitoring as Iran to make sure that they are never able to develop them again.
Iran shouldn’t stop until they have completely obliterated IsraHell. They need to prevent IsraHell, the capability of continuing to attack its neighbors. They don’t want to keep having to deal with these illegal wars of aggression. Finish the job!
Several years ago North Korea was a problem verging on war. They developed nuclear warheads and the missiles to fire them. Now there is no problem.
30 years ago we were told Iran was two weeks from having nuclear weapons. A story repeated often since then. Iran never built its bomb and now we have war.
If you really want to stop this war begin that by saying Iran has as much right to nuclear weapons as any of the nine other countries which already have them.
IIRC, shortly after the 2025 aggression by the USA and its 51st state, the head of North Korea said “I told you so.” to the Iranians.
BTW, those countries that have nuclear weapons all signed a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty where they solemnly promised to get rid of them. For the original five signers, that agreement went into effect some 56 years ago. That was a part of the deal along with other nations being barred from proliferation. It was an overall plan for a future without nuclear weapons.
Typical for Americans to keep only the part of a deal that is in their benefit. Instead, America has spent billions in this century on a bi-partisan effort to make nuclear weapons more “usable.”
And we won’t even mention the unmentionable Israeli nukes, and certainly not in an American cease-fire proposal.
The u.s.- “elites”, including the zionists of course, have been showing numberless times and for decades already, that they are indeed agreement incapable.
Last two times the administration of Iran was negotiating an agreement with them, there were suddenly attacked and many of their people where and are brutally murdered.
How can you negotiate with mass murderers?
They belong in a court to be judged!
Lock Them Up!
But there is no honor among corporate cannibals. And how does one boycott the military industrial complex? An alternative society is required, but that takes a long time. In the past, Co-ops seemed to be part of the answer; I joined, but the shelves were mostly bare, and most thought of it as a form of socialism. Amazon found a way to cannibalize the traditional model, digest the competition while retaining the sacrosanct capitalistic image. Boycotting Amazon would make all participants enemies of the evolved economy. There remains the virtue of calling out the corporate sinners and laying their sins out for everyone to see. That brings attention to the issue of human morality, which becomes corporate within the frame of all we know as human, and without which all human life loses value. In the eyes of the powerful, those devalued, those marginalized, become good only as sacrificial offerings to the high gods of hegemonic power. Not to call the sinners out, not to resist their seductive lies, portends a hollow, existence, existence as a body alone. If the corporate media fails, if institutions lose their moral compass, demonstrations become the way to express the embodied moral voice.
This report appears to take the western position that Iran is the aggressor, it is not, Israel is. To solve the problems in the ME Israel needs to be sorted out as does its funder the USA.
So reality.
First. USrael will only stop their aggression when Iran has forced them to. They are nearly there.
Two. Iran should only stop when USrael are no longer a threat, therefore Iran should either aim to acquire nuclear weapons to ensure USrael can no longer threaten it; or, alternatively Israel should have all its nukes removed and the ME declared a nuclear free zone. The IAEA should be disbanded as it is Mossad infiltrated organisation and has no part to play in a free world.
Three. The Strait of Hormuz should not be reopened until USrael are no longer a threat. Squeeze the West until it screams for mercy.
Four. The two-state solution is an Israeli device designed to ensure Palestine is never free. Israel must be replaced by a free and democratic Palestine with equal rights for all.
Five. International monitoring, international law and the U.N. Charter has been shown to be a huge, biased, corrupt joke. The replacement of Israel will ensure that democracy can return to a free Palestinian state and to the ME.
You nailed it.
A single state is the only solution following the South African model. Establish a Palestinian state on that model and give the Israelis the choice of leave or stay. The rats will jump ship quickly as happened in South Africa taking themselves and their money off to other places that did not particularly want them, even where their government allowed them in. The good and moral Israelis will stay and become Palestinians like the many Jewish Palestinians whose families lived peacefully in coexistence with Muslims and Christians for centuries before the Zionists arrived.
I totally agree ^^
We also should remember that the zionists/ nazis/ fascists of what is still called ‘israel’ have been repeatedly outright rejecting any kind of two state solution anyway.
Great ideas. Too reasonable. Too workable. Rationale- no winners or losers. A Palestinian friend, born about 1935, who lived near Bethlehem, spoke longingly of the days when his large extended family included all religions. Enjoyed visiting each other. Had fun together. Respected one another.
Totally agree with you .If I had a magic wand to make it happen ,it would already be done . To get rid of the immoral genocidal Epstein class is in my prayers .
One nation, where all people are equal, and all people have certain rights which can not be taken away from them. Among these, but not limited to these examples, are the rights to Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness, and Freedom of Religion. In order to protect these rights, a government shall be formed as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people in order to provide for the Safety and Happiness of the People.
Asking an aggressor to kindly stop dropping 2,000 pound bombs on residential neighbourhoods, or tents, seems a rather forlorn strategy.
A recent Lancet study concluding that U.S. economic sanctions killed more than 28 million people between 1971 and 2021 being just one data point in the U.S.’s sordid history regardless where one starts the clock, it seems apparent humanity has reached the point where an intervention is required.
There are criminally insane people in this world. Perhaps their evolutionary purpose is to focus human consciousness on the question of conformity — what it is, whether it is necessary, and in what form if at all.
It seems pretty much agreed, now that the U.S. doesn’t even bother trying to conceal its murderous impulses with appeals to “democracy, freedom, and human rights,” that international law is dead. So exactly what international law is, who enforces it, and how are questions begging to be answered.
I find it inconceivable that the U.S. or Israel, even if they agreed to some arrangement that let Iran and the region live in peace, would keep their word because the peace, if you can call it that, they want is savage domination.
Iran’s strategy, which seems to be letting ships carrying oil paid for in yuan through the Strait and denying passage to petrodollar oil, is the way to handle this. Do to the U.S. what it has been doing to the rest of the rest of the world for decades, namely destroy its economy. Similarly to Israel.
Will U.S. and Israeli monsters nuke the world if they cannot rule it?
Keeping a glimmer of hope alive in the monsters’ eyes that they can still win as they die could prevent it. In my opinion, this approach has a better chance of succeeding than asking mass murderers to be nice.
The list is both totally reasonable, totally needed for real peace and totally unacceptable to the fascist alliance. One item that is particularly unacceptable to Israel and their occupied government in the US is the acceptance of the Palestinian state. A return to a proper role for the UN would also be meaningless unless the veto power of any single member(USA) of the security council is eliminated. So perhaps a long, long, long shot is more honest. But Professor Sachs believes in presenting diplomatic solutions, Is profoundly qualified to do so, and for God’ sake they are surely needed in the insane mix of liars , killers and thieves that have risen to the top of the shitpile in the so called west. How much military and strategic credibility must Iran have before such a proposal becomes thinkable?
On the other hand the US and Israel are in deeper trouble than they are admitting ( Netanyahu is either dead or hiding) and there are a few halfway sane voices in the Military and with the VP(maybe) and in Moscow expalining the facts of life to the clueless Trump. Israel may be facing either the very high risk to them of using nuclear weapons, or the slow assembly of massive Islamic resistance as called for by the new religious leader of Iran. Iran has shown remarkable restraint, focusing on weapons systems, airports, and Tel Aviv and avoiding taking out an aircraft carrier, which is almost surely within their power.
The Brics countries want a diplomatic role but only a show of military solidarity is likely to be effective.
I could not agree more.
Certainly there are some desirable outcomes in the professor’s proposals, the mechanism to achieve them is missing. Saying that BRICS “have the credibility, the economic weight, and … should convene an emergency summit and present a unified framework incorporating the conditions for peace and security, which in turn would be pressed at the U.N. Security Council…” sounds more like wishful thinking, rather than a real plan. What happens when they do this and, has continuously happened in the past, the US and/or one or more of its lackeys veto this? Back to square zero. At least urging the UN General Assembly to pass a Uniting for Peace resolution, and back it up with military action has some prospect of being possible, but no UN military presence will deter those who will not be deterred, and who have more and bigger weapons.
I do not understand the reasoning behind this proposal. What likely would come of it is that BRICS will be shown to have no ability to accomplish anything the US doesn’t acquiese to. With time, that could change, and BRICS could, at some point, have real leverage. Right now, that isn’t the situation, and I, for one, would prefer to not have it strangled in its infancy.
It’s wishful thinking in the extreme–bizarre and extremely naive at this point. The Zionist regime needs security guarantees against Hezbollah and Hamas, and both groups need to disarm? Good God, that sounds like it came from Anthony Blinken or Chuck Schumer. Professor Sachs can’t seem to let go of the fantasy of the “two-state solution.” Surely he knows by now that Israel is a criminally insane State, amd the only way for peace to come to the region is the dismantling of the Terror State. And kicking the US out of the region. Which hopefully Iran will do.
Totally agree. There has never been a two state solution and Israel and Washington know it. It was held up as a fig leaf to keep Palestinian leadership off balance. They know better now. Hamas and Hezbollah should definitely not disarm. That would be suicide. I have to wonder if Professor Sachs understands who he is dealing with in Israel and Washington. They are not interested in Peace. They are interested in global domination at any cost. They must be dealt with accordingly.
It’s just simple if aggression will be stopped by the aggressors.
When a bully stops beating you for the afternoon, its worth a little bit. But its worth a whole lot more to give the bully such a beating that she never ever dares to mess with you again.
In a world where international law ain’t worth the toilet paper its written on, is it worth believing in its protections? Or do people have to find other ways to make bullies back off?
normally Mr Sachs holds thoughtful opinions, this article begs the question, “¿why on earth would Iran stop winning this conflict to allow the belligerents the opportunity to rearm?”
as Dmitry Kiselyov stated plainly, “¿Why do we need a world if Russia is not in it?”
¿why do we need oil transit if the belligerents are going to continue to murder our leaders?
it is increasingly stupid to expect mentally unstable belligerents to become “sane”, because the world is appalled. we need to address the elephant, it is time to take back OUR Power:
“Being an old farm boy myself, chickens coming home to roost never made me sad; it only made me glad.”
— Malcolm X
it is about time we understand the nature of why we have so much “wealth” in ameriKKKa.
it is NOT because we somehow have created this abundance,
it is because we have stolen it with the blood of other people.
the fact that we are now being assaulted in this way should give us pause to consider how we are going to change the trajectory of the last 150 years …
now,
I have tracked politics for over 50 years.
the question is,
¿ what are we going to do about it ?
¿ do you have proposals ?
¿ can we find common ground from which to enact change ?
this is a question of how many of us can unite to choose our target with precision.
it is a question of do we have the ability to unite in the face of a runaway police state to use what small amount of power we wield.
which is why this question is asking for a clear response of how do we find common ground.
THE QUESTION: ¿ Can we unite to pick a actual source to express our dissatisfaction with the system ?
As one person proved in another post, just asking for thoughts makes people angry.
Using the same techniques that Benjamin Franklin used for his publications, i.e. anonymity, also brings out anger and profanities.
IF, WE, serous people with serous concerns can not find common ground,
WE’RE FUCKED, and should just continue to post our useless posts about how angry we are on facebook and leave this problem for the future denizens of this police state to have to suffer with.
we can debate the authority issues of the matter until we are completely exhausted.
these “incidents” of police state over reach are not going to stop until we as a people find a way to change the direction we have allowed the newspapers (owned by oligarchs), the television (owned by oligarchs), the radio (again, owned by you know who) and the “Leaders” we elect, (cause you know, Owned By Oligarchs) to take us in.
we stand by and wring our hands and post our memes and continue to ignore the elephant,
We Have To Change Our Behavior If We Are Going To Change The World.
¿ now, what does that entail ?
¿ do we have to walk around on a Saturday with posters exclaiming our dissatisfaction ?
THAT doesn’t appear to be working.
have you noticed how when a corporation steps out of line and the right wing does not like it, that corporation is threatened to be “Bud Lited”,
and that works wonders …
corporation changes its behavior.
we could pick a single entity that represents the total sum of our dissatisfaction, use our wallets to take that entity down with a refusal to purchase its products.
use a power that is easily within our hands,
¡ BOYCOTT®™ THE MOTHERFUCKERS !
while many of you may not be aware, Anheuser-Busch has still not recovered the income it lost after the Dylan Mulvaney debacle.
the only reason it still has shelf space for Bud Lite is because they have been paying retailers to continue to provide shelf space.
we nearly brought Exxon to its knees after the Valdez.
Exxon closed 100% of its interstate outlets and 60% of its urban outlets and clawed itself back over the next 10 years.
IF we sustain a boycott for any length of time we can take a corporation down.
THAT IS OUR POWER !
YOUR Thoughts?
Agreed, and Amen. Thanks.
The root cause have been and are very specific individuals.
They must be identified, exposed and held accountable.
This might be a good start for the long overdue big wash out.
Beside that, it really looks like what is called capitalism is in fact fascism/ zionism.
Securing only the wealth and power of the oligarchs.
Therefor an entire system change will likely have to be done.
System changes begin at the bottom, who do we target first?
While I have a somewhat different take on why Jeffrey Sachs promotes common sense and wisdom in the middle of a murderous American History (see my own comment) . I profoundly agree with the historical and moral arguments in this comment. And yes to practical action. Boycott the fascist’s governments and corporations.
Might also be smart to build citizen assemblies in the mode of Roger Hallam’s ideas.
Well said Derek!!
Yes! Citizen assemblies is something some activists in my locality have been discussing. From there we can begin the process of more locally controlled power generation, banking, water resources and food sources. Decentralization transfers power from the feds to the grassroots.
There is an old saying metastasized by our former Moron in Chief, “Fool me once, shame on… shame on you. Fool me—you can’t get fooled again”
One must believe that the overlords of Iran have reached the “won’t get fooled again” moment of this reality we suffer through.
The time for words is long past, only actions speak now.
Mr Sachs is of an era where discussion could provided a balm to troubles. Pretty sure that the IRA, the Taliban, even the Russians have shown that when words fail to prevent stupidity, only actions make matters come to a head.
As we stare down the barrel of a century of bad choices made and accepted for and by ameriKKKans and the debt slaves created by those choices, we must admit that words can now only be used as swords. There is very little time left to dally around concepts but we must plunge to the hilt if we are to leave a planet behind for the future, (a future that was slaughtered in broad daylight at the Shajareh Tayyebeh Elementary School).
¿the only matter at hand is can we, not myself, nor, you, BUT all of us angry to see the degradation of spirit and integrity chose to make a stand against it?