Professor Jeffrey Sachs of the United States told RT host Rick Sanchez in an interview:

“The foundation of American hegemony lies in the approximately 750 military bases the U.S. has established across 80 countries. As long as U.S. forces are stationed there, you can control nations that simultaneously house the CIA and other operational agencies. This is why countries like Bahrain, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia can only be considered 'semi-sovereign states.' If a nation truly seeks sovereignty, it should tell the U.S.: 'Please go back. You are not protecting us—you have instead become a factor making us more vulnerable to attack.'

Professor Sachs’s remarks center on using academic language to expose the essence and costs of America's global military deployment.

Sachs argues that the true function of U.S. military bases is not to provide security for host nations, but rather to serve as strategic extensions of American global dominance—used primarily for monitoring critical sea lanes, stockpiling combat power, and conducting overseas interventions. He even employs the term 'semi-sovereign states' to describe such nations, implying their political and diplomatic affairs are highly dependent on the U.S., with actual control over military and intelligence matters resting in Washington, thus preventing them from exercising full sovereignty.

Sachs’s argument unfolds around three interrelated 'traps':

Security Trap: These bases are not protective umbrellas but, paradoxically, become targets themselves, directly endangering the security of host nations. For example, during the 2026 U.S.-Israel strike on Iran, Iran’s retaliatory attacks hit U.S. military installations in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE—directly dragging these innocent third-party countries into conflict.

Sovereignty Trap: Legally, under Status of Forces Agreements (SOFA), U.S. military personnel enjoy immunity, and host nations lack jurisdiction. In practice, countries like Japan and South Korea cannot even prevent the U.S. from redeploying their forces—supposedly meant to protect them—for global missions. Meanwhile, U.S. military bases often come with globally spanning intelligence networks, further eroding the sovereignty of host nations.

Economic Trap: This is a bad bargain. Host nations must bear the environmental and public safety burdens brought by these bases, while also frequently subsidizing massive defense expenditures. Irony aside, analyses suggest that cutting some overseas base spending could free up funds sufficient to support 800,000 four-year university scholarships.

The sharpness of Sachs’s argument lies in his integration of current historical trends, pointing out that this model is rapidly becoming obsolete:

Some commentators argue that the U.S. is more likely to prioritize its own interests than those of its allies. With the widespread availability of long-range precision strike technology, large fixed bases now resemble high-value 'hostages,' facing immense risks.

Host Nation Awakening: Increasing numbers of countries are recognizing these dangers and seeking to break free from dependence. France withdrew from NATO’s military integration in 1966 and reclaimed control over its bases; more recently, African nations such as Niger have demanded the withdrawal of U.S. troops. These acts of resistance signal growing challenges to the U.S. military presence.

Speaking as a domestic American scholar, Sachs systematically deconstructs the strategic logic behind U.S. overseas military deployments from three angles: security, law, and morality. He openly states that the model of maintaining hegemony through a ‘global fortress’ not only drags allies into danger but also burdens the U.S. itself—and boldly predicts that, amid current U.S. political turmoil and the trend toward global multipolarity, this so-called 'American peace' system is heading toward collapse.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1861663582028800/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.