Sacks’ statement was conditional and probabilistic: if Israel responded at a “Lindsey Graham level” (essentially “leveling” Gaza), he thought that could trigger a much wider regional war or even a world war.

1. Did the antecedent occur?
Israel’s response was extremely destructive: intensive bombardment, siege, and ground invasion, widely described as the most devastating Gaza conflict to date.(en.wikipedia.org) But “Lindsey Graham level”/“leveling Gaza” is a vague, rhetorical standard rather than a clearly defined policy, so it’s not clear whether his exact condition was met.

2. Did it cause a ‘much wider regional war’ or ‘world war’?
The war clearly regionalized:

• Ongoing cross‑border hostilities with Hezbollah in Lebanon and clashes in Syria and Iraq.(en.wikipedia.org)
• Houthi attacks on shipping in the Red Sea and multiple drone/missile strikes on Israel, prompting US‑led naval operations and Israeli strikes in Yemen.(rmsgloballtd.com)
• Direct Iran–Israel missile exchanges in 2024, with hundreds of Iranian ballistic missiles launched at Israel and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets.(en.wikipedia.org)
  Analysts describe this as a multi‑front Middle Eastern crisis that has repeatedly brought the region “to the brink of all‑out war,” but also emphasize that the feared full wider Middle East war drawing in major states in open conflict has not (yet) materialized; key actors have generally tried to contain escalation.(theguardian.com) There has also been no “world war” in any conventional sense.

3. Why the outcome is ambiguous:

• The prediction uses “could,” expressing a risk rather than a firm forecast, which is hard to falsify.
• The trigger condition (“Lindsey Graham level” leveling) is not objectively defined, so we cannot say cleanly that the scenario he described did or did not occur.
• Whether today’s situation counts as a “much wider regional war” is itself disputed: some frameworks treat the multi‑theater Middle Eastern crisis as a de facto regional war, others treat it as dangerous spillover that still falls short of the wider‑war scenario he warned about.(en.wikipedia.org)

Because both the condition and the outcome are conceptually fuzzy and the claim is probabilistic, it is not possible to classify Sacks’ prediction as clearly right or clearly wrong; it remains ambiguous.