Rohan Khattar Singh, Fair Observer’s Video Producer, speaks with Aidan Grogan, a Liberty University history PhD student and Young Voices contributor, and Kaitlyn Diana, an Associate Editor at Fair Observer. Together, they explore the causes and consequences of America’s declining fertility rate within the broader global population crisis that figures like Tesla CEO Elon Musk have highlighted.
Fertility crisis in America?
Grogan sets the stage with stark data: America’s fertility rate stands at 1.6, well below the replacement level of 2.1. This shortfall mirrors a global trend — two-thirds of the world already lives in countries with below-replacement fertility and 95% of nations are projected to reach this point by the end of the century. UN estimates predict global population decline by the 2080s, though some forecasts move that date earlier.
Singh highlights the “fertility gap” — the discrepancy between how many children Americans want (2.5 on average) versus how many they actually have. Grogan attributes the gap to infertility, economic strain and difficulties in forming long-term partnerships, worsened by a growing “mating and dating crisis” that sees men and women drifting apart politically and culturally.
Career over children?
Modern women face abundant pressures. Grogan observes that while women have gained the ability to pursue careers, men remain bound by expectations to work full-time as providers. He cites economist Catherine Pakaluk’s research showing that large families among educated women tend to stem from religious motivations. For Grogan, the crux of the debate is whether children are seen as blessings or burdens.
Diana counters that economic necessity forces most women into the workforce. She argues that the supposed 50/50 split in marriage is skewed, as women often carry both career and domestic loads, suffering severe burnout. In her view, true feminism lies in the freedom to choose motherhood or a career without stigma.
Is raising children too costly?
The speakers explore the economic dimensions of fertility decline. Grogan frames the issue in terms of opportunity costs: Children require enormous resources, while consumer leisure appears more attainable and rewarding. A Pew Research Center poll shows that fewer than half of childless women under 30 want to become mothers. For Grogan, this reflects a rising, “pervasive anti-natalism” mindset.
He argues that Americans live in an era of abundance unmatched in history, yet a “keeping up with the Joneses” mentality makes many feel children are unaffordable unless they can provide an idealized lifestyle. Diana pushes back with personal testimony: Childbirth in the United States costs $60,000–70,000, forcing many into debt before a child is even born. For her, the financial barrier is not vacations or college savings, but basic medical care, housing and food.
Freedom over family
Singh asks whether America’s cultural emphasis on personal freedom and self-actualization undermines child-rearing. Grogan agrees, identifying a turn toward autonomy without responsibility, fueled by secularization and the fading notion that family size is “up to God.”
Diana emphasizes that mental health challenges and independence also shape decisions. She cites South Korea’s 4B movement, where women reject marriage and motherhood as a form of protest against inequality and insecurity.
The dating divide
Grogan and Diana both highlight the growing gender and political divide. Young women are trending left while young men lean right, making value alignment difficult. Diana notes that many women feel they cannot date men who have “voted against their rights.”
Grogan expands the argument to the political left itself, warning that generous welfare programs will collapse without a strong tax base. Immigration alone, he says, cannot sustain demographic stability. He calls for a revival of pro-natalist norms on the left, recalling its historical roots before Malthusian thought — the ideas of economist Thomas Robert Malthus, who believed population growth was exponential compared to resource growth, which was linear — took hold.
Can America have more babies?
Singh presses the question of whether Americans can overcome divisions to restore family life. Grogan argues that only a cultural revival — perhaps a spontaneous religious awakening — could reverse the trend. Diana disagrees, pointing out that religion itself alienates many, especially when entangled with government policy. For her, there can be no middle ground if politics threatens fundamental rights.
Reversing America’s fertility rate
Grogan closes with three proposals. First, a cultural renewal of pro-natalist values that cannot come from a government decree. Second, structural reforms to reduce housing costs by building more homes and easing zoning laws. Third, changes to entitlement programs and taxes. Yet even with these, he doubts fertility will rebound beyond “marginal increases.”
Diana stresses that any future solution must address both financial strain and gender inequality, ensuring women can freely choose motherhood without economic punishment or cultural judgment.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” Rohan Khattar Singh, Fair Observer’s Video Producer, speaks with Aidan Grogan, a Liberty University history PhD student and Young Voices contributor, and Kaitlyn Diana, an Associate Editor at Fair Observer. Together, they explore the causes and consequences of America’s declining fertility…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Live, Rohan Khattar Singh, Aidan Grogan and Kaitlyn Diana reflect on the statistic that America’s fertility rate has dropped to 1.6, well below replacement level. They debate whether career demands, high costs, political divides and cultural attitudes drive this decline. They determine that only cultural renewal and structural reforms may slow the trend.” post-date=”Sep 30, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Live: Is America Headed for a Population Collapse? Elon Musk Was Right!” slug-data=”fo-live-is-america-headed-for-a-population-collapse-elon-musk-was-right”>FO° Live: Is America Headed for a Population Collapse? Elon Musk Was Right!
Fair Observer Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and noted scholar Srinivas Reddy explore how the legacy of classical India survives today. They trace the historical boundaries of the classical era, reflect on the invasions that disrupted learning and examine how education, caste and elitism shaped access to Sanskrit. The dialogue also considers Indian Emperor Ashoka the Great’s moral example, contrasts the Indian system with the Western one, and highlights the need for reform and patronage if India’s heritage is to thrive again.
Defining classical India
Singh and Reddy start by deciding how they should define “classical India.” Reddy places it up to Emperor Harshavardhana; after him, Singh argues, India became “medieval” and entered “a slippery slope.” This period produced a flowering of Sanskrit literature, philosophy, architecture and spiritual traditions.
A turning point came with the Islamic invasions of the late 12th century. In 1192, Muhammad of Ghor established the Muslim empire known as the Delhi Sultanate in India, and great universities such as Nalanda were destroyed. Farsi and Arabic became the languages of administration in the North, and Sanskrit receded. Reddy stresses that while this destruction was immense, many manuscripts survive in libraries yet lie neglected. He laments that Indians express a desire to connect with the classical past, but “there’s no real transference of that desire into some action” to train students to preserve texts.
India’s Gurukul system
Education in classical India was rooted in the Guru–shishya parampara (teacher–student legacy), where students lived with teachers. Singh emphasizes that it was holistic: pupils memorized scriptures but also practiced discipline, manual labor and spiritual exercises. Oral tradition ensured continuity in an age before printing.
By contrast, Singh criticizes today’s education system, dominated by the Central Board of Secondary Education. He calls it “diabolically bad,” designed to test rote memorization and run by “exam monkeys” in the bureaucracy. Instead of cultivating curiosity, he argues, it produces graduates trained only to “remember and regurgitate.”
Who is studying Sanskrit?
Singh asks who studies Sanskrit today. Reddy replies that much philological research happens outside India, especially in Europe and the United States. Within India, it survives in universities and rituals, but mostly attracts students from modest backgrounds. He notes that Brahmans, who once monopolized Sanskrit, have abandoned it for careers in technology and business. “They want to be CEOs of Google … and Pepsi,” he remarks, which leaves Sanskrit vulnerable. Singh adds that yoga and philosophy have spurred renewed global curiosity, even as India itself neglects the field.
The legacy of Ashoka
The conversation turns to Ashoka. Reddy recalls that English scholar James Prinsep’s deciphering of the ancient Brahmi script in 1837 revealed the rock edicts and restored Ashoka’s story. Ashoka emerged as a conqueror turned moral ruler, spreading messages of tolerance and compassion. Singh even calls Prinsep the “father of modern India” for reviving this legacy. Both agree that Ashoka’s example shows how classical ideals can re-enter public life through scholarship.
How the West is different
Singh notes that his peers in the United Kingdom grew up with an “extraordinary connection” to their classical past, something he never felt in India. Reddy attributes this partly to colonialism, but also to India’s own elitism: Classical learning was confined to narrow groups, unlike the broader civic tradition in the West. Western classics emphasized politics, law and institutions, while India’s leaned toward philosophy and metaphysics. Singh suggests this helps explain why modern science developed in Europe, while India excelled in abstract thought and linguistics.
India’s caste system
Reddy emphasizes that caste was central to this exclusion. Sanskrit learning was monopolized by Brahmins, and even today, he hears arguments that only Brahmins should study it. Exclusivity preserved traditions but also bred “atrophying” and “incestuousness.” Singh suggests that rigid caste structures made India insular and ill-prepared to resist invasions. Reddy adds that while ancient texts like the Upanishads questioned hierarchy, in practice, caste severely limited access to learning. For both, caste remains one of classical India’s deepest contradictions.
Reviving classical India
What would revival look like today? Singh argues it must begin with education, with figures like mathematician Aryabhatta featured in textbooks to foster intellectual pride. Reddy agrees that such reform is “really, really important.”
Both criticize universities: Singh dismisses Indian Institutes of Technology and Indian Institutes of Management as trade schools, while Reddy calls academia “conservative” and “ideological,” failing to embrace a plurality of views. Singh also mocks both nationalist exaggerators in the Indian knowledge systems movement and “pretentious” doctrinaire leftists. Revival, both Reddy and Singh conclude, means serious scholarship free from mythmaking and ideology.
Preserving ancient texts
The preservation of Sanskrit is vital to India’s cultural history. Reddy notes that countless manuscripts sit in private or neglected collections. Singh criticizes the Archaeological Survey of India as corrupt and uninterested, while Reddy stresses that the greater problem is the lack of trained readers.
Preservation requires expertise as well as storage. Singh argues that, just as the Renaissance needed patrons like the Italian Medici family, India requires “new Medici” today — enlightened backers who see cultural rather than commercial returns. Reddy concludes that classical India will endure only if its knowledge is preserved, taught and lived.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” Fair Observer Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and noted scholar Srinivas Reddy explore how the legacy of classical India survives today. They trace the historical boundaries of the classical era, reflect on the invasions that disrupted learning and examine how education, caste and elitism shaped access…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Atul Singh and Srinivas Reddy posit that classical India was defined by flourishing literature, philosophy, culture and education, but declined after invasions and caste-based exclusion. They highlight the survival of traditions through oral teaching while noting modern India’s institutional failures. Reviving classical India requires securing enlightened patronage to preserve and reinterpret ancient texts.” post-date=”Sep 29, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Indians Today Are Learning English and Ignoring Classical Languages Like Sanskrit” slug-data=”fo-talks-indians-today-are-learning-english-and-ignoring-classical-languages-like-sanskrit”>
FO° Talks: Indians Today Are Learning English and Ignoring Classical Languages Like Sanskrit
Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and eminent scholar Ishtiaq Ahmed explore the recent Saudi Arabia–Pakistan mutual defense pact. The discussion traces the origins of Pakistan, the historical trajectory of Saudi–Pakistani relations and the dramatic shifts the 1979 Islamic Revolution of Iran caused. They then examine the timing and rationale of the latest defense pact before analyzing its potential consequences, especially for India.
The formation of Pakistan
Ahmed begins by recalling the unease that surrounded Pakistan’s creation in 1947. Many Arab leaders hesitated to endorse the new state because its founding principle of religious nationalism resembled Zionism. Like Israel, Pakistan defined itself not by territorial nationalism but by religious identity. Ahmed explains that the Muslim League claimed areas of India where Muslims formed a majority, leading to the displacement of Hindus and Sikhs, much like the displacement of Palestinians.
The House of Saud in particular regarded religious nationalism with suspicion. In their view, Pakistan’s partition of India looked similar to Zionist efforts to carve out a homeland in the Middle East. Yet geopolitical realities soon forced closer ties.
Saudi Arabia–Pakistan relations
During the Cold War, Saudi Arabia aligned with the US and UK against radical Arab nationalism, while Pakistan joined Western-led security alliances. Their parallel paths created space for collaboration. From the 1950s onward, Pakistani workers migrated to Saudi Arabia in droves, initially filling municipal jobs before expanding into professional and military roles.
By the 1970s, Pakistani military personnel were protecting Gulf royals, and Pakistan had become a reliable security provider. Singh frames this as part of Pakistan’s identity as a “garrison state.” Ahmed believes that Pakistani President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto embraced Islamism not out of conviction but as a political tool to counter his right-wing opponents.
Several events deepened the bilateral relationship: the 1974 Islamic Summit in Lahore, Saudi and Libyan backing for Pakistan’s nuclear program and the symbolic construction of the Faisal Mosque in the Pakistani capital of Islamabad. Singh even cites intelligence reports that Pakistani nuclear assets were implicitly guaranteed for Saudi Arabia in exchange for vital oil revenues.
The 1979 Islamic Revolution
A watershed moment arrived in 1979 with the Iranian Revolution, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the siege of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. Pakistani commandos played a key role in retaking the mosque, further cementing the Saudi-Pakistan partnership. Meanwhile, Saudi volunteers, including mujahideen fighter Osama bin Laden, traveled to Afghanistan to wage jihad against the Soviets.
Ahmed stresses that these developments entrenched sectarian polarization across the region. Iran supported Shia militias while Saudi Arabia and its allies armed Sunni radicals. Proxy conflicts spilled over into Pakistan during the 1990s, creating cycles of instability that persist to this day.
The latest Saudi–Pakistan defense pact
The new mutual defense pact makes explicit what had long been informal. Singh explains that Gulf rulers have lost confidence in the US security umbrella, particularly after Israel struck Hamas leaders in Qatar, a country closely tied to Washington and the largest American base in the region. The attack showed that Gulf allies could no longer rely on American protection.
Ahmed says regional capitals realized the US could not be trusted. Pakistan, with its nuclear arsenal and Sunni identity, emerged as the logical security partner. Singh relays that Arab diplomats privately acknowledge their technological inferiority to Israel and the US but believe Pakistan’s economic dependence ensures reliability.
For Pakistan, the deal is also a financial lifeline. Ahmed calls it perhaps a once-in-a-lifetime chance to escape crippling debt. Singh agrees, describing the pact as a “terrific diplomatic coup” that strengthens both Islamabad and the Saudi capital of Riyadh while unsettling their adversaries.
The Saudi–Pakistan deal’s impact on India
The implications for India are profound. Singh notes unease in Delhi as Saudi Arabia’s advanced Eurofighters and F-15 aircraft could be deployed alongside Pakistan’s forces. This undermines India’s deterrence strategy against terrorism. Earlier this year, India launched Operation Sindoor to target terrorist camps in Pakistan after terrorists massacred unarmed civilians in Kashmir. Now, India will not be able to launch such an operation. In any case, India has already been weakened by Pakistan’s backing from China and Turkey.
Ahmed points out, however, that Saudi Arabia has extensive investments in India and employs nine million Indian workers. He voices the subjective hope that Riyadh could mediate rather than inflame Indo-Pakistani tensions.
Singh, by contrast, emphasizes India’s growing isolation. He cites New Delhi’s failure to secure diplomatic backing during clashes with Pakistan, strained ties with neighbors such as Nepal and Bangladesh and mistrust from Russia and China due to India’s close ties to the US. His subjective assessment is that India’s Gulf policy has “failed.”
Modi’s foreign policy
The pact also carries symbolic weight. Singh highlights that the two countries announced the pact on Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s birthday, which he interprets as a deliberate message undermining Modi’s image-making. He thinks that India under Modi has become a “pumpkin village,” a state that looks impressive on the outside but lacks credibility as a functioning democracy.
Ahmed closes the discussion by critiquing India’s foreign policy more broadly. He argues that India’s bark has proven worse than its bite, and its unwillingness to join military pacts has left it sidelined. His hope is that the new Saudi–Pakistan partnership will foster stability rather than extremism, since Gulf rulers themselves do not want to encourage terrorism.
A new security architecture
The Saudi-Pakistan pact signals a turning point in regional politics. For the Gulf, it reflects declining trust in US protection. For Pakistan, it offers both financial salvation and enhanced international status. For India, it represents a new set of strategic headaches.
The pact could either escalate rivalries or serve as a platform for mediation. Both Singh and Ahmed agree that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have shifted their decades-old partnership into a binding alliance with far-reaching consequences.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and eminent scholar Ishtiaq Ahmed explore the recent Saudi Arabia–Pakistan mutual defense pact. The discussion traces the origins of Pakistan, the historical trajectory of Saudi–Pakistani relations and the dramatic shifts the 1979 Islamic Revolution of Iran caused….” post_summery=”Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and eminent scholar Ishtiaq Ahmed discuss the Saudi Arabia–Pakistan mutual defense pact. They trace the relationship between the two countries from Pakistan’s founding in 1947 to the present. They explain the significance of this new pact and its implications for the future.” post-date=”Sep 28, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Saudi Arabia–Pakistan Defense Pact: What Are the Regional and Global Implications?” slug-data=”fo-talks-saudi-arabia-pakistan-defense-pact-what-are-the-regional-and-global-implications”>
FO° Talks: Saudi Arabia–Pakistan Defense Pact: What Are the Regional and Global Implications?
Rohan Khattar Singh, Fair Observer’s Video Producer & Social Media Manager, speaks with Kaitlyn Diana, an Associate Editor at Fair Observer, about US President Donald Trump’s immigration policies and the Florida detention center Alligator Alcatraz. They explore the facility’s origins, the stories emerging from within and its legal, political and global consequences. While they highlight facts, much of the discussion turns on how symbolism and spectacle shape Trump’s approach to migration and America’s image abroad.
What is Alligator Alcatraz?
Kaitlyn explains that Alligator Alcatraz is a detention facility for undocumented migrants, located deep in the Florida Everglades. It’s a striking choice of location: The wetlands are home to alligators and invasive Burmese pythons, alongside stifling heat and humidity. Construction was astonishingly fast, completed in just eight days. The center can hold up to 3,000 people.
The name itself carries symbolic weight. “Alligator” highlights the literal dangers of the Everglades waters, while “Alcatraz” invokes the infamous former prison in San Francisco, California, which was considered inescapable. Kaitlyn emphasizes that the name is meant to signal menace — “the name in itself is a threat.” For her, the very siting of the facility, 50 miles west of Trump’s Doral resort in Miami, feels like a fitting, if coincidental, detail.
Rohan connects this modern spectacle with history, recalling moats and defensive palaces in India built centuries ago, where subjects were kept out through prejudice. To him, Alligator Alcatraz resurrects practices thought long-buried, creating a disturbing echo of the past in the present.
Stories from Alligator Alcatraz
Reports about the number of detainees vary, but Kaitlyn estimates 700 to 900 are currently confined. Testimonies from those who have left hint at harsh realities inside. Lawsuits and investigations are already underway on the grounds of both environmental and civil rights.
Environmental groups, including Friends of the Everglades and the Center for Biological Diversity, argue that officials circumvented regulations during their rush to construct the facility. They have filed suits naming Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Todd Lyons and Miami-Dade County as defendants. At the same time, the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida and Americans for Immigrant Justice have launched a class action lawsuit. Their claim is that detainees’ First and Fifth Amendment rights are being violated, while legal service providers are also denied proper access.
Kaitlyn acknowledges that Florida and federal officials insist the project followed proper channels. Yet, in her view and in the eyes of many, its legality remains doubtful — not just because of paperwork, but because of the conditions and context of its creation. Ultimately, the courts will decide, but for now, the facility’s legitimacy is in serious question.
Trump’s crackdown on migration
The broader politics around Alligator Alcatraz come sharply into focus. Homeland Security officials have signaled satisfaction with the model, and White House “border czar” Tom Homan is openly calling for more such centers. Nebraska is reportedly considering following Florida’s lead.
Rohan asks if this is genuine policy or mainly political theater aimed at energizing the base. Kaitlyn says it is both. While the rhetoric claims to focus on illegal immigration, she points out that people with valid IDs, even US citizens, have been detained. For her, this makes it less about immigration enforcement and more about race and ethnicity disguised as border control.
She stresses that spectacle is a hallmark of Trump’s politics: “Everything that Trump does, it has to be big, it has to be showy.” In her view, the facility is designed not just to confine but to demonstrate power — proof of Trump’s control and commitment to hardline promises. Rohan concurs, calling it “a lot about show” and “making a statement,” even if legality and humane treatment are sacrificed.
America’s global image
Kaitlyn believes the center’s deterrent effect is limited. For people fleeing extreme danger, the gamble of risking detention in the US may still feel safer than staying at home. Yet she argues that the facility’s symbolic role is undeniable. It is “meant to scare people,” she says, and it contributes to the already declining global reputation of the United States.
Earlier this year, the US was placed on a human rights watchlist. Kaitlyn describes Alligator Alcatraz as “another tick in the box.” America, long identified with liberty, is now seen as hypocritical. She contends that the detention center cements global disillusionment: The US “doesn’t actually value human rights the way that it claims it does.”
The domestic impact is no less important. Kaitlyn notes that younger Americans are alarmed. While some approve of Trump’s policies, many feel fear, believing that “you could be next.” Even talk of deporting Native Americans heightens this unease. At the same time, she sees hope in the anger, with this situation “revitalizing” Generation Z to fight back.
Rohan ends on a note of cautious optimism, suggesting that Generation Z may be “the voice of change” because they’re really “bold and fierce.” For him, the debate over Alligator Alcatraz is not just about one facility in Florida — it is a test of how far America will go, and how strongly its younger citizens will push back.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” Rohan Khattar Singh, Fair Observer’s Video Producer & Social Media Manager, speaks with Kaitlyn Diana, an Associate Editor at Fair Observer, about US President Donald Trump’s immigration policies and the Florida detention center Alligator Alcatraz. They explore the facility’s origins,…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talk, Rohan Khattar Singh and Kaitlyn Diana discuss US President Donald Trump’s controversial detention center in the Florida Everglades, nicknamed Alligator Alcatraz. Kaitlyn highlights its questionable legality and role as a political spectacle designed to showcase Trump’s power. The facility undermines America’s global image while fueling fear and resistance among young Americans.” post-date=”Sep 27, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Life Inside Donald Trump’s Notorious Alligator Alcatraz Detention Center in Florida” slug-data=”fo-talks-life-inside-donald-trumps-notorious-alligator-alcatraz-detention-center-in-florida”>
FO° Talks: Life Inside Donald Trump’s Notorious Alligator Alcatraz Detention Center in Florida
Fair Observer Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and former Swiss Ambassador to Israel Jean-Daniel Ruch examine the growing momentum in Europe toward recognizing Palestinian statehood, Israel’s internal and external reactions and the broader implications of the Gaza conflict. They explore symbolism, strategy, ideology and the deep fractures driving both sides of the conflict.
Will Europe recognize Palestine?
Ruch notes that while many countries have long recognized Palestine, new momentum emerged in 2024 when six European states joined the list. France, Portugal, Malta and San Marino plan recognition in September, while the United Kingdom and Canada condition theirs on a ceasefire and humanitarian access.
[Since Singh and Ruch spoke, the UK, Australia, Canada and France have recognized Palestine.]
Ruch stresses that recognition is largely symbolic. He believes Western governments highlight recognition to avoid substantive measures that could truly pressure Israel, such as halting trade with settlements or restricting arms and intelligence flows. He calls recognition a “tree which is hiding the forest,” performative rather than transformative. Singh agrees, saying it disguises Western reluctance to confront Israel.
Israel’s reaction
The two-state solution, once the international consensus, Ruch dismisses as a “fairy tale.” He points out that the Israeli parliament declared there would “never be any Palestinian states.” Furthermore, he says, continued settlement expansion makes contiguity impossible. Efforts such as pushing Gaza residents out of Gaza City or advancing E1 settlements, which would split the West Bank, signal irreversibility.
US policy has enabled this trajectory. Ruch recalls that even former US President Barack Obama, despite clashing with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, approved the largest-ever military aid package — $38 billion. He contrasts this with former US President George W. Bush, the last US leader he believes exerted genuine pressure.
Rise of Israel
Singh and Ruch highlight the internal composition of Israeli society: 20% Arab citizens and a rapidly growing ultra-Orthodox population that largely avoids military service. Singh argues these divisions put Israel “on the verge of a civil war.” Ruch acknowledges deep tensions but insists that existential fear of annihilation binds Jewish communities together. This survival instinct explains widespread support for the war effort after the infamous October 7 attacks.
Singh compares Israel to a “modern-day crusader state,” living under constant siege. Ruch agrees that Israel’s survival instinct shapes its disproportionate military responses and underpins its rejection of Palestinian statehood.
Why Europe is worried
European countries, Ruch argues, are keen to appear proactive. Their recognition announcements mask a refusal to pursue meaningful policies that would disrupt relations with Israel. Symbolism has psychological and political weight, but without measures that bite — economic or diplomatic — Ruch insists it will not change Israeli behavior in Gaza or the West Bank.
Singh underscores that Europe’s fear of sanctions or political backlash ensures recognition remains rhetorical rather than consequential.
Genocide in Gaza
Ruch recalls a Likud political party insider telling him after October 7: “Now is the moment we will finally do what we always wanted — empty Gaza.” Singh recounts a religious Israeli who expressed a similar view: Palestinians would eventually be pushed out by force.
Ruch believes this intent qualifies as ethnic cleansing and may legally constitute genocide. He cites both evidence of intent — ministerial statements — and overwhelming facts on the ground: 62,000 killed, including 17,000 children, alongside starvation caused by blocked aid. He concludes there is “really a case to make for genocide, unfortunately, in Gaza today.”
Singh notes that while some Israelis claim restraint, even defenders admit leaders’ statements are irresponsible.
Israel’s offensive expands
Ruch sees Israel’s decisions in Gaza as designed to make return impossible, from the destruction of Gaza City to the prospect of resettling cleared areas. These tactics, combined with West Bank settlement expansion, cement permanent control.
Singh emphasizes that such actions are justified domestically by existential fear, but internationally, they are viewed as collective punishment.
Radicalization of Palestinians
The October 7 attacks are traced to three dynamics:
- Radicalization of Hamas: After the Hamas political organization accepted 1967 borders in 2017 — a concession ignored by Israel and the West — hardliners like Palestinian militant Yahya Sinwar gained ground.
- Saudi normalization: Hamas feared Saudi Arabia’s move toward ties with Israel would bury Palestinian aspirations.
- International neglect: With global focus on Ukraine, the Palestinian issue had all but vanished until October 7 thrust it back to the center.
Singh recalls former US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan’s declaration that the Middle East had “never been more peaceful.” He dismisses it as proof of shallow analysis. Ruch agrees it was foolish to think the conflict was dormant.
Israel’s ideology
Ruch underscores that Israel and Iran practically stand alone in openly rejecting a Palestinian state. For him, Israel’s ideology — rooted in expansion and survivalism — explains both settlement policy and military excess. Palestinians, meanwhile, radicalize under oppression, humiliation and loss of land.
Ruch draws a controversial comparison: Palestinian commitment to resist is driven by the same moral weight he once encountered among Jewish Holocaust survivors who regretted not resisting more fiercely.
Looking ahead
Ruch concludes grimly: A Palestinian state is now “an impossibility.” Israel, bound by existential fear, continues to act disproportionately. Palestinians remain fragmented and under siege. Singh echoes that the conflict shows no sign of resolution, with recognition campaigns in Europe little more than symbolic gestures against entrenched realities.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” Fair Observer Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and former Swiss Ambassador to Israel Jean-Daniel Ruch examine the growing momentum in Europe toward recognizing Palestinian statehood, Israel’s internal and external reactions and the broader implications of the Gaza conflict. They explore symbolism,…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Atul Singh and Jean-Daniel Ruch discuss Europe’s symbolic recognition of Palestine, which Ruch argues avoids real pressure on Israel. They explore Israel’s ideology of survival and settlement expansion, alongside charges of genocide in Gaza. Ruch highlights how international neglect, Hamas radicalization and Israel’s existential fear lock both sides into a viciously violent cycle.” post-date=”Sep 26, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Israel Escalates Deadly Assault in Gaza, IDF Now Controls Over 40% of the Gaza Strip” slug-data=”fo-talks-israel-escalates-deadly-assault-in-gaza-idf-now-controls-over-40-of-the-gaza-strip”>
FO° Talks: Israel Escalates Deadly Assault in Gaza, IDF Now Controls Over 40% of the Gaza Strip
Rohan Khattar Singh, Fair Observer’s Video Producer & Social Media Manager, speaks with Alejandro J. Ramos, Founder and Executive Director of the Ramos Research Institute. Their conversation begins with the shocking event of September 10, when American conservative activist Charlie Kirk was shot and killed at Utah Valley University. From there, they examine political polarization, free speech on campuses and Ramos’s Citizenship Empowerment Framework (CEF), which he believes could repair civic discourse.
Who was Charlie Kirk?
Khattar Singh introduces Charlie Kirk as a controversial conservative and prominent supporter of US President Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” movement. Kirk was well-known for organizing dialogues on campuses, often setting up signs inviting students to debate him. Supporters saw courage in his willingness to face hostile crowds, while critics accused him of provocation.
Ramos stresses that while Kirk was polarizing, he was personable and genuinely invested in conversation, unlike conservative commentators such as Ben Shapiro. Though Ramos often disagreed with his views, he insists Kirk believed in dialogue. His murder, then, was both a personal tragedy and a symbolic blow to free expression. It also exposed how fragile American democracy has become when voices, however contentious, are silenced through violence rather than countered with ideas.
Students across ideological divides often approached Kirk not to shout him down, but to test their own arguments. This revealed a hunger for genuine exchange that is often missing in today’s political climate.
Who is to blame?
For Ramos, the greatest danger lies in the reaction to Kirk’s death. He was appalled to see people on social media celebrating, saying Kirk “had it coming.” Normalizing political violence, he warns, marks a terrifying shift.
Ramos cites earlier attacks on politicians and judges’ families to argue that violence against any political figure is unacceptable. He insists he would be just as outraged if a progressive like New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez were targeted. The true enemy, he argues, is not external foes but Americans’ own hatred of one another. If unchecked, this division could cause the United States to “die from within.”
In Ramos’s view, Americans must remember they are one people before partisanship consumes the nation. History shows republics rarely collapse from foreign conquest; instead, they disintegrate when citizens stop trusting each other and lose faith in shared institutions.
Kirk’s influence
Khattar Singh asks whether Kirk’s death will cool debate on campuses. Ramos insists universities must remain bastions of democracy. Yet research from the Ramos Research Institute shows students across the spectrum fear being “canceled” if they speak openly, and faculty members often inject ideology into classrooms.
Dialogue, Ramos argues, should be about understanding rather than scoring points. He cites Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s philosophy of attacking ideas, not people. Kirk’s ability to draw huge, diverse crowds proved that students still crave such exchanges, even when they are contentious. Ramos recalls how Kirk’s “PROVE ME WRONG” signs sparked long conversations where people listened, challenged and sometimes changed their minds. Losing that presence risks leaving a vacuum that more extreme figures could fill.
Citizenship Empowerment Framework
From these concerns, Ramos created the CEF. He points to alarming statistics: Only 22% of high school students can pass a basic civics exam. Without civic knowledge, meaningful participation in democracy is impossible.
The CEF has four pillars. Foundational Knowledge ensures students grasp core principles. Media Literacy equips them to think critically about news and sources. Courageous Dialogue calls for open, respectful conversations across divides. Finally, Engagement urges citizens to apply these skills in their communities.
Ramos is preparing to pilot the program at universities and vows not to be silenced. He believes it must be institutionalized so dialogue becomes a permanent part of student life. For him, the framework is not just an educational reform but a survival strategy for democracy, giving young people the tools to resist polarization and reclaim civic trust. If students graduate with the skills to disagree without hatred, the health of the republic itself will be strengthened.
America divided beyond repair?
Looking ahead, Khattar Singh notes that the right portrays Kirk as a martyr, while some on the left are indifferent, pointing to other tragedies the same day. He presses Ramos on whether the murder will deepen division or inspire unity.
Ramos calls this the “million-dollar question.” Polling shows that while most Republicans reject celebrating opponents’ deaths, fewer Democrats feel the same. He fears that joy at Kirk’s death could radicalize moderates and empower extremists like far-right activist Nick Fuentes.
Yet he also sees this as a potential wake-up call for Americans. Ramos argues that the American public must choose between deepening chaos or recommitting to dialogue. If he were president, Ramos says, he would lock Congress in a chamber without phones until they found a way forward.
Khattar Singh closes by endorsing the CEF as one step toward unity. Whether Americans seize that opportunity or retreat further into polarization will shape the future of democracy itself.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” Rohan Khattar Singh, Fair Observer’s Video Producer & Social Media Manager, speaks with Alejandro J. Ramos, Founder and Executive Director of the Ramos Research Institute. Their conversation begins with the shocking event of September 10, when American conservative activist Charlie Kirk was…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Alejandro J. Ramos discuss the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk and its implications on American democracy. Ramos condemns both the violence and celebratory reactions, arguing that hatred within society poses the greatest threat. He presents his Citizenship Empowerment Framework as a path toward dialogue, civic education and unity.” post-date=”Sep 25, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Following Charlie Kirk’s Shooting, Right-Wing Anger Surges as Political Divide Grows in America” slug-data=”fo-talks-following-charlie-kirks-shooting-right-wing-anger-surges-as-political-divide-grows-in-america”>
FO° Talks: Following Charlie Kirk’s Shooting, Right-Wing Anger Surges as Political Divide Grows in America
Rohan Khattar Singh, Fair Observer’s Video Producer & Social Media Manager, speaks with Lorenzo Tugnoli, an Italian photojournalist whose work spans more than a decade in the Middle East. Tugnoli’s latest book, It Can Never Be the Same, focuses on Afghanistan, compiling photographs from 2019 to 2023 that capture the nation’s turbulence before and after the Taliban’s return to the capital, Kabul. Khattar Singh guides the conversation through themes of visual representation, ambiguity and the failures of America’s longest war, while Tugnoli reflects on both his personal experiences and the broader lessons Afghanistan offers the world.
It Can Never Be The Same
Tugnoli explains that the title of his book carries two meanings. First, foreigners continue to view and portray Afghanistan in repetitive, static ways that fail to capture its evolving realities. Second, no photograph can ever replicate the lived experience of being in a place. Looking at an image and living through an event are fundamentally different, and that gap in experience is central to his project.
Tugnoli emphasizes that photography can be seductive in its apparent clarity, yet misleading when it erases the distance between representation and reality. His book tries to remind readers that what they see is only one version of an infinitely more complex world.
Beauty and pain in Afghanistan
Khattar Singh notes that Afghanistan is one of the most photographed regions on earth, yet most images follow clichés — armed men and veiled women. His own 2019 visit to Kabul revealed a far more diverse reality. Tugnoli acknowledges that photographers, himself included, often start with such clichés. But with time, they move beyond them, finding layers of contradiction and complexity. His book deliberately preserves ambiguity, pushing against journalism’s tendency to impose a clear narrative.
He argues that beauty and pain coexist in Afghanistan: the beauty of mountains, traditions and art, and the pain of war, poverty and endless political interference. To ignore either side would be dishonest, and Tugnoli’s photographs seek to hold both in tension.
Life in Afghanistan
Between 2009 and 2015, Tugnoli lived in Afghanistan, returning frequently afterward. This long engagement helped him look past surface images to capture everyday life. He recalls Afghan soldiers dancing during a ceasefire — men who, without context, could easily be mistaken for Taliban fighters. Khattar Singh notes that “Taliban” means “students” in Arabic and Pashto, underscoring how both sides were largely young men. For Tugnoli, this kind of ambiguity is the strength of photography: It allows multiple interpretations instead of forcing a single truth.
He notes that Afghans often lived in ways that defied outside categories altogether, with markets bustling, weddings being celebrated and children attending school even as bombs went off only a few miles away. Such juxtapositions, he insists, show the resilience of ordinary Afghans and highlight how little of their daily existence fits into foreign reporting.
The US Army in Afghanistan
Some of Tugnoli’s most telling images emerged from assignments for The Washington Post. He describes a photograph of the pre-September 11 New York skyline hanging inside the US Army’s base in Jalalabad, Afghanistan. Initially unremarkable, it later struck him as symbolic of America’s “twisted mission” in the country. The paradox was stark: the United States invaded to kill al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, succeeded after ten years, stayed another decade and departed with the Taliban once again in power. For Tugnoli, the photograph embodied that circular futility.
He describes the base itself as a strange hybrid space: part-fortress, part-small American town. Soldiers watched American football, ate fast food and lived behind concertina wire, disconnected from the country they claimed to be securing. The photograph of New York encapsulated that distance, showing how American memories of September 11 overshadowed Afghan realities.
America’s war
Asked whether misunderstanding led to the Taliban’s return, Tugnoli answers without hesitation: yes. The problem was not just language or culture, but a lack of genuine interest in understanding Afghanistan. Decisions were often made in Washington or behind the fortified walls of UN compounds — enclaves that resembled foreign homelands more than Afghanistan. With overwhelming firepower, occupying forces had no incentive to learn or listen. Their mission, Tugnoli argues, served Western political agendas, not Afghan needs.
Khattar Singh contrasts this insularity with the murals painted on blast walls by Afghan artists like Omaid Sharifi — messages of love and peace that stand as a poignant counterpoint to the war’s brutality. These works of art, Khattar Singh observes, reveal that Afghans did not passively accept foreign domination. They responded with creativity, using color and words to reclaim public space from fear. This tension between military power and human resilience is one of the strongest themes in Tugnoli’s reflections.
Lessons from Afghanistan
Tugnoli believes the central lesson of Afghanistan is that ambiguity cannot be erased. His book avoids simple explanations, preferring to immerse readers in the atmosphere of uncertainty that defined Afghan life. By presenting images stripped of captions and reinterpreted in black and white, he asks viewers to confront instability and contradiction directly.
Rather than delivering “the truth,” It Can Never Be the Same invites reflection on beauty, pain and paradox. Khattar Singh concludes by praising this approach as a profound way to understand Afghanistan — not through answers, but through questions that remain open.
For Tugnoli, photography is most powerful not when it explains but when it unsettles. His hope is that audiences leave the book with questions about war, power and humanity that continue to resonate long after the last page is turned.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” Rohan Khattar Singh, Fair Observer’s Video Producer & Social Media Manager, speaks with Lorenzo Tugnoli, an Italian photojournalist whose work spans more than a decade in the Middle East. Tugnoli’s latest book, It Can Never Be the Same, focuses on Afghanistan, compiling photographs from…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh interviews Italian photojournalist Lorenzo Tugnoli about his book, It Can Never Be the Same. Tugnoli reflects on Afghanistan’s complexity, the limits of photojournalism and the failures of America’s war. His images highlight ambiguity, beauty and pain, resisting clichés while questioning the very meaning of representation.” post-date=”Sep 24, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: America Is to Blame for Taliban’s Returning to Power” slug-data=”fo-talks-america-is-to-blame-for-talibans-returning-to-power”>
FO° Talks: America Is to Blame for Taliban’s Returning to Power
Video Producer & Social Media Manager Rohan Khattar Singh interviews political commentator Kyle Moran about US President Donald Trump’s tariff policies and their far-reaching consequences. Their conversation probes the uncertainty of Trump’s approach, the reactions from BRICS nations and how these economic measures may ripple into global alliances, defense strategy and technological competition.
Economic cold war?
Khattar Singh begins by asking whether Trump’s tariffs mark the start of an economic cold war. Moran doubts this, pointing out that the policy is riddled with uncertainty. Some tariffs face legal challenges, and Trump himself has a history of walking back duties when they risk fueling inflation. While Trump sometimes frames tariffs as inherently good, Moran insists he is pragmatic enough to avoid market chaos or consumer backlash.
Moran highlights three questions to watch: which countries will get exemptions, which will strike free trade agreements and how courts will ultimately rule. For now, no one, including Trump, can say exactly where tariff policy is headed. This unpredictability makes life difficult for businesses, as seen with the failed 500% tariffs on Chinese imports that raised costs but produced no concessions from Beijing.
Does Trump want a deal?
On tariffs as a negotiating tool, Moran stresses the volatility of Trump’s approach. Duties could fall if parties reach agreements or rise if talks collapse. But Trump’s frequent public reversals mean even his advisors lack clarity. Moran recalls that the extreme tariffs on China hurt the US economy and consumers more than they pressured Beijing, underscoring the limits of this strategy.
Is Trump uniting BRICS?
Khattar Singh presses Moran on whether tariffs could backfire by pushing BRICS nations closer together. Moran concedes there is some risk: Resentment could bring members “slightly closer.” However, he doubts a 10% tariff would overcome deep divisions. India and China remain at odds, while Iran and the United Arab Emirates also clash. He predicts that as BRICS grows in influence, its geopolitical fractures will become more apparent.
The BRICS plan to set up their own payment system outside the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication has become especially controversial. Initially framed as a sovereignty tool, it now allows Russia to dodge sanctions. Moran warns that without guardrails, the system could facilitate dangerous activity. Washington, he argues, will grow increasingly alarmed, and Trump may try to use tariffs to block its expansion.
Trump and India
Moran singles out India as a vital partner. He sees potential for a bilateral trade deal with New Delhi and hopes for a deeper US–India alliance, especially given shared concerns about China. Defense is central here. Moran criticizes India’s reliance on Russian systems, citing Iran’s failure to stop Israeli attacks with its S-300 missile systems. He argues this is a “wake-up call” for India and urges the country to purchase US-designed systems instead.
Khattar Singh counters that US MIM-104 Patriot systems have struggled in Ukraine and that India’s Russian-made S-400s performed effectively against Pakistan. Still, he notes India’s growing trust in the United States, pointing to its purchase of Boeing AH-64 Apache helicopters.
A US–India trade deal
Turning to economics, Moran distinguishes between what a Trump–India deal might look like and what it should. Trump’s fixation on the Harley-Davidson motorcycle company complicates negotiations, while issues such as manufacturing and IT services remain sensitive. Yet Moran insists that bilateral engagement with India is far more practical than attempting to juggle hundreds of simultaneous agreements.
He allows that multilateralism with BRICS could serve US interests in some cases, but stresses that internal divisions make bilateral deals the safer path. For India, alignment with Washington on trade and defense could strengthen both nations’ positions in the global order.
The future of AI
Khattar Singh and Moran agree that AI will define the next economic era. Moran points to the UAE’s aggressive push to become an AI hub and warns against leaving the field to China, whose advances he identifies as potentially disastrous. He argues the US should not try to handle AI challenges alone.
Khattar Singh notes India’s vibrant AI ecosystem, from widespread use of ChatGPT to national investment in research. Together with the US and the UAE, India could anchor an AI partnership. By contrast, the European Union’s regulatory environment discourages innovation. As Moran bluntly notes, “None of these AI companies are European. Zero.”
Are Americans paying for tariffs?
In closing, Khattar Singh asks whether tariffs ultimately hurt Americans. Moran’s answer is a resounding yes. Economists are right, he says, that tariffs raise domestic costs. The effect depends on scale — targeted tariffs like those on Chinese aluminum in 2018 were manageable, but sweeping 500% tariffs would devastate consumers and industry.
Trump himself is inconsistent, sometimes framing tariffs as leverage, other times as revenue. That inconsistency suggests tariffs will not disappear quickly. Moran ends by stressing that the US needs competitive partners. While not excluding Europe, he doubts the old transatlantic alliance can deliver innovation. For him, the future lies in closer ties with India — on defense, trade and especially AI.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” Video Producer & Social Media Manager Rohan Khattar Singh interviews political commentator Kyle Moran about US President Donald Trump’s tariff policies and their far-reaching consequences. Their conversation probes the uncertainty of Trump’s approach, the reactions from BRICS nations and…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Kyle Moran discuss US President Donald Trump’s tariff policies, arguing they create uncertainty and risk harming American consumers. Moran warns that tariffs could inadvertently strengthen BRICS, despite the bloc’s internal divisions. He highlights India as Washington’s most important partner for trade, defense and especially AI cooperation.” post-date=”Sep 23, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Donald Trump’s Tariffs Could Boomerang and Unite the BRICS Nations” slug-data=”fo-talks-donald-trumps-tariffs-could-boomerang-and-unite-the-brics-nations”>
FO° Talks: Donald Trump’s Tariffs Could Boomerang and Unite the BRICS Nations
Fair Observer’s Chief Strategy Officer, Peter Isackson, speaks with CODEPINK journalist Nicholas J. S. Davies about Iran’s nuclear program, the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Israel’s recent attacks on Iran. Their conversation is framed by the Twelve-Day War, but its roots stretch back two decades. Isackson and Davies revisit the legacy of US President George W. Bush’s administration, the “axis of evil” and the way narratives of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) have been used to justify conflict.
Is Iran a victim?
Davies begins with history. He recalls that Iran itself was the victim of chemical weapons attacks by Iraq during the 1980s, carried out with the help of the United States and European allies. He argues that Iran never developed nuclear weapons and views them as “religiously forbidden.” Despite this, both the US and Israel have sustained an “endless […] propaganda war” portraying Iran as a nuclear threat.
Plot against Iran
Isackson asks how this narrative gained traction. Davies points to Israeli claims since 2018 of having obtained secret Iranian nuclear documents. These documents, he says, were presented to the IAEA and cited as proof of nuclear activity. Davies coauthored an article with CODEPINK Cofounder Medea Benjamin titled “The Plot Against Iran,” which argued that the IAEA had become a vehicle for legitimizing US–Israeli pressure and creating the pretext for war.
Is the IAEA working for Israel?
Isackson expresses his bewilderment: Israel, which possesses nuclear weapons, is not a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, yet it feeds intelligence to the IAEA. The agency takes this information seriously while ignoring Israel’s own arsenal.
Davies responds that this is “contradictory” and “absurd.” He explains that Israel’s safeguards agreement with the IAEA is effectively meaningless. Unlike North Korea, which openly left the IAEA, Israel has maintained a hollow agreement dating back to the 1970s. This, Davies claims, allowed Israel to develop nuclear weapons without scrutiny, with tacit US support.
Israel’s attack on Iran
Davies then turns to Israel’s military campaign. Over the past year and a half, he argues, Israel attacked nearly all its neighbors — Syria, Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank — before turning to Iran. He describes the recent operations as a combination of sabotage, assassinations, drone strikes and missile attacks, often conducted with help from the Iranian political group Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK). Davies characterizes the MEK as a dangerous sect with terrorist roots. He claims that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu exaggerated the success of these operations, calling them “misdirection.”
First nuclear deal
The discussion shifts to the history of nuclear negotiations. Davies reminds Isackson that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015 resolved many concerns by placing Iran under intrusive inspections. He stresses that the IAEA itself had concluded that pre-2003 research in Iran did not amount to a weapons program. Under the JCPOA, those issues were considered closed.
Iran’s uranium enrichment
Still, IAEA Director Rafael Grossi’s May 2024 report noted Iran’s enrichment of uranium to 60% — below weapons-grade 90% but higher than civilian fuel levels. Davies emphasizes that experts believe it would take years for Iran to build a bomb, even if it decided to. No evidence suggests such a decision has been made.
Israel’s game
For Davies, Israel’s strategy is clear: push the IAEA to condemn Iran, then use the resolution as justification for war. On June 12, the IAEA board passed a resolution criticizing Iran for non-cooperation. Davies stresses that Israel had planes loaded with bombs before the vote even ended. He argues that the US and its allies — the United Kingdom, France and Germany — enabled this escalation by drafting the resolution, though they may not have anticipated immediate war. Still, Davies believes there is “a lot of complicity to go around in all of this.”
Did the IAEA betray Iran?
Isackson presses Davies on whether Grossi knowingly allowed his report to serve as cover for Israeli aggression. Davies notes that Iran now accuses Grossi of failing to condemn the attacks, contrasting him with former IAEA General Director Mohamed ElBaradei, who defied US claims about WMDs in Iraq. ElBaradei won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2005 for his stance, later chronicling his struggles in his book, The Age of Deception: Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times.
Davies contends that Grossi chose the opposite path, allowing Israel and the US to use the IAEA for political purposes.
Is a nuclear war coming?
The conversation ends with a stark warning. Isackson asks how dangerous this moment really is. Davies cites the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ Doomsday Clock, now closer to midnight than ever. He argues that dismantled arms-control agreements, combined with Israeli brinkmanship, make the world more dangerous than during the Cold War.
Davies fears that if Israel were losing a full-scale war with Iran, it might resort to nuclear weapons. Pakistan has already threatened to retaliate with nuclear arms on Iran’s behalf. In such a scenario, he warns, the US, Russia or NATO could easily be drawn in.
Davies concludes that we live in a “dangerous, deceptive world” where propaganda and manipulation guide international institutions. Isackson closes by reflecting on how this episode may be “the most dangerous thing that has happened in recent months” — not only for Iran, but for global security.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” Fair Observer’s Chief Strategy Officer, Peter Isackson, speaks with CODEPINK journalist Nicholas J. S. Davies about Iran’s nuclear program, the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Israel’s recent attacks on Iran. Their conversation is framed by the Twelve-Day War, but…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Peter Isackson and Nicolas J. S. Davies examine Israel’s latest strikes on Iran. Davies argues that Iran is misrepresented as a nuclear threat while Israel manipulates the International Atomic Energy Agency to legitimize its actions. Both speakers highlight the hypocrisy of Western powers and the risk of nuclear escalation if global powers enter the conflict.” post-date=”Sep 22, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Did the US and Israel Lie About Iran Building Nuclear Weapons?” slug-data=”fo-talks-did-the-us-and-israel-lie-about-iran-building-nuclear-weapons”>
FO° Talks: Did the US and Israel Lie About Iran Building Nuclear Weapons?
Rohan Khattar Singh, Fair Observer’s Video Producer & Social Media Manager, speaks with independent Middle East analyst Abdullah O Hayek about the sudden derailment of Israel–Syria peace talks and the wider consequences for the region. The conversation traces the fragile optimism of early negotiations, the eruption of sectarian violence in southern Syria and Israel’s overwhelming military response that poisoned the atmosphere of trust. Hayek examines the secrecy surrounding the talks, Israel’s dual strategy of negotiation and consolidation, Turkey’s rising influence and the existential question of whether Syria can hold together as a unified state.
Israel–Syria peace talks
Khattar Singh begins with the extraordinary events of late May and early June, when Israel and Syria quietly entered negotiations. Hayek calls this “nothing short of a geopolitical earthquake” after decades of hostility. Reports suggested a breakthrough was within reach, with Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa — formerly Abu Mohammad al-Julani, who toppled Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in December 2024 — seeking rapprochement via Emirati and American channels.
US President Donald Trump personally embraced this momentum, meeting Sharaa in Riyadh and lifting sanctions on June 30 as a gesture of goodwill. Israel signaled guarded openness so long as security guarantees and control over the Golan Heights were preserved. Hayek recalls the diplomatic momentum as “unstoppable,” with both sides contemplating normalization by the end of the year.
That optimism collapsed in mid-July. Sectarian clashes between Druze militias and Bedouin tribes erupted in the Suwayda province, near the Golan Heights and Jordan. The violence escalated rapidly, displacing nearly 200,000 civilians and eroding Sharaa’s authority. Accusations that Syrian forces aided atrocities against Druze civilians deepened the crisis, opening the door for Israeli intervention.
Syria–Israel peace deal
Khattar Singh presses Hayek on how close the two sides were to an agreement. Hayek explains that insiders spoke of interim arrangements, even imaginative ideas like a joint “peace park” in the Golan Heights. For Sharaa, peace promised reconstruction, legitimacy and an end to isolation. For Israel, it offered a stable northern frontier and a diplomatic success under the Abraham Accords framework.
Yet sectarian bloodshed and Israel’s massive response destroyed the fragile trust. Hayek insists that both sides share blame, but Israel’s airstrikes — including against Damascus’s Ministry of Defense and the presidential palace — “irreparably poisoned the atmosphere.” From Syria’s perspective, the strikes were a betrayal. From Israel’s, Damascus had failed to control its forces and prevent sectarian killings. The result was the collapse of talks that only weeks earlier seemed within grasp.
Why Israel bombed Syria
The discussion turns to Israel’s intervention. On July 14, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared Israel the “protector of the Druze brethren” and ordered airstrikes against Syrian units. By July 16, Israel had launched more than 160 strikes, extending to central Damascus.
Hayek explains that Israel framed the action as a humanitarian defense and a way to enforce a buffer zone. In reality, it shattered the nascent trust. Russia and Iran echoed Syrian accusations of sovereignty violations, while even Washington urged restraint. Hayek underlines the scale: This was the first direct Israeli assault on Syria’s new government since Assad’s fall. Hayek says that “ultimately, it was Israel that pulled the trigger … it prioritized military force over further dialogue.”
Closed-door talks
Khattar Singh asks why the peace talks were conducted in secrecy. Hayek explains that for Syria, negotiations with Israel were politically explosive. Sharaa faced opposition from Islamist factions, Assad loyalists and Iran-backed militias. For Israel, insisting that its sovereignty over the Golan Heights was “non-negotiable” risked fracturing Netanyahu’s coalition.
Both sides used back channels through the United States and the United Arab Emirates to avoid public backlash and spoilers from Iran or Hezbollah. Netanyahu also avoided openly negotiating with a leader once linked to jihadist groups. Hayek stresses that secrecy was intended to give talks “a chance to succeed,” but in practice, it left them brittle and vulnerable to collapse once violence escalated.
Does Israel want peace?
Khattar Singh asks whether Israel truly desired peace. Hayek argues that Israel had a dual position: It had real incentives for stability and diplomatic progress, but on its own terms. Israel demanded recognition of sovereignty over the Golan Heights and security guarantees above all.
Meanwhile, Israeli forces had already expanded their footprint. Within days of Assad’s ousting, Israel pushed past the United Nations buffer zone, built outposts and declared the 1974 disengagement line void. Combined with the steady expansion of Golan settlements, these moves suggested Israel was consolidating control while talking peace. Hayek calls Israel’s desire “real but extremely conditional,” a strategy of buying time while strengthening its position.
The role of Turkey
Khattar Singh raises Turkey’s role. Hayek explains that Turkey, under Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, has been both mediator and disruptor. It supported Syrian rebels against Assad, partnered with Russia and Iran in ceasefire talks, and became a close ally of the Sharaa government after Assad’s fall.
Turkey now provides reconstruction aid, security training and intelligence support, even thwarting assassination attempts against Sharaa. Ankara, the Turkish capital, also brokered a deal forcing the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces into integration with the new state. Hayek calls this “mediation by leverage:” Turkey knits Syria back together but always in line with its own interests.
Will Syria collapse?
Finally, Khattar Singh asks whether Syria can hold together. Hayek warns of alarming signs: sectarian massacres, militia warlordism and drug trafficking. Minorities such as Alawites and Druze fear for their survival. He foresees the risk of fragmentation into enclaves — Druze, Alawite, Kurdish and Sunni — akin to Yugoslavia or Libya.
Still, Hayek does not believe collapse is inevitable. Sharaa must unify the country through inclusive governance, discipline his military and pursue reconciliation. Disarming militias and integrating fighters through a credible disarmament, demobilization and reintegration program is essential. With policies focused on equality and protection for all communities, Hayek argues, Syria can still avoid disintegration.
A fragile horizon
Khattar Singh and Hayek’s dialogue captures both the promise and peril of the Israel–Syria peace effort. From unprecedented negotiations to devastating violence, the process illustrates how quickly trust can unravel in the Middle East. For Israel, security and territorial control remain paramount. For Syria, survival and unity take precedence. Turkey plays mediator and power broker, while the specter of collapse hangs over the Syrian state.
As Hayek notes, the talks may not have “immediately fizzled out,” but after the events of July, prospects for peace look far-fetched.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” Rohan Khattar Singh, Fair Observer’s Video Producer & Social Media Manager, speaks with independent Middle East analyst Abdullah O Hayek about the sudden derailment of Israel–Syria peace talks and the wider consequences for the region. The conversation traces the fragile optimism of early…” post_summery=”Rohan Khattar Singh and Abdullah O Hayek trace the rise and collapse of Israel–Syria peace talks in mid-2025. Hayek emphasizes that both sides bore responsibility, but Israel’s overwhelming military response destroyed fragile trust and froze negotiations. The discussion widens to Israel’s dual strategy, Turkey’s power plays and the looming risk of Syria’s fragmentation, leaving peace a distant prospect.” post-date=”Sep 21, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Israel–Syria Peace Talks Derailed After Israeli Airstrikes, Turkey Makes Its Moves” slug-data=”fo-talks-israel-syria-peace-talks-derailed-after-israeli-airstrikes-turkey-makes-its-moves”>
FO° Talks: Israel–Syria Peace Talks Derailed After Israeli Airstrikes, Turkey Makes Its Moves
[Though this video is not recent, the authors’ discussion remains relevant today.]
Josef Olmert, an Israeli academic and political commentator, dives into US President Donald Trump’s latest proposals for Gaza and the wider Middle East. Olmert lays out his sharp critiques and his alternative vision. The conversation ranges from the feasibility of mass resettlement of Gazans, to the imperative of destroying Hamas, to the overriding challenge posed by Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Olmert’s initial confusion
Olmert begins by admitting his confusion. For years, Trump positioned himself as an isolationist, pulling America out of international organizations and pushing to withdraw troops from conflict zones. Yet, in this instance, he called for US military involvement in the border region between Israel and Gaza, an area Olmert describes as “one of the most problematic, dangerous and volatile regions of the world.” To him, the contradiction is striking.
Olmert concedes that Trump possesses a certain originality and “out-of-the-box” vision for solving regional problems. Still, he sees fundamental flaws. Trump assumes a single event or plan can provide a sweeping solution to the Middle East’s problems. Olmert pushes back firmly: “It doesn’t work like that.” Countless grand plans, from peace conferences to international accords, have failed because the Middle East is too diverse, fractured and historically laden with conflict.
Olmert also highlights Trump’s reliance on economic logic. As a businessman, the president tends to see commercial fixes as the path to stability. Olmert acknowledges that raising living standards is desirable, but he stresses that economic growth cannot erase deep-rooted political and ideological struggles. In his words, “The entire foundation, therefore, of the approach is wrong.”
The Gaza population dilemma
Olmert then addresses Trump’s focus on Gaza’s demographic challenge. With over two million people packed into a small territory lacking sufficient infrastructure, the humanitarian strain is undeniable. Olmert agrees that the Gaza Strip “cannot cater for a population of over two million people.” Trump suggested emigration as a remedy, with other countries absorbing Gazans.
While Olmert admits some Gazans might want to leave voluntarily, he dismisses the idea. No country can realistically resettle such numbers, certainly not in a short timeframe. Even if partially successful, the region would destabilize in the transition. He draws on history, recalling how the Oslo Accords quickly unraveled under pressure from opponents. Any drawn-out evacuation, he insists, would invite chaos.
Hamas and security imperatives
Despite his skepticism, Olmert identifies actionable points in Trump’s rhetoric. Chief among them is the call to dismantle the Palestinian Sunni militant group Hamas, which governs Gaza. Olmert stresses his long-held conviction that “if you want to achieve peace along the border between Israel and Gaza, Hamas has to be totally destroyed.” He rejects the notion that peace is possible with actors who categorically oppose coexistence.
He also aligns with Trump on freeing Israeli hostages but asks the crucial question: how? Once again, the removal of two million Gazans is not the answer. Instead, the focus must remain squarely on neutralizing Hamas.
Regional players and fragile balances
Turning to neighboring states, Olmert briefly considers the potential roles of Egypt and Jordan. Egypt, he suggests, might absorb a limited number of people. Jordan, however, already has a fragile demographic balance, with up to 70% of its population being of Palestinian origin. Bringing more Gazans would, in his view, risk destabilizing the Hashemite Kingdom.
While critics of Jordan often highlight corruption or weak institutions, Olmert counters that the monarchy has endured for a century — dismantling it could open doors to even greater instability. “The devil you know sometimes is better than the devils you don’t know,” he says.
Olmert also raises cost concerns. Any plan would require massive financial incentives. Ultimately, he argues, the burden would fall on the US taxpayer.
Saudi Arabia enters the conversation as well. Trump publicly claimed that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman had expressed opposition to a Palestinian state. Olmert considers this disclosure a blunder. Statements that might be tolerated in private, he warns, become problematic when voiced openly, forcing Saudi leaders to deny them.
Iran as the true challenge
For Olmert, the real strategic focus should remain on the Islamic Republic of Iran. He criticizes Trump’s vague comments about sanctions and his willingness to meet the Iranian president. What disturbed him most was the absence of even the boilerplate statement of “all the options on the table.”
He argues that Iran’s nuclear ambitions and regional influence are “the key.” Destroying Iran’s nuclear program, he asserts, would have a far greater stabilizing impact than resettling Gazans. Gulf Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia, live under constant fear of Iran’s expansionist ambitions. Curtailing the nation, he says, would also shift Palestinian attitudes.
Even so, Olmert does not present this as a cure-all. He admits that removing Iran’s nuclear capacity will not solve everything, but it has a higher chance of promoting stability than Trump’s Gaza proposals. Delays in dealing with Tehran, he warns, would allow Iran to accelerate its nuclear program, creating an existential threat for Israel that “Israel should not accept.”
The Israeli domestic reaction
Olmert also examines reactions inside Israel. Right-wing politicians in the ruling Likud party and ultranationalist ministers, such as Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, celebrated Trump’s words. Yet they overlooked one critical statement: Trump’s rejection of new settlements in Gaza. This could signal broader reservations about settlement policy, including in the West Bank.
Trump even promised an announcement regarding sovereignty in the West Bank, which Olmert interprets as an attempt to reconcile annexation of certain areas with a two-state framework. In his assessment, the Israeli right wing “doesn’t understand” that Trump operates within international constraints. Aligning too closely with his proposals, Olmert warns, risks global backlash and could isolate Israel.
Re-centering priorities
In closing, Olmert emphasizes what he sees as Israel’s true priority. While Trump shifts focus to Gaza, Olmert insists that “the main thing is still the Iranian problem.” For Israel, he says, the Gaza issue is secondary. Ensuring that the world’s attention remains on Iran — not on Trump’s impractical resettlement ideas — is the strategy Israel must pursue.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” Josef Olmert, an Israeli academic and political commentator, dives into US President Donald Trump’s latest proposals for Gaza and the wider Middle East. Olmert lays out his sharp critiques and his alternative…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Josef Olmert weighs in on US President Donald Trump’s controversial Middle East proposals, focusing on Gaza and beyond. He argues that Trump’s business-minded, simplistic approach cannot address the region’s deep-rooted political and ideological conflicts. The real strategic threat remains Iran’s nuclear ambitions; Israel must not be distracted by Trump’s impractical plans.” post-date=”Sep 20, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Josef Olmert on Trump’s Gaza Plan” slug-data=”fo-talks-josef-olmert-on-trumps-gaza-plan”>
FO° Talks: Josef Olmert on Trump’s Gaza Plan
[Though this video is not recent, the authors’ discussion remains relevant today.]
Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and Professor Thomas Barfield discuss whether Taliban-ruled Afghanistan is becoming a “normal state.” While foreign powers engage with the new rulers, Barfield sees little sign of Afghanistan normalizing. Other states do not recognize the Taliban regime, internal fractures are growing, and the growing economic, political and social pressures could destabilize not only Afghanistan, but the wider region.
India, Pakistan and the shifting regional equation
Singh begins by raising India’s recent outreach to the Taliban, a surprising development given India’s bitter memory of the 1999 Kandahar hijacking of Indian Airlines Flight 814. Barfield explains that New Delhi’s calculus is driven less by affection for the Taliban and more by hostility toward Pakistan. Pakistan’s capital of Islamabad, once the Taliban’s key backer, now finds itself bitten by its own creation. India has also invested heavily in Afghan infrastructure and hopes to access Central Asia through Iran’s Chabahar port. Still, Barfield stresses that trust is absent on all sides, calling it a classic “enemy of my enemy is my friend” dynamic.
Recognition without recognition
Barfield points out that no country has formally recognized the Taliban, not even Pakistan. Islamabad withheld recognition after its demands — the acceptance of the Durand Line (the Afghanistan–Pakistan border), suppression of the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan nationalist movement and a halt to cross-border support — saw rejection. The Taliban’s dismissive response, he says, should not have been a surprise. Even during the 1990s, recognition was limited and short-lived.
Today, no government wants to be the first. Yet Barfield notes that pragmatic dealings continue: Qatar and China pursue business, the World Bank runs projects and Uzbekistan sells electricity despite having unpaid bills. Such transactions, he suggests, may buy goodwill and restrain jihadist groups from using Afghan territory.
The economic straitjacket
Despite these engagements, the Taliban remain cut off financially. Their national bank assets are frozen in Switzerland, and lack of recognition blocks access to UN aid and trade agreements. Afghanistan’s economy, Barfield says, is “in a very, very bad way.” Misery may suppress revolt for now, but once suffering normalizes, people begin to ask why they endure it.
This is a dangerous moment for the regime. Barfield warns that revolutions often come suddenly, and the Taliban has reason to fear the speed at which public sentiment could shift.
Four alarming trends
Drawing on a paper he co-authored, Barfield identifies four troubling developments under Taliban rule:
- Their domestic policies endanger Afghan citizens’ security and prosperity.
- Their foreign relations destabilize the neighborhood, especially Pakistan.
- Afghanistan once again risks becoming a base for global terrorism.
- The Taliban relies increasingly on narcotics, particularly heroin and methamphetamine, even while suppressing opium cultivation.
These developments, Barfield argues, underscore that Afghanistan remains more a source of regional risk than a stable state. Iran faces a refugee influx, Pakistan suffers Taliban-backed militancy, and China fears instability spilling into the autonomous region of Xinjiang. The Taliban may not themselves threaten the world, but Afghanistan still shelters groups with global ambitions, including the Islamic State.
Fragile state, fractured society
Turning inward, Singh asks about Taliban governance. Barfield stresses that Afghanistan has never had a dominant military institution like Pakistan. The Taliban’s army functions more as a “super militia,” vulnerable to collapse if legitimacy erodes.
Internally, cracks are widening: Radical restrictions on women alienate even conservative societies, ethnic favoritism toward Pashtuns fuels resentment and Afghanistan’s youthful population faces blocked opportunities. Kabul, a “primate city” with four million people and only 20,000 Taliban, could be the epicenter of an uprising. Ethnic divisions remain premodern, with each group seeking dominance, yet Barfield does not foresee ethnic cleansing or secession. Instead, the central danger is perception: In Afghanistan, no one backs a loser.
Vulnerabilities and the future
Barfield challenges the cliché of Afghanistan as a “graveyard of empires,” calling it instead a “graveyard of analysts looking backwards.” Poorly managed, the United States’ withdrawal erased the fragile republic, leaving the Taliban reliant on external resources yet denied them. He highlights historical lessons from King Mohammad Zāhir Shāh, the last king of Afghanistan, whose compromises sustained stability, in contrast to today’s zero-sum politics.
Looking forward, Barfield sees hazards everywhere: economic collapse, potential Taliban splits, Pakistan’s instability and speculation about a “Khorasan” identity as an alternative to ethnic nationalism. He even warns that the second administration of US President Donald Trump could worsen matters, as Trump’s disdain for foreign spending might cut off vital funds and “hasten [Afghanistan’s] downfall.”
Ultimately, Barfield concludes, Afghanistan will likely hold together, not out of unity but because no ethnic group has a viable nationalist ideology. “Afghanistan is a land of arranged marriages,” he quips, “and nationalism is a romantic enterprise.”
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and Professor Thomas Barfield discuss whether Taliban-ruled Afghanistan is becoming a “normal state.” While foreign powers engage with the new rulers, Barfield sees little sign of…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Atul Singh and Thomas Barfield express that Taliban-ruled Afghanistan is drifting into crisis. No state has formally recognized the Taliban, yet pragmatic dealings continue even as the economy collapses and internal fractures widen. Barfield warns of narcotics dependence, terrorism risks, regional instability and a volatile future for the nation.” post-date=”Sep 19, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Is the Taliban-Ruled Afghanistan Now Becoming a Normal State?” slug-data=”fo-talks-is-the-taliban-ruled-afghanistan-now-becoming-a-normal-state”>
FO° Talks: Is the Taliban-Ruled Afghanistan Now Becoming a Normal State?
[Though this video is not recent, the authors’ discussion remains relevant today.]
Fair Observer Founder, CEO & Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and Swiss diplomat Jean-Daniel Ruch, a veteran of the Turkish capital of Ankara and the Middle East, explore Syria’s dramatic upheaval and its regional consequences. The conversation highlights the fall of the Assad dynasty, the ascent of new Sunni leadership and the recalibration of regional power involving Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel.
Strategic shifts in the region
Ruch opens by stressing that Syria is undergoing profound strategic changes. He recalls predicting a decade ago that the old Syrian order would collapse, though he did not foresee such rapid change. He lists key developments: the collapse of Iran’s land corridor to the Lebanese Shiite military group Hezbollah, Turkey’s renewed influence, Russian and American hesitation and the re-emergence of energy projects such as a long-discussed Qatari pipeline through Turkey to Europe. These shifts, he argues, will shape not only the Middle East but also West Asia and Europe, especially regarding refugees.
The fall of the Assad regime
Singh summarizes the dramatic recent events: former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad fled to Moscow, ending 54 years of Ba’athist rule. The Alawite minority, dominant since 1970, has lost power, while Sunnis, led by Abu Muhammad al-Julani, the head of the former Islamist military group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), seized Damascus in a lightning ten-day offensive. Turkey’s intelligence chief prayed with Julani in the Umayyad Mosque, underscoring Ankara’s backing. Celebrations erupted across Sunni communities, from Pakistan to Bangladesh, marking the symbolic return of the Umayyad Mosque from Shia to Sunni hands.
Historical burdens and Turkish ambitions
Singh asks about Syria’s troubled past. Ruch traces its modern shape to the Sykes–Picot agreement and subsequent French mandate. He notes that outside powers have long dictated order in the region, from the Cold War to the Arab Spring. He emphasizes Turkey’s central role today, with President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, intelligence head İbrahim Kalın and Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan projecting power rooted in Ottoman legacy. Turkey’s ambitions rest on military strength, economic reach and religious conviction. However, Ruch notes Arab mistrust persists, recalling how Egyptian women during the Arab Spring dismissed Turkish claims of returning.
New balances and fragile alliances
Ruch argues that Julani’s victory is significant but unstable. The challenge lies in power-sharing among Sunnis, Arabs, Kurds, Druze and Alawites, with mediation from Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Qatar. He cites the risk of fragmentation: Lebanon may split, Druze may seek Israeli protection, Kurds resist HTS and Alawites retreat to Russian-backed enclaves. Regional powers must negotiate a new balance, while outside actors such as Russia seek to preserve bases in Tartus and Latakia. The 2012 Geneva Communiqué, Ruch believes, still offers a guiding roadmap.
Turkish grooming of HTS and Western involvement
Ruch attributes Julani’s success to Turkish grooming over at least four years, with HTS supplied and trained through Turkey. He estimates HTS commands around 30,000 fighters and speculates that Gulf or even Western funding contributed to the group’s rise. Turkey also relies on the Syrian National Army, effectively an extension of its military, to pressure Kurdish forces.
Ankara’s strategic aim is to establish a 30-kilometer buffer zone free of Kurdish fighters, possibly with US President Donald Trump’s backing. Singh adds reports that Assad’s army collapsed partly because soldiers were unpaid, while Julani benefited from foreign funding. Ruch notes Western efforts to rebrand Julani, once hunted with a $10 million US bounty, into a suit-wearing political leader named Ahmed al-Sharaa, raising doubts over whether this transformation is cosmetic or substantive.
The wider geopolitical picture
The conversation turns to broader dynamics. Ruch highlights Christian minorities’ anxiety, Alawite resentment and the risk of revenge killings. He stresses that justice mechanisms will be essential to avoid cycles of violence. Regionally, he underscores rivalry among Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt for Sunni leadership. Iraq, he suggests, could mediate despite its limitations, recalling its role in the 2023 Iran–Saudi rapprochement. Israel, meanwhile, destroyed Syrian air defenses and sought to prevent a hostile Sunni coalition.
While normalization with Gulf states advanced under the Abraham Accords, Ruch doubts lasting peace without a Palestinian state. He warns that, absent such a resolution, hostility will fester and could erupt in future crises as severe as the infamous October 7 attack on Israelis in 2023.
The broken map
Singh and Ruch agree that Syria, as once defined, will not return. The Humpty Dumpty metaphor looms over their discussion: the old order is shattered and cannot be rebuilt. Whether Julani and his Turkish patrons can forge an inclusive and durable framework remains uncertain. Regional rivalries, sectarian divides and unresolved grievances threaten renewed instability. Yet the stakes are immense: the future of Syria will ripple across West Asia, Europe and the balance of global power.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” Fair Observer Founder, CEO & Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and Swiss diplomat Jean-Daniel Ruch, a veteran of the Turkish capital of Ankara and the Middle East, explore Syria’s dramatic upheaval and its…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Atul Singh and Jean-Daniel Ruch analyze Syria’s collapse and the shifting balance of Middle Eastern power. They trace the fall of former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, the rise of HTS leader Abu Muhammad al-Julani, and Turkey’s pivotal role. Syria’s old order is broken, and the region’s future hinges on whether unfriendly powers can coexist.” post-date=”Sep 18, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Examining Syria Through Swiss Eyes” slug-data=”fo-talks-examining-syria-through-swiss-eyes”>
FO° Talks: Examining Syria Through Swiss Eyes
In this episode of FO° Talks, Fair Observer Contributing Editor Anton Schauble and clinical psychologist and meditation teacher Tucker Peck discuss his approach to Buddhism and his book, Sanity and Sainthood. Peck presents a balanced path between traditional Buddhism and its American offshoots, seeking a grounded, ethics-focused practice rooted in the Pāḷi Canon — the collection of scriptures in the Theravada Buddhist tradition — rather than vague contemporary interpretations. He describes his work as walking a “middle road” — eschewing both rigid metaphysics and watered-down spiritual clichés in favor of an engaged, scripture-informed inquiry.
Studying the oldest texts to teach clearly
Peck began teaching meditation at the age of 29 and quickly realized the importance of anchoring his instruction in canonical texts rather than personal spiritual experiences. He emphasizes the richness and complexity of the Pali Canon, the earliest collection of Buddhist scriptures. Though difficult for newcomers to read due to its length and lack of editing, Peck insists it holds invaluable insights when properly interpreted.
Core Buddhist teachings in a modern context
Peck frames the Buddha as one of history’s intellectual giants. At the heart of the Buddha’s awakening are the Four Noble Truths — particularly the insight that suffering arises from the futile desire to control the uncontrollable. Another essential teaching is dependent origination (Patiṭṭha-samuppāda), which outlines the twelve interlinked processes through which distorted perception fuels stress. Later interpretations, aligned with systems theory, see causality as web-like rather than linear: Everything affects everything else.
Peck also explores the three marks of existence:
- Impermanence (Anicca): Everything is in flux, even if it appears stable.
- Non-self (Anatta): There is no fixed self — everything we identify with, including our own body and consciousness, is merely an object of awareness.
- Dissatisfaction (Dukkha): Clinging to impermanent things for lasting happiness is inherently stressful and misguided.
According to Peck, these three insights reject the metaphysical, psychological and ethical absolutes many traditions depend on. The Buddha, he argues, didn’t aim to create a religion or define a heavenly realm. Early Theravada Buddhism reflects this restraint. However, later Buddhist traditions sometimes ascribe divine qualities to realization, speaking of a “great mind” or “bodhicitta” imbued with wisdom that acts through the practitioner.
Sanity and Sainthood: two goals of practice
Peck’s book title captures what he sees as the twin aims of Buddhist practice:
- Sanity means responding appropriately to reality — not projecting past traumas or imagined fears. Many people, Peck says, are deeply disconnected from their actual experience, leading to unhappiness despite outward success.
- Sainthood reflects the aspiration to be a good person. Here, the enemy is not moral weakness, but the invisible inner forces that drive behavior. Meditation helps reveal these hidden influences — what Peck calls “internal dark money” — so they no longer unconsciously control one’s actions.
The Eightfold Path: a framework for transformation
Peck presents the Eightfold Path as a practical framework, grouped into three categories:
- Intellectual/educational: Right View and Right Aim focus on learning from seasoned practitioners and adopting a worldview that emphasizes cause and effect, and the harm of greed and separation.
- Ethical conduct: Right Speech, Action and Livelihood all revolve around reducing harm and avoiding activities that cloud the mind — from drugs and alcohol to digital distractions.
- Meditation: Right Effort, Mindfulness and Concentration aim to cultivate awareness and insight, especially through the Vipassana meditation technique, which deconstructs perception and experience.
The power and perils of meditation
Peck draws a distinction between casual meditation and intensive retreat practice. A few minutes a day is helpful for everyone, promoting calm and self-awareness. But after 25–40 minutes, meditation shifts into “exposure therapy,” where suppressed thoughts and emotions surface. This can lead to destabilizing experiences, especially for people with recent trauma or unresolved mental health issues.
Some rare but serious side effects include:
- Feeling physical sensations as energy rather than a solid body, disrupting sleep
- Surfacing of psychological content one isn’t prepared for
- Perceptual disturbances from deconstructing sensory systems
Peck warns that intensive practice isn’t for everyone. For some, losing the conventional sense of self can be liberating; for others, it’s disorienting. The key, he says, is the ability to voluntarily return to one’s everyday identity — for example, “Tucker” or “Anton” — when engaging with society.
A personal turn toward Buddhism
Raised Jewish, Peck explored several religious paths before choosing Buddhism. He found Judaism and other traditions either ethically outdated or lacking clear, replicable spiritual practices. Buddhism appealed to him because of its sparse metaphysical demands and its step-by-step guidance for achieving awakening.
Despite textual contradictions, Buddhism struck him as remarkably progressive for ancient India, offering examples of racial and gender equality. He cites a sutta (Buddhist sermon) where the Buddha’s disciple Ananda accepts water from a woman of low caste, rejecting caste hierarchy with the phrase, “I asked you for water, not for caste.” For Peck, viewing all humans as equal is an ethical necessity rooted in the Buddhist principle of non-self.
Why tech workers are drawn to Buddhist practice
Peck notes that a large number of his meditation students are from Silicon Valley. He speculates that people in the tech industry, who often have material security, eventually recognize that their problems are internal. Without external scapegoats for their unhappiness, they turn to spiritual solutions. Buddhism, with its logic-friendly metaphysics and perceived scientific validation, offers a system for mental transformation that appeals to this demographic.
Kalamasutta and the Buddhist epistemic approach
Peck closes by referencing the Kālāma Sutta, which lays out a Buddhist hierarchy of knowledge:
- Lowest: scripture or tradition
- Middle: logical reasoning
- Highest: direct, personal experience
He encourages viewers to experiment with meditation for even five minutes, noting that it can immediately reveal the mind’s patterns. A simple practice he suggests is identifying something one is trying to control that can’t be controlled, and then letting it go, observing the resulting feeling of relief. This kind of empirical, experience-based insight, Peck says, lies at the heart of Buddhist wisdom.
[Tucker Peck’s book, Sanity and Sainthood, is available on Amazon.]
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” In this episode of FO° Talks, Fair Observer Contributing Editor Anton Schauble and clinical psychologist and meditation teacher Tucker Peck discuss his approach to Buddhism and his book, Sanity and Sainthood. Peck presents a balanced path between traditional Buddhism and its American offshoots,…” post_summery=”Tucker Peck, a psychologist and meditation teacher, discusses his approach to Buddhism and the goals of “sanity” and “sainthood” in spiritual practice. He explores key concepts like the Four Noble Truths, dependent origination and the three marks of existence. Drawing from ancient texts and his teaching experience, Peck frames Buddhism as a rational, experiential path for understanding and transforming the mind.” post-date=”Sep 17, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Tucker Peck Tried Every Religion, But Only Buddhism Did THIS to His Mind” slug-data=”fo-talks-tucker-peck-tried-every-religion-but-only-buddhism-did-this-to-his-mind”>
FO° Talks: Tucker Peck Tried Every Religion, But Only Buddhism Did THIS to His Mind
Fair Observer Founder, CEO & Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh talks with Richard Fontaine, the CEO of the Center for a New America, and Robert Blackwill, a former ambassador to India. The guests discuss their book, Lost Decade: The US Pivot to Asia and the Rise of Chinese Power, which examines US foreign policy in Asia after the 2011 “Pivot to Asia” announcement. They argue the 2010s were a critical missed opportunity: While China’s power grew rapidly, Washington failed to follow through on its own strategic shift. By the decade’s end, the United States found itself in a weaker position in Asia than in 2011; it had allowed military, diplomatic and economic imbalances to widen in Beijing’s favor.
The Pivot to Asia: ambition vs. reality
In 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton unveiled a landmark change in US grand strategy — it would be the first time Washington prioritized Asia over Europe. Blackwell and Fontaine agree this was the right call strategically, yet stress it was never carried out in practice.
Multiple forces undercut the Asia Pivot:
- The assumption that US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were winding down proved false, keeping troops and resources tied up.
- Budget sequestration cut defense spending at precisely the moment Asia required greater investment.
- Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea pulled US attention and assets back to Europe.
- Years of diplomatic effort on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) ended with congressional rejection, followed by US President Donald Trump’s withdrawal.
- Changes in top-level officials and shifting crises made diplomacy inconsistent, blunting the message and the momentum.
Blackwell says the Iraq invasion of 2003 was a strategic mistake on par with Vietnam, noting that the Middle East has repeatedly derailed Asia-focused policy.
The need for the Asia Pivot
Asia’s strategic centrality was already undeniable by 2011. Blackwell outlines its weight: The continent is home to 60% of the global population, 40% of the GDP and two-thirds of global growth. It’s home to half the world’s active-duty personnel and several of its largest defense budgets. Most importantly, it is the base of China, the only country capable of challenging the US as a global leader.
At the time, Washington’s elite consensus still considered the idea that China could be coaxed into becoming a “responsible stakeholder.” Fontaine recalls that US policy in the 2010s leaned heavily toward engagement, with relatively little hedging. It took until halfway through Trump’s first term for the US to formally declare China a strategic competitor.
Current US strategy and limits
Under then-US President Joe Biden, a new Pivot to Asia is underway in concept, yet the authors describe it as overdue and incomplete. The lack of a trade pillar, which has been absent since the TPP’s collapse, remains a glaring weakness.
Fontaine and Blackwill argue the US cannot abandon Europe or the Middle East, but it must make deliberate tradeoffs. Naval and air assets could shift to Asia, with surge deployments available for emergencies like Gaza. In Europe, as allies boost defense budgets, US forces could redeploy eastward. The authors judge a Russian attack on NATO territory as very unlikely, freeing space for reallocation.
Alliances as a strategic anchor
Strong alliances are essential to balancing China’s rise:
- Japan is doubling its defense spending over five years, acquiring strike capabilities and quietly preparing for a Taiwan conflict scenario. Blackwell notes growing Japanese acknowledgment that non-involvement in such a contingency is “almost unthinkable.”
- The Philippines has allowed renewed US access to bases under Filipino President Ferdinand Marcos, reversing a 1991 decision to expel US forces.
- Networking among allies is growing, with Japan–India, Japan–Australia and Japan–Philippines ties deepening. The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (or the Quad), first conceived by former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, shows that partners — not only Washington — are driving regional defense coordination.
Economic gaps
The absence of a major trade strategy undermines US influence. While the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership move forward without the US, domestic politics make reentry unlikely. Fontaine and Blackwell stress that smaller-scale digital or sectoral agreements could keep the US economically relevant. Without deeper integration, however, China’s trade influence will continue expanding.
Consultation and credibility
The 2011 Asia Pivot rollout suffered from minimal prior consultation with allies. Many in Asia, Europe and the Middle East were blindsided, leading to fears of abandonment. Blackwell warns that similar missteps now — such as withdrawing from Ukraine — would deeply shake Asian allies’ faith in US commitments. Fontaine underscores that US credibility depends on global consistency, as allies in different regions see their security as interconnected.
China–Russia partnership
Beijing and Moscow now enjoy their closest relationship since before the Sino–Soviet split. This “No Limits” partnership features oil sales, dual-use technology flows and military coordination. They share an ambition to weaken the US-led order, and while they stop short of a mutual defense pact, they cooperate in ways that undermine sanctions and reduce dollar dependence. Fontaine labels their alignment, alongside Iran and North Korea, as an “axis of upheaval.”
US–China relations and Taiwan
Relations are in decline, with Taiwan as the most likely flashpoint. Fontaine sees war as possible but not inevitable, citing strong incentives on both sides to avoid catastrophe. Blackwell stresses that a robust US deterrent reduces the odds of Chinese aggression. Both authors insist that diplomacy must work in tandem with military readiness to manage competition without sliding into open conflict.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” Fair Observer Founder, CEO & Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh talks with Richard Fontaine, the CEO of the Center for a New America, and Robert Blackwill, a former ambassador to India. The guests discuss their book, Lost Decade: The US Pivot to Asia and the Rise of Chinese Power, which examines US…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Live, Singh, Fontaine and Blackwill discuss how US policy squandered the 2010s. The guests say it failed to follow through on the Pivot to Asia as China’s power rose. They call for stronger alliances, strategic military shifts, renewed economic engagement and careful diplomacy to protect American interests in the country’s most critical geopolitical theater.” post-date=”Sep 16, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Live: A New Look at Post Asia Pivot US Foreign Policy” slug-data=”fo-live-a-new-look-at-post-asia-pivot-us-foreign-policy”>
FO° Live: A New Look at Post Asia Pivot US Foreign Policy
Fair Observer Founder, CEO & Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and retired Indian Air Commodore Ashutosh Lal discuss Indian geopolitics. Lal brings more than three decades of helicopter flying experience, including over 8,700 hours, to argue a bold idea: The number and use of civilian helicopters can serve as a revealing index of a nation’s development.
Importance of helicopters
Singh begins by asking why helicopters, rather than jets or airports, should be considered a development metric. Lal explains that helicopters are not just elite toys for wealthy individuals or politicians. Instead, they act as a “great enabler,” connecting remote populations with modern medicine, education and economic opportunities.
In developed nations, whenever a single life is in danger, the state deploys helicopters as a matter of course. This, he says, reflects the true value placed on human life. For Lal, India’s helicopter sector is a test of whether the country is moving toward that standard.
Flying for Indian Air Force
Looking back, Lal recounts India’s early history with helicopters. The first Indian Air Force helicopter unit, the 104 Helicopter Unit, was raised on March 10, 1954. In its early years, the force flew Sikorsky S-55s and Bell 47G craft. India’s diverse terrain, comprising glaciers, jungles, deserts and seas, quickly made helicopters indispensable.
Lal remembers mentors like a pilot nicknamed “Cyclic,” who taught him to appreciate the unique demands of rotary flight. He also describes a deep admiration for naval aviators who land on ships during violent monsoons, a skill honed only through constant exposure. For him, these experiences build a culture of helicopter mastery that India can now bring into the civil domain.
India’s civil helicopter aviation
Singh then turns the conversation to the present state of civil aviation. Lal reports that India has only about 250 to 270 registered civil helicopters. By contrast, a single city like São Paulo, Brazil, has around 750.
Most Indian helicopters are used for offshore oil and gas operations, pilgrimages to inaccessible temples, business charters and political campaigning. Lal imagines a future where a passenger can land at a busy airport and immediately transfer to a helicopter, bypassing traffic altogether. A smaller market exists for pleasure trips, but the glaring gap is in public service operations.
Why India needs more helicopters
Lal underscores that India has almost no Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS). For a country with one of the highest road accident rates in the world, this absence is a tragedy. Natural disasters such as glacial lake bursts, Himalayan forest fires and train accidents all demand helicopter support, yet the National Disaster Relief Force cannot mobilize them quickly because helicopters do not have “organic availability.” This lack of readiness means lives, property and resources are lost unnecessarily.
Lal notes the irony of India building thousands of kilometers of highways without ensuring helipads for quick evacuation. In his view, “it is not too late,” but urgency is needed.
Helicopters for public service
Positive developments do exist. Singh points out the creation of a helicopter directorate within the Directorate General of Civil Aviation, which Lal praises as an important step. Industry bodies like the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry and the Confederation of Indian Industry are also pushing for reforms.
However, challenges are steep. No Indian airport allows “non-interfering simultaneous operations,” meaning helicopter traffic is delayed by fixed-wing flights. Regulations demand excessive paperwork for foreign pilots. Most significantly, India has no civil helicopter training schools, forcing civilians to study abroad at high cost. About 95% of pilots come from the armed forces, and even then, transitioning them smoothly into civilian roles remains a policy blind spot.
Lal stresses that studies already recommend at least 800 helicopters for India. Meeting this target would create a huge market and expand the nation’s ability to respond to emergencies. For him, helicopters should be treated as essential public-service infrastructure, not occasional luxuries.
Drones or helicopters?
Singh raises the issue of drones as a possible alternative. Lal responds that drones are useful supplements, but they cannot replace helicopters for critical tasks like mass evacuations, medical transport or disaster response. He urges policymakers to adopt a holistic approach that includes drones but builds a strong helicopter ecosystem as the backbone. Without this, India risks throttling its own growth and failing to achieve the vision of “Viksit Bharat” — a truly developed India.
Atul urges the Ministry of Civil Aviation, the Prime Minister’s Office and industry stakeholders in the audience to “get [their] act[s] together and create the architecture.” Helicopters are more than machines in the sky — they are lifelines that reveal whether a nation values every citizen and whether it has the will to act on that principle.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” Fair Observer Founder, CEO & Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and retired Indian Air Commodore Ashutosh Lal discuss Indian geopolitics. Lal brings more than three decades of helicopter flying experience, including over 8,700 hours, to argue a bold idea: The number and use of civilian helicopters can…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Atul Singh and Ashutosh Lal explore helicopters as a unique development index for India. Lal highlights the Indian Air Force’s legacy, the limited civil fleet and the urgent need for emergency services and disaster response capacity. He calls for systemic reform, infrastructure investment and integration of helicopters as vital public-service tools.” post-date=”Sep 15, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Here’s How Helicopters Will Make India a Major Geopolitical Power” slug-data=”fo-talks-heres-how-helicopters-will-make-india-a-major-geopolitical-power”>
FO° Talks: Here’s How Helicopters Will Make India a Major Geopolitical Power
Rohan Khattar Singh, Fair Observer’s Video Producer & Social Media Manager, speaks with Bangladeshi journalist Shahidul Alam about Bangladesh’s political upheaval and future trajectory. They discuss the fall of politician Sheikh Hasina, the challenges before Chief Adviser Muhammad Yunus’s interim government, the army’s role, election timing, minority safety, economic repair and shifting external alignments.
Sheikh Hasina’s ouster
Khattar Singh opens by situating Bangladesh within a history that included cycles of military and civilian rule after independence in 1971. He notes the long rivalry between Hasina of the Awami League and Khaleda Zia of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP). Khattar Singh recounts that in August 2024, student-led protests forced Hasina to resign and flee, which cleared the way for Nobel laureate Yunus to lead an interim government charged with stabilization and fresh elections.
Alam characterizes Hasina’s fall as the product of extraordinary repression. He says United Nations-linked estimates indicated roughly 1,400 people were killed and around 20,000 injured in three weeks, with allegations that forces fired from helicopters and that children were hit by snipers. He argues that Hasina enriched herself, acted with “complete subservience to India” and hollowed out state institutions by co-opting the judiciary, bureaucracy, police and military.
Bangladesh’s army
Turning to the military, Khattar Singh asks how much power it still holds. Alam notes Bangladesh’s long history of generals seizing control, as well as its continued influence even under civilian governments. He recalls “inappropriate comments” made by the army chief but stresses that the real danger lies in the entrenched deep state. This network of officers, once loyal to Hasina, remains intact, and Alam warns that their allegiance is “suspect.” In his view, the survival of Yunus’s interim government depends less on the open stance of the army than on curbing this hidden machinery of power.
The next election
Khattar Singh notes that elections have been postponed multiple times. Alam corrects him and says no date has been postponed because none has been formally set. He explains that an initial window had been discussed for December 2025 to July 2026, that the BNP pushed for December 2025 and that the government later floated April 2026. After Yunus met BNP leader Tarique Rahman, Alam says many now expect February 2026, though no official date has been announced.
Alam adds that people want to vote, since many have not cast a meaningful ballot in 16 to 17 years. He says unity has formed against Hasina’s repression, but he expects divisions to persist as groups press their agendas and as post-uprising expectations collide with governing realities. Euphoria, he cautions, often fades into frustration when results are slower than hoped.
Bangladeshi Hindus
Khattar Singh raises reports of rising violence against Hindus. Alam first clarifies terminology, saying Bangladesh has an interim government, not a caretaker one. He then challenges the premise and says the data does not support a surge of targeted anti-Hindu violence. He cites figures for August 2024 to February 2025 showing 1,254 violent incidents, with only about 20 — roughly 1.6% — classified as communal. Most incidents, he says, were political vendettas that affected Muslims primarily but also Hindus involved in politics or local disputes.
Alam acknowledges that Hindus suffered and must be protected. He adds that minority rights across South Asia remain inadequate. He criticizes India for speaking up only for Hindus while other vulnerable groups in Bangladesh also deserve attention. He notes that these figures were acknowledged by India’s Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson.
Bangladesh’s economy
Khattar Singh turns to jobs and stability. Alam agrees that youth unemployment helped ignite the anti-Hasina movement. He alleges that about $16 billion per year had been siphoned abroad for over a decade, which left the banking system in disarray.
Even so, he points to early improvements: Reserves stopped falling, some foreign direct investment arrived and confidence began to return. He says these are insufficient. Yunus’s microcredit background helps, but Alam argues that broader policy capacity is required. He urges mobilizing the Bangladeshi diaspora’s expertise and, above all, rebuilding confidence. People, he says, have been traumatized, and restoring trust is the essential precondition for investment and growth.
India, Pakistan, China, America
Finally, Khattar Singh asks how foreign policy may evolve. Alam says that ending Hasina’s India-centric tilt creates space for a more independent posture. He says Bangladesh is “developing a spine” and notes warmer ties with the West, aided by Yunus’s personal links to the United States. He also highlights a dramatic improvement with Pakistan, including eased visas and direct bilateral trade, after years in which Pakistan had been treated as a pariah. China, Europe and America, he says, are now engaged through an independent lens rather than an India lens.
Alam emphasizes that India remains too large to ignore. He calls for cordial trade and intellectual collaboration, provided New Delhi stops “playing big brother.” If India acts with generosity, he says, the relationship can flourish.
He closes by warning that misinformation about Bangladesh, especially in India, has strained ties and says that more visitors on the ground would help correct distortions.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” Rohan Khattar Singh, Fair Observer’s Video Producer & Social Media Manager, speaks with Bangladeshi journalist Shahidul Alam about Bangladesh’s political upheaval and future trajectory. They discuss the fall of politician Sheikh Hasina, the challenges before Chief Adviser Muhammad…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Shahidul Alam argues that Sheikh Hasina’s downfall exposed the fragility of Bangladesh’s institutions and dangerous, entrenched power. While Chief Adviser Muhammad Yunus’s interim government raises hopes for elections, stability and reform, Alam warns that public expectations are soaring. The country’s future depends on restoring confidence, protecting minorities and balancing relations beyond India’s shadow.” post-date=”Sep 14, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Bangladesh: Can Interim Government of Muhammad Yunus Protect Hindus?” slug-data=”fo-talks-bangladesh-can-interim-government-of-muhammad-yunus-protect-hindus”>
FO° Talks: Bangladesh: Can Interim Government of Muhammad Yunus Protect Hindus?
Peter Isackson, Fair Observer’s Chief Strategy Officer, talks with Aidan Grogan, a Liberty University history PhD student and Young Voices contributor. Their discussion, rooted in Grogan’s op-ed, “The Nostalgia for Dark Satanic Mills,” explores American manufacturing, marriage customs, ideological battles and the future of cultural traditions.
Manufacturing in America
Grogan begins by challenging the idea that reviving traditional manufacturing is the key to America’s economic health. He argues that economic history has always moved from agriculture to manufacturing to services, and the United States must embrace this trajectory rather than try to reverse it. While the era of US President Donald Trump emphasized bringing back factories, Grogan stresses that a high-tech service economy, especially with the rise of remote work, offers far greater potential.
He draws a contrast with pre-industrial society, when homes were centers of production. Men worked in the fields while women contributed economically through spinning or weaving while caring for children. Industrialization shifted labor into factories, creating the “dark satanic mills” that Blake described and fracturing family life. Grogan believes remote work can restore the home as an economic nucleus, allowing parents to balance work and child-rearing without the heavy trade-offs of modern arrangements.
Isackson challenges the optimism of this vision, suggesting that current unrest and monopolistic trends in tech may undermine such hopes. Grogan concedes the risks of techno-feudalism but appeals to capitalism’s pattern of creative destruction, arguing that Americans must adapt through education and skills rather than retreat to the past.
Traditional vs modern marriage
The discussion turns to family structures. Grogan explains how the 19th-century reforms consigned women to the home, making them dependent on men’s wages, and how this dependency spurred early feminist movements. In the 20th century, as women entered the workforce en masse, the difficulties of raising children while working outside the home resurfaced.
He sees modern economic shifts as a chance to recover a “complementary” partnership, where men and women contribute differently but equally to family life. Remote work makes it possible to have larger families without sacrificing careers. Isackson, however, questions whether this overlooks deep cultural changes. The liberalization of attitudes toward marriage, sexuality and tradition, he argues, cannot simply be rolled back by an economic shift.
The new elites
Grogan next addresses America’s ruling class. He insists that every society, democratic or aristocratic, has an elite. The problem today is that US elites deny their own role. Instead of providing moral guidance, they embrace what he calls “faux egalitarianism” and “meritocratic hubris.” Professional classes may quietly maintain pre-1960s social norms of marriage and family, but the working class has suffered rising non-marital births and collapsing marriage rates.
He contrasts the old industrial elite, which at least acknowledged public responsibility, with today’s globalized, progressive elite. What is needed, Grogan argues, is a post-populist conservative leadership modeled on figures like William F. Buckley — committed to markets, tradition and family values.
War of ideologies
Isackson frames the cultural conflict as a war of ideologies. Competing nostalgias shape political debates: one for the post-war manufacturing economy and another for traditional family life. Grogan draws a sharp line between them. He says the former is just a longing for a past stage of economic development, whereas the latter is a revival of natural law — universal truths about family and religious practice that reappear across cultures.
This ideological struggle, they agree, is intensified by populist movements. Grogan sees populism, whether from Senior US Senator Bernie Sanders on the left or Trump on the right, as an angry backlash against elites but not a sustainable path. He rejects theories from “post-liberal” that America’s founding was flawed and arguments from “nat-cons” for big-government conservatism. Instead, he calls for rearticulating the best of the conservative tradition for today’s challenges.
Feminism, marriage, customs
The exchange grows sharper around feminism and cultural change. Grogan credits feminism with advancing rights but blames second-wave feminism for encouraging women to prioritize careers over family, which he links to declining marriage rates. He points to the disappearance of shotgun marriage customs and the sexual revolution of the 1960s as critical breaks with Judeo-Christian norms. Isackson pushes back, attributing family breakdown less to ideology than to the consumer society’s logic.
Grogan maintains that natural law ensures a return to family and community as anchors. He cites Israel’s high fertility as proof that tradition and modern prosperity can coexist, though Isackson disputes Israel’s uniqueness as a model. Grogan envisions rebuilding family culture not just through policy but through real communities, churches and extended families — a reinterpretation of former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s “village.”
Isackson closes with skepticism, doubting that Grogan’s vision can prevail given historical momentum, though he admits it is desirable. Grogan accepts that conservatism may be a “long defeat” but insists that the fight must go on. For him, history may move forward relentlessly, but natural law and human adaptability ensure that tradition will eventually resurface.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” Peter Isackson, Fair Observer’s Chief Strategy Officer, talks with Aidan Grogan, a Liberty University history PhD student and Young Voices contributor. Their discussion, rooted in Grogan’s op-ed, “The Nostalgia for Dark Satanic Mills,” explores American manufacturing, marriage customs,…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Peter Isackson and Aidan Grogan debate America’s economic and cultural future, weighing nostalgia for manufacturing against a service economy rooted in remote work and family life. Grogan argues for a new conservative elite to revive tradition and natural law. Isackson remains skeptical, seeing consumerism and historical momentum as stronger forces.” post-date=”Sep 13, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Traditional or Modern: What Life Do American Families Want?” slug-data=”fo-talks-traditional-or-modern-what-life-do-american-families-want”>
FO° Talks: Traditional or Modern: What Life Do American Families Want?
Fair Observer’s Video Producer & Social Media Manager, Rohan Khattar Singh, talks with award-winning journalist and author Alexis Okeowo about her new book, Blessings and Disasters: A Story of Alabama. She portrays her home state as a land of extremes; it has seen some of America’s worst injustices and greatest triumphs. Okeowo blends memoir, history and reporting to tell what she calls an “alternate history” of Alabama — one that complicates stereotypes, highlights resilience and resonates far beyond the South.
Rewriting Alabama’s story
Okeowo began writing after the 2016 US presidential election, frustrated by narrow portrayals of the South as little more than a caricature of red states and cultural backwardness. Having spent much of her career reporting in Africa and Latin America, she wanted to apply the same nuanced lens to Alabama that she used abroad. She draws on her background as the daughter of Nigerian immigrants who built a life in the South despite intending to return elsewhere. Her parents’ story is emblematic of Alabama’s complexity: They came almost by accident, stayed out of necessity and discovered friendship, work and community.
She situates their experience alongside those of other groups who often fall outside the conventional black-and-white narrative of Alabama. Native Americans, immigrants and Latino families have all made the state their home, even as policy and prejudice sometimes sought to drive them out. Okeowo underscores that their resilience — their refusal to leave, their ability to adapt and their insistence on belonging — is what gives Alabama its true potential.
Okeowo’s book title, Blessings and Disasters, reflects the state’s oscillation between extremes: slavery, Jim Crow discrimination and regressive laws on one side, and the Civil Rights Movement and grassroots organizing on the other. For her, Alabama is both a microcosm of America’s contradictions and a stage for its most pivotal struggles.
Stories and lessons for the world
Like her earlier book, A Moonless, Starless Sky: Ordinary Women and Men Fighting Extremism in Africa, Okeowo’s Alabama narrative focuses on ordinary people in extraordinary situations. She writes about a woman from a multigenerational activist family, the operator of a Confederate museum who preserves a contested history, and a young Latino migrant who unexpectedly became an activist after harsh anti-immigrant legislation was passed. Their stories show how everyday lives can be upended by politics but redefined through courage.
Okeowo emphasizes that Alabama is not unique in its struggle to be understood. Abroad, her Nigerian parents associated the state mainly with the Ku Klux Klan and racism before realizing it contained far more. The same pattern plays out globally: Mexico is often reduced to drug war headlines, Nigeria to corruption and countless other places to their worst crises. What links these regions is the failure of outsiders to look past the most dramatic or negative stories.
By documenting Alabama’s overlooked complexities, Okeowo hopes readers will reflect on their own countries and consider who tells their stories, which narratives get accepted and what is left unsaid.
Persistence amid struggle
A central lesson, Okeowo insists, is the power of persistence. Alabama’s history of progress has been painfully slow, marked by long stretches of stagnation or even regression. Yet despite these obstacles, change has happened because people refused to leave. Communities organized, activists persisted and ordinary families stayed put through generations of hardship. Even now, when new legislation seems to push the state backward, grassroots work continues on the ground.
She argues that this model of persistence — patient, determined and often invisible — carries lessons for societies everywhere. Many today face polarization, authoritarianism or deep structural inequality. Progress is never automatic, she cautions, and sometimes it can take decades to bear fruit. But Alabama shows that incremental, stubborn resistance can eventually reshape even the most hostile environments.
Loving home while acknowledging its sins
The conversation closes with Okeowo’s belief that people can love their homes while still confronting their flaws. Having left Alabama and faced questions about why she would ever stay, she insists that the state’s sins are undeniable and must be critiqued. Yet she is also grateful for the opportunities Alabama gave her family and siblings, and for the sense of belonging it provided.
She frames this as a universal challenge: How can people both acknowledge a place’s history of injustice and still commit to improving it? For Okeowo, this balance is not just possible but necessary. It prevents nostalgia from blinding us to injustice, while also keeping cynicism from erasing the bonds of community. The people who manage to do both — love their homes while striving to change them — are the ones who keep a place alive. That, she concludes, is what ultimately makes Alabama, and indeed any community, worthwhile.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” Fair Observer’s Video Producer & Social Media Manager, Rohan Khattar Singh, talks with award-winning journalist and author Alexis Okeowo about her new book, Blessings and Disasters: A Story of Alabama. She portrays her home state as a land of extremes; it has seen some of America’s worst…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talk, Rohan Khattar Singh and Alexis Okeowo discuss Okeowo’s new book, Blessings and Disasters: A Story of Alabama. She highlights the diversity and resilience of ordinary people improving her home state. Alabama offers a global lesson: Progress is possible through long-term persistence, and one can love a place while acknowledging its sins.” post-date=”Sep 12, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Alabama Can Teach the World a Lot About Racism, Resilience and Community” slug-data=”fo-talks-alabama-can-teach-the-world-a-lot-about-racism-resilience-and-community”>
FO° Talks: Alabama Can Teach the World a Lot About Racism, Resilience and Community
Fair Observer Founder, CEO & Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and cultural anthropologist Stephen Huyler discuss Hinduism’s unique features and how it contrasts with Western religions like Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Huyler draws from decades of travel and immersion in India to present Hinduism as an experiential, flexible and diverse spiritual tradition.
An experiential approach to Hinduism
Huyler explains that his understanding of Hinduism comes from living inside Indian homes, shrines and temples. Rather than relying on scriptures or anthropological studies, he believes direct experience is essential. He recounts a transformative moment during a goddess invocation when he felt the divine presence so vividly that it shattered his sense of being an “objective outsider.” For him, “objectivity” is an illusion, and true comprehension must come from sincere participation.
Practical Hinduism, Huyler says, is rooted in the idea that the sacred permeates all life. Unlike Western religions such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam, which often divide the sacred from the secular, Hinduism accepts a wide range of practices, from rituals with bells and mantras to philosophical meditation, as equally valid. He finds it striking that one can be agnostic or even atheistic and still be Hindu. Hinduism, he stresses, is not a single codified religion but “a compilation of hundreds, perhaps thousands of smaller belief systems,” making it endlessly varied and engaging.
Community and the feminine divine
The very word “Hindu,” Huyler notes, originally meant simply “of India,” underscoring Hinduism’s geographical rather than doctrinal origins. In villages, identity is deeply tied to community and nature. Land, water, trees, crops and even houses are infused with sacredness, often personified as local deities. Many of these deities are female, reflecting a worldview where the divine feminine is central.
Huyler emphasizes that Hindu goddesses like Durga and Kali embody Shakti, the raw female energy that can defeat evil where male divinity cannot. In Indian systems, the feminine is often seen as stronger than the masculine, in sharp contrast to Western traditions that portray women as weaker. Singh suggests India may be “the one pagan society that survived the Abrahamic onslaught,” drawing parallels between Hindu goddesses and figures like the Greek goddess, Athena, in ancient Europe. Huyler agrees that this perspective underscores Hinduism’s resilience.
Everyday expressions of the sacred
A key distinction from Western monotheism is the absence of a strict divide between gods and humans. Deities, Huyler explains, are personifications of human archetypes, embodying light, dark and everything in between. The Christian and Islamic conceptions of sin are largely absent; instead of eternal damnation, Hinduism centers on rebirth and karmic cycles. Huyler finds this lack of guilt-based systems particularly appealing. Unlike the exclusivity of Christian sects, Hinduism allows multiple spiritual paths without condemning others as heretical.
For most Hindus, the home is the main place of worship, with women often leading rituals. Huyler describes everyday practices such as household altars to Lakshmi, goddess of wealth, or Ganesha, god of beginnings. Myths like Ganesha’s elephant head, which represents contradiction and interconnectedness, symbolize Hinduism’s acceptance of paradox. The image of Ardhanarishvara — Shiva as half-male and half-female — illustrates balance between masculine and feminine energies, contrasting with the exclusively masculine “God the Father” of Western traditions.
Rituals, symbols and meaning
Huyler points to festivals like Durga Puja and Ganesh Visarjan as examples of Hinduism’s cyclical worldview. Clay idols are worshipped and later immersed in water, symbolizing both reverence and return to nature. This ritual reflects the broader belief in rebirth and interconnection with the earth. At the same time, he acknowledges the paradox of modern India’s pollution, which he attributes to overpopulation and delayed modernization — though this remains his personal view.
He also addresses the often-misunderstood Shiva Lingam, an abstract representation of Shiva. Western scholars frequently interpret it as phallic, but Huyler insists most Hindus do not. He suggests Western views are shaped by puritanical backgrounds that exaggerate sexuality. While Hindu myths include sensuality, he stresses that sexuality is accepted as part of divinity rather than worshipped in itself.
The spirit of Hinduism
Huyler portrays Hinduism as an experiential, pluralistic and deeply interconnected tradition that honors the feminine, accepts contradictions and sees the sacred in every part of life. His personal journey from detached observer to participant shows how Hinduism’s openness can transform not only spiritual understanding but also one’s sense of identity.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” Fair Observer Founder, CEO & Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and cultural anthropologist Stephen Huyler discuss Hinduism’s unique features and how it contrasts with Western religions like Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Huyler draws from decades of travel and immersion in India to present…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Atul Singh and Stephen Huyler explore Hinduism as an experiential, pluralistic tradition that permeates every aspect of life. Huyler highlights its embrace of the divine feminine, cyclical worldview and rejection of guilt-based systems found in Western faiths. His journey from detached scholar to participant underscores Hinduism’s openness, diversity and transformative power.” post-date=”Sep 11, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: What Makes Hinduism Unique? How Does It Differ from Islam and Christianity?” slug-data=”fo-talks-what-makes-hinduism-unique-how-does-it-differ-from-islam-and-christianity”>
FO° Talks: What Makes Hinduism Unique? How Does It Differ from Islam and Christianity?
Source link
