Donald Trump’s Assault on the Federal Government

Glenn Carle”
post_date=”September 05, 2025 06:45″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/politics/fo-exclusive-donald-trumps-assault-on-the-federal-government/” pid=”157571″
post-content=”

Fair Observer Founder, CEO & Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and retired CIA Officer Glenn Carle discuss US President Donald Trump’s moves against the federal government. While media commentary and partisan opposition often frame Trump’s actions in simplistic terms, the deeper ideological roots and radical ambitions of his administration remain poorly understood.

For Glenn, this is not a matter of routine political conflict. He describes it as “hugely significant,” even “appalling and terrifying,” because it represents a deliberate revolution in the structure of the American state — one with consequences that reach far beyond the United States.

The ideological roots

Glenn traces this movement back decades, noting that figures like political activist Grover Norquist laid the groundwork. Norquist, who graduated from the University of Texas in 1975, was once Glenn’s classmate. Peers dismissed him and viewed him as a gadfly — “a good-natured irritant and not someone to be taken particularly seriously.”

For over 50 years, Norquist convened Washington’s influential Wednesday Morning Group. Here, Republican strategists refined a vision of government so small he could, in his famous words, “drag it into the bathroom and then drown it in the bathtub.”

At the time, Glenn dismissed this rhetoric as absurd. With hindsight, however, he acknowledges that Norquist’s ideological project was both coherent and relentless, making him “one of the significant figures in the last 50 years.” What once sounded like hyperbole has now become the intellectual backbone of a movement reshaping the federal government itself.

The Trump administration’s embrace

According to Glenn, Trump personally has little interest in ideology. Yet his administration — particularly the intellectuals around him — has embraced this agenda with fervor. “The thinking people in his administration do [care],” Glenn remarks.

Atul recalls conversations with younger staffers from Heritage Foundation backgrounds who approach governance with a “crusading zeal.” They are convinced that regulation suffocates competitiveness, that bureaucrats are “leeches who live off taxes” and that only a government stripped to its bare essentials can unleash true freedom. Their reverence for US President Ronald Reagan, who famously declared that government was the problem rather than the solution, borders on worship.

Glenn places this in the larger context of American conservative thought, pointing to institutions like the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation. These groups helped cement the idea that “small government is good, and government is the ill.” Glenn satirically likens this belief system to “adolescents who have suffered arrested development and remain obsessed by Ayn Rand and The Fountainhead.”

For many in this circle, this Russian-American writer and philosopher is the philosophical goddess: Government is by definition oppressive, the strong must be free to compete and take care of themselves, and those who cannot survive on their own should, in Glenn’s words, “fail and die.” Atul adds that Rand herself, despite her libertarian philosophy, ran her intellectual circle as an authoritarian cult. She even made her husband wear bells on his shoes so she and her younger lover would hear him coming. 

The goal that emerges from this tradition, Glenn explains, is stark: shrink the federal government by half. Its only legitimate purposes should be national defense and border security. Glenn asks if this philosophy “rings and bells?” The approach is to aim high and achieve at least part.

A radical transformation in practice

In its first seven months, Trump’s second administration has begun to put this vision into practice. The pace and scope, Glenn argues, amount to nothing less than a “broad attack” on the structure of government.

It has made sweeping personnel cuts. About 150,000 federal employees, roughly 6% of the workforce, have already been dismissed. Within the intelligence community, the CIA has discussed eliminating a quarter of its staff. Entire agencies have been gutted: The US Agency for International Development is effectively dead, the State Department has suffered steep reductions and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is in decline.

Other vital institutions are in turmoil. The Federal Emergency Management Agency, which responds to natural and manmade disasters, is “being decimated.” The National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control face similar gutting. NASA’s budget has been slashed by half, and federally funded research and development in universities is collapsing.

Glenn points out that starving research & development serves a double purpose: It reduces spending and simultaneously cripples the “woke liberal elite intellectuals” in universities, whom the administration views as enemies.

The administration’s 2026 budget proposal is even more radical, targeting an overall 22.6% reduction in the federal government. For Glenn, this marks an ideological project dressed in fiscal language — a deliberate reengineering of the American state.

Unitary executive theory

Behind these actions lies a constitutional philosophy: the unitary executive theory. Glenn calls attention to its origins in the work of Carl Schmitt, the Nazi legal theorist who argued that sovereignty must be concentrated entirely in the executive. In this model, “anything that challenges the authority and the agency of the chief executive must be eliminated or destroyed.” Glenn bluntly calls this structure “a dictatorship.”

This doctrine is central to Project 2025, the blueprint for Trump’s second term. Its prescription is explicit: “The entire executive branch must be brought under direct presidential control.” This represents a profound break from the American tradition of government by laws, in which agencies operate with independence grounded in congressional legislation. The unitary executive theory would eliminate that independence, subordinating all power to the White House.

Under such a system, the federal government is reduced to two aforementioned core functions: national defense and border security. Defense spending has already increased by 9%, while immigration enforcement has escalated. Hundreds of thousands of migrants have been detained and expelled already; this is only the beginning, as the administration has previously mentioned deporting 13 million people. That’s roughly 4%–5% of the national population.

Warnings from history

Glenn cannot overstate the stakes of this transformation. He warns that “80 million people were killed as a result of movements of this sort 80 years ago in a hideous war.” During the first administration of US President George W. Bush and the so-called Global War on Terror, he saw the unitary theory gaining traction. It was used to justify enhanced interrogation techniques. Vice President Dick Cheney’s office ran meetings — even on Chinese policy — where one assistant directly told CIA Officer Glenn, “But YOU are the enemy.”

Glenn sees Trump’s ideological revolution, grounded in a philosophy of executive supremacy and disdain for government institutions, as part of a lineage of authoritarian experiments with devastating consequences.

The danger is clear: The world’s most powerful democracy is sliding into a system that Merriam-Webster itself would define as fascism — a centralized autocratic regime headed by a dictatorial leader, with severe regimentation and forcible suppression of opposition.

[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 CIA Officer Glenn Carle discuss US President Donald Trump’s moves against the federal government. While media commentary and partisan opposition often frame Trump’s actions in simplistic terms, the deeper ideological roots…”
post_summery=”In this section of the August 2025 episode of FO° Exclusive, Atul Singh and Glenn Carle argue that US President Donald Trump’s second administration is attacking the federal government, rooted in decades of conservative ideology. Personnel cuts, gutted agencies and sweeping budget reductions aim to shrink Washington’s power and centralize authority. This authoritarian trajectory echoes dangerous historical precedents.”
post-date=”Sep 05, 2025″
post-title=”FO° Exclusive: Donald Trump’s Assault on the Federal Government” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-donald-trumps-assault-on-the-federal-government”>

Glenn Carle”
post_date=”September 04, 2025 06:49″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/world-news/fo-exclusive-global-lightning-round-up-of-august-2025/” pid=”157518″
post-content=”

Fair Observer Founder, CEO & Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and retired CIA Officer Glenn Carle open the August 2025 edition of FO° Exclusive with a quick look back at the whirlwind of July. The United States finalized trade agreements with the EU and Japan, a “tectonic diplomatic shift” unfolded on Palestine and the so-called “MAGA [(Make America Great Again)] rebellion” flared over the Jeffrey Epstein files controversy. Those developments set the stage for a tense and turbulent August, where fresh crises broke out across multiple regions.

The war in Gaza and Israeli divisions

The ongoing war in Gaza dominated August’s headlines. Anger over the conflict grew not only worldwide but also inside Israel. Roughly 600 former Israeli security officials — including ex-chiefs of Israel’s Mossad intelligence and Shin Bet security agency, as well as senior Israel Defense Forces generals — sent a letter to US President Donald Trump urging him to pressure Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to end the fight. They argued Israel had already achieved its military goals against the Hamas terror group and that hostage negotiations could not progress until the war stopped. Further, they could not agree to any deal to release the remaining hostages while the conflict still raged.

Yet Netanyahu’s government stood firm, with hard-right figures retaining sway. Former Israeli government official Josef Olmert’s phrase “right-wing nutters” was used to describe their continued grip on policy.

Greenland: Denmark confronts Washington

Another diplomatic headache emerged in the Arctic. Denmark summoned America’s top diplomat over covert US operations in Greenland. These efforts were reportedly led by US intelligence officials, who, in Atul’s words, took “a page out of [Russian President] Vladimir Putin’s book” to move Greenlanders toward closer integration with the US. Copenhagen, Denmark’s capital, viewed the influence operations as a serious breach and summoned the ambassador to lodge a formal protest.

Armenia, Azerbaijan and Trump’s quest for a legacy

Amid the turmoil, Trump appeared to score a diplomatic win. Reportedly, he brokered a peace deal between Azerbaijan and Armenia, a long-running flashpoint after wars in Nagorno-Karabakh and disputes over Nakhchivan, the capital of the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic — an enclave of Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan had already expelled ethnic Armenians from Karabakh, but the new agreement was cast as an opening for stability.

Europe’s immigration battles

Migration once again inflamed European politics. In Italy, right-wing Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni — labeled “far right, even fascist” by some critics — reacted furiously to a European Court of Justice ruling that struck down her government’s policy of outsourcing migrant processing to Albania.

Meanwhile, Britain and France formalized an arrangement to return illegal migrants crossing the English Channel in small boats. United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer claimed this “one-in, one-out” system would “send a clear message” to illegal channel-crossing immigrants. Yet Rory Stewart, co-host of The Rest is Politics podcast, argued only wholesale deportations would halt crossings. Nigel Farage, leader of the Reform UK party, pushed even further, proposing a repeal of human rights laws to permit mass expulsions of asylum seekers. He claimed such steps were “absolutely essential” to prevent “major civil disorder.”

Japan’s defense pivot

Japan also made headlines with a $6.5 billion contract to supply advanced frigates to Australia. The ships are highly automated, with crews of only 90 workers — half the crew size of existing Australian vessels. For Tokyo, this was the biggest defense export since it lifted its post-war arms ban in 2014. The move underscored Japan’s push to remilitarize and become a “normal nation,” a shift certain to unsettle Beijing and other regional powers.

Africa and Latin America: overlooked upheavals

In Africa, violence raged in Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo with no sign of ending. In Latin America, Bolivia lurched to the right. The Movement Toward Socialism party, dominant for two decades, collapsed to just 3% support. Centrist Rodrigo Paz Pereira led the first round of voting and will face right-wing former President Jorge “Tuto” Quiroga in the runoff.

Elon Musk, Trump and market interference

Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s fortunes were also in the spotlight: The auto manufacturer awarded him shares worth about $24 billion, boosting his stake to 15%, after he threatened to quit. His SpaceX Starship, the world’s most powerful rocket, completed its tenth test flight — it reached outer space and returned to Earth successfully.

Meanwhile, Trump has reportedly considered converting the CHIPS and Science Act into equity, taking a 10% stake in the Intel semiconductor manufacturer. He initially demanded that Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan step down, but later backed down. He also mocked Goldman Sachs chief David Solomon, criticizing the bank’s tariff forecasts and suggesting Solomon “focus on being a DJ.”

Atul underscores Trump’s paradoxical stance: a self-styled champion of free markets resorting to aggressive state interference.

Tariffs and trade turmoil

On the trade front, Washington and Beijing extended their tariff truce another 90 days, with November 10 set as the next deadline. Conversely, on August 27, Trump blindsided India by slapping 50% tariffs on most Indian exports. FOI, of which Atul is a partner and Glenn a senior partner, had predicted this as early as April 2024, contrary to Indian officials and business leaders who insisted tariffs were impossible given Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s friendship with Trump. “I guess we were right, they were wrong,” Atul gloats.

The three big stories of August 2025

Atul continues by identifying this episode’s three most pressing issues:

Donald Trump’s Assault on the Federal Government.

Dramatically Deteriorating US Economic Governance.

The Story of Alaska and Washington, DC Summits.

[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 CIA Officer Glenn Carle open the August 2025 edition of FO° Exclusive with a quick look back at the whirlwind of July. The United States finalized trade agreements with the EU and Japan, a “tectonic diplomatic shift”…”
post_summery=”In this section of the August 2025 episode of FO° Exclusive, Atul Singh runs through crises stretching from Gaza to Greenland. In August, Europe experienced battles over immigration, Japan signed a historic defense deal, US President Donald Trump intervened heavy-handedly in business, and imposed high tariffs on India.”
post-date=”Sep 04, 2025″
post-title=”FO° Exclusive: Global Lightning Round up of August 2025″ slug-data=”fo-exclusive-global-lightning-round-up-of-august-2025″>

DC Agrawal”
post_date=”September 03, 2025 06:22″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/history/fo-talks-how-indians-in-us-fought-against-indira-gandhis-emergency/” pid=”157498″
post-content=”

Rohan Khattar Singh, Fair Observer’s Video Producer & Social Media Manager, talks with DC Agrawal, an activist and urban transport consultant. Agrawal was one of the earliest Indian Americans to protest Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s Emergency in 1975. Agrawal played a key role in founding Indians for Democracy (IFD), a movement of expatriates dedicated to restoring democratic rights in India. Over the years, he has also been involved in developmental organizations and contributed to the establishment of the New Jersey Transport Corporation.

In this conversation, Agrawal reflects on his activism during the Emergency, the challenges of mobilizing the Indian diaspora in America and the global significance of their efforts.

Indira Gandhi’s Emergency

Agrawal recalls June 25, 1975, as a watershed moment in Indian politics. On that day, Gandhi’s administration arrested opposition leaders, including Jayaprakash Narayan, and the prime minister declared an internal Emergency. She suspended civil liberties and imprisoned thousands. For Agrawal, who was already engaged in developmental causes, this moment underscored the fragility of democracy.

He places these events in context: America at the time was witnessing anti-Vietnam War protests, while Indians had only recently supported Gandhi during the Bangladesh Liberation War. India itself was still reeling from droughts and famine in the late 1960s, experiences Agrawal witnessed firsthand.

Protests in America

On June 30, 1975, just days after the Emergency was declared, Agrawal and his friends, including Anand Kumar — a close associate of Narayan — organized a protest outside the Indian Embassy in Washington, DC. Agrawal drove from Philadelphia to Maryland to join the organizers.

In the days leading up to the demonstration, they circulated petitions, collecting names and states of residence. Many were hesitant to provide full details. Those who did were, in Agrawal’s words, “fairly brave souls,” given the “fear complex” in the community.

A petition sheet from the protests. Author’s photo.

At the embassy, officials refused to accept the petitions. The protesters left them on the steps, where Agrawal, a photographer, captured a striking image: the petitions scattered on the ground beneath the boots of a heavy police presence summoned by the embassy. To him, the image symbolized how power structures resist dissent. It even reminded him of fascist imagery from Italian dictator Benito Mussolini’s regime in World War II.

The police at the Indian embassy loom over the petitions. Author’s photo.

How Indian Americans united

The following day, the Washington Post published photos of the protest in its newspapers. Soon after, the protesters held a press conference at the National Press Club, calling for the Emergency to be lifted, political prisoners freed and democratic rights restored.

“75 Protest Here at Embassy of India.” The Washington Post, July 1, 1975. Author’s photo.

They continued with demonstrations on August 15 — India’s Independence Day — in front of the ambassador’s residence in Washington, at the Indian consulate in New York, and in Chicago. IFD also began publishing a newsletter: Indian Opinion.

Sign publicizing the August 15 protest. Author’s photo.

Agrawal emphasizes that the group stayed “Gandhian in spirit,” deliberately non-partisan and focused on democracy rather than party politics. Their supporters came from across the spectrum — from Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) right-wingers and Jan Sangh to leftists — and tried to maintain neutrality.

Global media coverage

Without today’s communication tools, mobilization depended on cold-calling Indian names in phone books and organizing at Indian stores. They received mixed responses: Some hung up, some feared reprisals but donated money, while others quietly supported.

The Indian embassy, meanwhile, monitored activists, photographing them and even revoking passports. Kumar, a PhD student at the University of Chicago, had his government scholarship suspended, which drew headlines. Support also came from India Abroad, a new newspaper committed to covering censorship in India; Indian papers blacked out entire articles.

Initially, American media, including The New York Times, were sympathetic to Gandhi. They interpreted events through a Cold War lens. But credibility shifted when she postponed elections in 1976. Support from groups like the Quakers and the American Friends Service Committee, who were “friends of [Jawaharlal] Nehru and [Mahatma] Gandhi,” also boosted the movement. Major outlets like The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times and The Washington Post began covering the protests more seriously. Congressmen arranged hearings in Washington with testimony from Indian leaders such as Subramanian Swamy and Ram Jethmalani, supported by Senator Ted Kennedy’s office.

Walk for Human Rights

By the fall of 1976, the activists sought a bold, symbolic action. They launched the Walk for Human Rights from Independence Hall in Philadelphia to the United Nations in New York, ending deliberately on October 2 — Mahatma Gandhi’s birthday.

Walk For Human Rights pamphlet. Author’s photo.

The Gandhian, non-violent march lasted ten days. It began with 30–40 people and consolidated into a committed group of about ten. The walkers stopped at several universities, including Temple University in Pennsylvania, Princeton University and Rutgers University in New Jersey, and Columbia University in New York. Here, they spoke about human and political rights.

Agrawal says the march increased their credibility both with the diaspora and with Indian officials. He later learned that Indian minister YB Chavan asked US President Gerald Ford to ban the demonstrations. Ford reportedly refused, affirming that America was a democracy.

For participants, the walk was cathartic. Agrawal believes it even pressured Gandhi, who cared deeply about her global image, to reconsider her position. He argues this contributed to the Emergency being lifted and elections being called in 1977.

The diaspora during Emergency

The Indian diaspora in America at the time was tiny — perhaps fewer than 100,000, concentrated in universities and a few cities. Most professionals avoided involvement, fearing repercussions for themselves or relatives in India. Students were more active, though some leftist groups criticized IFD’s Gandhian methods as “too docile.” Meanwhile, supporters of RSS and Jan Sangh pursued their own lobbying and fundraising, especially as many of their families were directly affected by arrests.

Agrawal reflects that even today, in moments of crisis, only a small minority of Indian Americans would get directly involved, while most would remain passive or offer private support.

Aftermath and legacy

The Emergency ended on March 21, 1977. The Indian government held elections later that year. Agrawal and his colleagues sent a detailed letter to the new prime minister, Morarji Desai, and Members of Parliament, urging reforms such as repealing the Maintenance of Internal Security Act and creating a Right to Information Act.

In October 1977, Agrawal became one of four activists invited to meet Desai and External Affairs Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Both leaders thanked them for their efforts. Agrawal remembers the meeting as gratifying, even if not all their proposals were adopted. For him, the experience confirmed the value of diaspora activism in defending India’s democratic traditions.

Agrawal holding The Conscience Network: A Chronicle of Resistance to a Dictatorship, by Sugata Srinivasaraju. Author’s photo.

[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, talks with DC Agrawal, an activist and urban transport consultant. Agrawal was one of the earliest Indian Americans to protest Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s Emergency in 1975. Agrawal played a key role in…”
post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, DC Agrawal discusses the efforts he and other Indian Americans took in 1975 to petition Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s Emergency. He recalls organizing early embassy protests, building Indians for Democracy and launching the Walk for Human Rights to draw global attention. He further reflects on how international pressure helped restore Indian democracy.”
post-date=”Sep 03, 2025″
post-title=”FO° Talks: How Indians in US Fought Against Indira Gandhi’s Emergency” slug-data=”fo-talks-how-indians-in-us-fought-against-indira-gandhis-emergency”>

Daniel Bunn”
post_date=”September 02, 2025 06:10″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/economics/fo-talks-your-netflix-prime-hulu-hotstar-could-get-costlier-heres-why/” pid=”157490″
post-content=”

Rohan Khattar Singh, Fair Observer’s Video Producer & Social Media Manager, talks with Daniel Bunn, President and CEO of the Tax Foundation, about the rise of digital services taxes (DSTs). They explore what these taxes are, why governments are introducing them, their impact on consumers and businesses, and how the United States — particularly under US President Donald Trump — has responded. At the heart of the debate lies a simple but pressing question: Who really pays the price when governments tax digital platforms?

What is the digital services tax?

DSTs emerged in Europe after a European Union-wide DST proposal in 2018 failed. Several member states then implemented their own versions, and the trend has since spread worldwide. Unlike corporate taxes, which target profits, DSTs are levied on revenues — usually from large tech firms such as Google, Amazon, Netflix and Uber.

Bunn stresses that this makes DSTs regressive. Companies with smaller margins face heavier burdens than those with higher ones. From the American perspective, taxing revenues rather than profits is discriminatory because it disproportionately affects American tech giants.

Governments can determine which companies must pay the tax, but they cannot control how businesses react. Firms may raise prices, cut wages or reduce shareholder payouts to offset the cost — outcomes that lawmakers often underestimate.

Netflix, Prime to be costlier?

Services like Netflix, Amazon Prime, Uber and YouTube Premium fall directly under DST regimes. Bunn explains that many providers simply pass the tax along, either to advertisers, small businesses that depend on their platforms, or end users themselves. For everyday consumers, that can mean higher subscription prices. For small businesses, it could mean steeper advertising or product placement fees.

The effect cascades down the supply chain, making it less clear whether DSTs truly tax big corporations or instead squeeze consumers and small players. In Bunn’s view, this indirect burden should force policymakers to reconsider whether DSTs are the right tool, compared to more transparent approaches like value-added tax (VAT).

Big Tech being targeted?

DSTs raise the question: “Is it a start of a global tax revolution, or is this just another sneaky way of taxing the Big Tech?” Bunn leans toward the latter. He argues that politicians are essentially eyeing successful American companies and demanding a cut. Critics call the taxes messy and inconsistent, as they don’t fit neatly into profit-based or consumption-based categories.

Bunn suggests that countries should instead adapt their existing VAT or Goods and Services Tax systems to include digital consumption. Many jurisdictions already do this successfully, providing clearer rules and avoiding the distortions DSTs create.

Trump vs digital taxes

Several countries, including India and Canada, have pulled back from DSTs in part because of US pressure. India dropped its plan in line with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development framework, while Canada retreated after trade threats from Washington.

Bunn characterizes Trump’s approach as aggressive and sometimes even harmful, but acknowledges that it achieved limited success. Targeting Canada worked, but EU member states are harder to pressure since taxation is set at the national level, while trade policy rests with Brussels, Belgium.

Trump’s trade war

During Trump’s first term, his administration prepared “tailored tariffs” to match the revenue countries expected from DSTs. These tariffs were designed as retaliation against jurisdictions that taxed US digital companies. According to Bunn, the groundwork for such measures is already in place, and they could be revived quickly if DST tensions flare again.

This is a bipartisan issue: Democrats and Republicans alike have voiced concern about discriminatory digital taxes. That consensus means future US governments are likely to keep a hard line.

Who really pays?

Ultimately, the costs of DSTs rarely stop with Big Tech. While some companies may absorb the expense, many shift it onto consumers, advertisers and small businesses. In some cases, companies might even scale back services in jurisdictions with DSTs, leaving users with fewer choices.

The bigger problem, Bunn warns, is the lack of consistent definitions and frameworks. A single digital transaction could, in theory, be taxed multiple times by different jurisdictions, creating a “messy” global landscape. For millions of Internet users, the debate over DSTs is not abstract policy — it directly shapes the price, quality and availability of the services they rely on every day.

[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, talks with Daniel Bunn, President and CEO of the Tax Foundation, about the rise of digital services taxes (DSTs). They explore what these taxes are, why governments are introducing them, their impact on consumers and…”
post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Exclusive, Rohan Khattar Singh and Daniel Bunn discuss digital services taxes (DSTs). Bunn outlines how these revenue-based taxes, aimed largely at US tech giants, often shift costs onto consumers, advertisers and small businesses. The discussion highlights US President Donald Trump’s aggressive trade retaliation strategies, global pushback and the uncertain future of DSTs.”
post-date=”Sep 02, 2025″
post-title=”FO° Talks: Your Netflix, Prime, Hulu, Hotstar Could Get Costlier, Here’s Why” slug-data=”fo-talks-your-netflix-prime-hulu-hotstar-could-get-costlier-heres-why”>

Leonardo Vivas”
post_date=”September 01, 2025 06:51″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/region/latin_america/fo-talks-bolivia-fuel-and-economic-crisis-lead-to-widespread-support-for-the-right/” pid=”157468″
post-content=”

[This video was recorded in the days preceding the first round of Bolivia’s election. It has been updated to include more recent information.]

Rohan Khattar Singh, Fair Observer’s Video Producer & Social Media Manager, talks with Leonardo Vivas, professor of political economy at Leslie University in Massachusetts, about Bolivia’s presidential election. It had its first round of votes on August 17 and will have a run-off vote on October 19. This conversation examines why these elections matter, the collapse of the long-dominant Movement Toward Socialism (Movimiento al Socialismo, or MAS), the weakened roles of former Bolivian President Evo Morales and incumbent Bolivian President Luis Arce, and more.

Why Bolivia matters

Vivas begins by noting that Bolivia, a small landlocked country, might seem peripheral to global politics, but its elections reflect important regional dynamics. In Latin America, most conflicts in recent decades have been resolved through democratic institutions rather than violence, with the exceptions of Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua and increasingly El Salvador. He argues Bolivia is likely to continue this democratic pattern: There will be a clear winner, and institutions will accept the outcome.

The second reason for global attention is the apparent “demise” of MAS, the party founded by Morales in the 1990s and dominant for nearly 30 years. Vivas believes its decline could reshape local geopolitics, breaking one of the region’s longest political hegemonies.

The race and the MAS collapse

The field of candidates reflects MAS’s diminished standing. Morales’s former protégé, Arce, opted not to run again due to poor approval ratings. Two MAS candidates competed — Senate president Andronico Rodriguez and Arce’s former interior minister — but both polled poorly and will not continue to the second round of the vote.

The opposition appears stronger. Samuel Doria Medina, a wealthy businessman, campaigned as a moderate, aiming to unify the country. His rival, former Bolivian President Jorge “Tuto” Quiroga, takes a harder right stance, promising IMF-backed reforms and economic stabilization. Vivas frames the contest as a struggle between a fading MAS and a reenergized right.

In the first round of the vote, Senator Rodrigo Paz Pereira, a centrist from the Christian Democratic Party, and Quiroga, a conservative, came in first and second place, respectively.

Morales, Arce and the end of an era

For much of the 2000s, Morales oversaw what could be called a “Bolivian miracle.” Gas exports funded poverty reduction and indigenous inclusion, with then-Finance Minister Arce shaping the economic boom. Yet the model collapsed as state-owned gas firms faltered, revenues plunged and exchange-rate pressures deepened.

Today, Arce faces a financial crisis marked by exchange controls and slowing growth. With his political support underwater, he chose not to seek reelection. Morales, once a towering figure, is now legally and politically sidelined. A constitutional court ruling bars him from running; his recent protest calls fell flat and he faces prosecution for statutory rape, further eroding his influence.

Morales has refused to endorse MAS’s current candidates and has instead called for new elections, further fragmenting the movement he once embodied.

The army on the sidelines

Military involvement in Bolivian politics has long been a concern, especially after Morales’s 2019 departure under army pressure. But Vivas stresses that today’s army plays little role. A supposed coup attempt last year proved hollow; General Juan José Zúñiga acted alone and was quickly rejected by both society and the president. Some even suspect the episode was staged to boost Arce’s legitimacy.

Compared to 2019, when the military simply facilitated a constitutional transfer of power, today’s officers remain firmly in the barracks. Vivas does not foresee the army influencing this year’s election.

Economy and the younger vote

The central issue now is the economy. During Morales’s rise, indigenous identity and social inclusion drove politics. After decades of reform, indigenous participation is normalized. Economic hardship — falling gas revenues, high inflation and slow growth — has replaced identity as the defining theme.

The generational shift is also decisive. Younger Bolivians, more urban and educated, care less about old ideological battles and more about future prospects. Many no longer rally behind Morales or MAS, instead leaning toward opposition candidates. Vivas highlights that MAS, as the architect of the current crisis, cannot credibly present itself as the solution.

Indigenous voting patterns reflect this shift: Morales still retains support in the highlands, but lowland communities lean right, accelerating MAS’s decline.

Round two is inevitable

Vivas correctly assumes that the election will head to a runoff. He believes it is possible, though not guaranteed, that both right-wing candidates advance to the second round. Much depends on whether MAS’s residual support materializes late in the race.

Based on pre-election information, Vivas sees the likely outcome as a right-wing victory. This would normalize Bolivian politics, making it resemble Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Ecuador, where power alternates between left and right. For him, that normalization marks Bolivia’s reintegration into regional democratic trends.

External players: US, China and Brazil

Vivas also considers the international angle. The United States has lost much of its regional influence, supplanted by China’s growing role. Washington’s attention has shifted to global crises, leaving Latin America low on the agenda. Vivas sees US President Donald Trump’s current administration as “playing wait and see” while expecting right-wing gains across the region.

China’s involvement is more cautious. Burned by its unpaid investments in Venezuela, Beijing is wary of Bolivia’s struggling state-owned companies and is unlikely to engage deeply if MAS wins. Still, China maintains strong trade links, regardless of ideology.

Brazil, under President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, could prove more active. As interim head of BRICS, Lula has suggested BRICS could replace the IMF as a source of financing for Bolivia. But such programs remain untested, and Vivas doubts they would materialize unless Bolivia’s government aligns with BRICS priorities.

Cautious optimism

Despite crises, Vivas ends on a hopeful note. He believes Bolivia has a real chance, no matter who wins, to reset its politics and rebuild its economy. For him, the 2025 election could mark both the end of an era dominated by MAS and the beginning of a more balanced, democratic cycle with wider implications for Latin America.

[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, talks with Leonardo Vivas, professor of political economy at Leslie…”
post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Leonardo Vivas explains why Bolivia’s 2025 election matters, highlighting the collapse of former Bolivian President Evo Morales’s MAS party and deepening economic troubles. He correctly predicts a second round, unlikely to be interrupted by military action. He remains cautiously optimistic that this election could start a more balanced, democratic cycle for the country.”
post-date=”Sep 01, 2025″
post-title=”FO° Talks: Bolivia: Fuel and Economic Crisis Lead to Widespread Support for the Right” slug-data=”fo-talks-bolivia-fuel-and-economic-crisis-lead-to-widespread-support-for-the-right”>

Russell Stamets”
post_date=”August 31, 2025 06:45″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/business/fo-talks-heres-what-american-companies-need-to-know-before-investing-in-india/” pid=”157459″
post-content=”

Russell Stamets, a partner at FOI and a US lawyer with over 25 years of experience helping companies conduct business in India, presents three key mistakes companies make when entering the Indian market, with advice on how to avoid them. He observes that business interest in India is at an all-time high, with global shifts prompting companies to reduce dependence on China and view India as a priority market. Despite this potential, India poses unique challenges, and even the smartest companies can falter.

Stamets candidly stresses that India is “not an easy market.” Its infrastructure, legal system and politics demand preparation. In his decades advising clients, he has seen both major multinationals and nimble startups stumble. The most common errors, he explains, are deceptively simple but consistently mishandled.

Mistake one: mishandling cultural differences

Cultural understanding in India is essential. Stamets clarifies that etiquette like handshakes or business cards is not the issue; what matters is “how you present yourself to India and show you understand and appreciate its culture.”

He warns that superficial gestures backfire. Former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, for instance, donned elaborate Indian dress only to be dismissed as performative. He advises that companies should instead “be authentic, be respectful and be adaptive.” Hiring local talent can help, but the practice is no silver bullet. He points to the Hyundai Motor Group and LG Electronics corporation as examples of foreign firms that succeed while staying true to their identity.

Mistake two: offering products that do not fit Indian needs

Too many companies fail to localize offerings. Stamets cites the Ford Motor Company, General Motors, the Walt Disney Company and Harley-Davidson, which all struggled by ignoring price points or consumer habits. He mentions the Kellogg’s cereal company as a failure-to-success example; it initially “flopped because most Indians prefer hot milk with cereal,” but it adjusted its formula and branding. Harley-Davidson, he adds, is now reentering through a joint venture with Hero MotoCorp, offering smaller, more affordable bikes.

The lesson: “Understand the Indian consumer as she exists in reality, price appropriately, offer features that suit actual habits and preferences.”

Mistake three: underestimating political and regulatory complexity

India’s layered federal system creates shifting rules from state to state, even city to city. Stamets advises companies to identify early which level of government matters most and to plan for both compliance and enforcement.

If there is any “good news,” he remarks, it is that burdens fall equally on foreign and Indian firms. The Information Technology company Infosys Limited, for example, grew in Bangalore partly to avoid politics in New Delhi. He also recalls Bira 91, an Indian beer brand that soared after 2015 but saw its initial public offering delayed two years by trademark and regulatory snags. So, regulatory risk in India is constant and requires resilience and vigilance.

A final warning

Stamets offers a bonus tip: “Don’t fall for the India story.” He acknowledges India’s vast potential but warns that rosy headlines often conceal real obstacles. His advice: Ground strategy in fact, test assumptions and plan carefully. India rewards those who respect its complexity and adapt quickly.

[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=”
Russell Stamets, a partner at FOI and a US lawyer with over 25 years of experience helping companies conduct business in India, presents three key mistakes companies make when entering the Indian market, with advice on how to avoid them. He observes that business interest in India is at an…”
post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, FOI Partner Russell Stamets outlines three major mistakes companies make when entering India: mishandling cultural differences, failing to localize products and underestimating regulatory complexity. Superficial gestures and generic strategies often backfire. Corporations should remain authentic, adapt quickly and ground business plans in reality.”
post-date=”Aug 31, 2025″
post-title=”FO° Talks: Here’s What American Companies NEED to Know Before Investing in India” slug-data=”fo-talks-heres-what-american-companies-need-to-know-before-investing-in-india”>

Sam Raus”
post_date=”August 29, 2025 06:37″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/more/environment/fo-talks-trumps-one-big-beautiful-bill-act-will-cook-the-planet/” pid=”157406″
post-content=”

Fair Observer Video Producer & Social Media Manager Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with Sam Raus, a political analyst and David Boaz Resident Writing Fellow at Young Voices, about America’s evolving energy strategy. They contrast the subsidies of former US President Joe Biden’s administration with the market-driven approach of current US President Donald Trump’s administration, and discuss the future of American energy.

Raus opens by critiquing the former president’s Inflation Reduction Act, calling it a misnamed policy that lavished billions of dollars in subsidies on solar and wind industries — what he labels “corporate handouts.” He argues these subsidies distorted the energy market by pre-selecting winners rather than letting innovation and consumer demand determine the most effective energy sources.

Raus says solar and wind were favored not because of their reliability or affordability, but because of ideological preferences. Simultaneously, more promising sectors like geothermal and nuclear were sidelined. He sees this as a prejudiced approach that inflated US debt and ignored real technological limitations, such as the poor performance of solar batteries.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act levels the playing field

By contrast, Raus praises the Trump administration’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act for eliminating corporate tax credits for solar and wind. He believes this shift allows for a more level playing field, enabling all energy sources to compete based on merit rather than political support.

While state-level subsidies may persist, Raus emphasizes that the federal rollback signals a broader return to consumer-driven energy development — one focused on safety, reliability and affordability. He views the new policy as a correction to what he sees as the prior administration’s ideological overreach, putting economic concerns at the forefront amid ongoing inflation and post-pandemic recovery.

Reframing environmentalism: innovation vs. degrowth

Singh challenges Raus on environmental risks, mentioning that scientists fear Trump’s policy could “cook the planet.” Raus argues that both green and traditional energy projects are stifled by excessive environmental regulation under laws like the National Environmental Policy Act. He advocates for a “pro-growth, pro-innovation” mindset, suggesting that the reform and acceleration of development are key to resolving environmental challenges — not halting progress.

Raus opposes what he calls the “degrowth” movement, claiming it is incompatible with how market economies function. He maintains that removing subsidies doesn’t tilt the scales toward fossil fuels but rather ends government favoritism, allowing the most viable technologies to emerge organically.

Nuclear and geothermal are the next frontier

Raus sees promise in both nuclear and geothermal energy. Geothermal, he states, is finally nearing scalability. Nuclear is regaining public support after years of fear-driven opposition. With growing energy needs from emerging technologies like AI, he believes nuclear energy offers a viable, scalable solution. He notes openness to nuclear energy even among environmentalists and tech giants like Google and Meta, who are investing in that space.

However, Raus cautions that public opinion and geographic siting issues could still pose challenges. He urges broader participation and compromise to avoid turning energy policy into a cultural battle, expressing optimism about bipartisan acceptance of nuclear as a major player in the future energy mix.

The US vs. global energy strategies

Singh points out that the world is moving away from this idea, instead prioritizing green energy. Raus defends the United States’s more market-based approach. He contrasts it with the top-down, state-controlled strategies of the European Union and China — these produce inefficiencies like regulatory overreach, ghost cities and a lack of innovation.

The American system fosters dynamic competition, allowing diverse energy sources to fill specific roles — from residential solar to nuclear-powered AI infrastructure. Raus believes the US has stronger natural resources, international supply chains and modern infrastructure, giving it an edge in both energy and AI. He envisions the US leading by example with a balanced, decentralized approach that other nations may eventually adopt.

Singh and Raus agree that the future of US energy is not about picking one source but embracing a diverse mix. Traditional sources will remain important as newer technologies mature. Raus supports this pragmatic vision and sees it as a reflection of sound policy that prioritizes competition, innovation and consumer needs over government mandates.

[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 Video Producer & Social Media Manager Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with Sam Raus, a political analyst and David Boaz Resident Writing Fellow at Young Voices, about America’s evolving energy strategy. They contrast the subsidies of former US President Joe Biden’s administration…”
post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Sam Raus discuss the Trump administration’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Raus argues that the Biden administration’s green energy subsidies distorted the market by favoring solar and wind, while the new law rebalances things by ending these corporate handouts. He champions innovation and deregulation over ideological energy policy, focusing on nuclear and geothermal.”
post-date=”Aug 29, 2025″
post-title=”FO° Talks: Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act Will Cook the Planet?” slug-data=”fo-talks-trumps-one-big-beautiful-bill-act-will-cook-the-planet”>

Peter Isackson”
post_date=”August 28, 2025 06:05″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/world-news/us-news/fo-talks-what-are-the-epstein-files-and-why-is-trump-trying-to-stop-the-release-now/” pid=”157393″
post-content=”

Fair Observer’s Video Producer & Social Media Manager, Rohan Khattar Singh, talks with the team’s Fair Observer’s Chief Strategy Officer, Peter Isackson, and its Chief of Staff, Kaitlyn Diana. They grapple with one of the most charged mysteries in American political life: the so-called Epstein files. The conversation moves from US President Donald Trump’s contradictory promises, to intelligence world shadows, to Elon Musk’s growing role and finally to how Democrats might exploit the fallout. The speakers distinguish between what is known, what is alleged and what is pure speculation.

The mystery of the Epstein files

The phrase Epstein files itself is contested. Do they exist as a coherent dossier? Or are they simply a mass of raw material — documents, recordings and testimonies — collected over years? Trump has publicly insisted, “No, there are no Epstein files,” yet former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi asserted in February, “They’re sitting on my desk.” This contradiction immediately underlines the deep uncertainty surrounding the subject.

Despite the ambiguity, the general assumption is that these files refer to an enormous cache of evidence seized by authorities. Reports claim the Federal Bureau of Investigation collected thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of videos and other documents from sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein’s properties after his arrest and death in custody. Whether this has been systematically analyzed and compiled or still exists as unprocessed evidence remains unclear. What is certain, however, is that public pressure continues to mount for their disclosure.

The conversation also highlights Epstein collaborator Ghislaine Maxwell’s central role. American lawyer Alan Dershowitz once remarked that she “knows everything.” But even if she does, can she be compelled to speak honestly and comprehensively? Peter and Kaitlyn say this uncertainty makes the entire affair even more combustible.

Trump’s promises, broken and reversed

A major focus of the discussion is Trump’s shifting stance. While campaigning for the presidency in 2024, Trump promised repeatedly to release the Epstein files and expose the truth. But once in power, he reversed course, casting doubt on the files’ very existence.

Kaitlyn interprets this as a familiar Trump tactic. “He just lies to his followers,” she states bluntly. She recalls his infamous boast that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue without losing support, arguing that this cynical view of loyalty is now rebounding against him. Some of Trump’s base have grown disillusioned because of his inaction on Epstein. What once seemed like a weapon against Democrats has become a source of doubt.

Peter agrees that Trump lied, but nuances Kaitlyn’s position. While Trump assumed supporters would always fall in line, he is now facing unexpected defections. Figures like former strategist Steve Bannon, Turning Point USA nonprofit founder Charlie Kirk and former special government employee Elon Musk have distanced themselves. Peter broadens the perspective: “Everybody lies, but Trump is particularly egregious … He doesn’t try to cover his tracks.”

Another reason for Trump’s original push, Peter suggests, was his campaign against the so-called “deep state.” Epstein’s rumored intelligence ties made the case an ideal rhetorical weapon to dramatize the “swamp” Trump pledged to drain. But his personal ties to Epstein made that strategy self-defeating. His hope that those links would be ignored has proven false.

Epstein, intelligence and the deep state

The discussion turns toward Epstein’s puzzling rise and mysterious connections. How did a college dropout and former math teacher amass such influence and wealth? Alexander Acosta, who as US attorney oversaw Epstein’s controversial plea deal in 2008, allegedly told investigators that Epstein “belongs to intelligence.” This phrase, Peter notes, suggests higher powers ordered leniency.

Peter speculates that Epstein’s case represents a web of intelligence involvement designed to remain hidden. Reporter Clara Ward’s coverage, he recalls, cited testimony that Acosta explained his hands were tied; Epstein’s protection came from above his pay grade.

The conversation also considers Epstein’s ties through Ghislaine Maxwell to her father, Robert Maxwell, long rumored to have worked with Israel’s national intelligence agency, the Mossad. If Epstein was indeed an intelligence asset, it may have involved cooperation among the Mossad, the CIA and Britain’s MI6.

Peter stresses he isn’t asserting proof, but highlighting plausible storylines. For him, this intelligence angle is a vital part of the Epstein affair and potentially the most dangerous contradiction for Trump. He compares it to ongoing revelations about CIA involvement in past American traumas — the assassinations of US President John F. Kennedy, and civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. — arguing that the Epstein affair fits into a broader history of deep state secrecy.

MAGA cracks begin to show

The Epstein files debate, Peter and Kaitlyn agree, has fractured Trump’s MAGA coalition. Some supporters demand disclosure while others reflexively defend Trump’s retreat.

Kaitlyn remarks that many are realizing Trump is the figure the political left always warned he was. Yet his sexual scandals are not decisive for his base, who long ago proved willing to excuse them. Instead, she sees psychological contortions — cognitive dissonance and narrative rewrites — allowing defenders to rationalize his U-turn. Still, she remains uncertain how far loyalty can stretch this time.

Peter argues a “major change in the landscape” is underway. If Trump loses enough support, Republicans will face an identity crisis. He mentions rumors of Vice President JD Vance and other rising figures preparing to step into the vacuum, perhaps even trying to humiliate Trump in the process.

Elon Musk, Rasputin or pretender?

The conversation then turns to Musk, who once reportedly donated over $100 million to Trump’s cause but now openly breaks with him. On his platform X, Musk demands a release of the Epstein files.

Peter is unsurprised by the fallout, given Trump’s and Musk’s egos. He believes Musk is positioning himself as a political manipulator, though he doubts he can succeed. Kaitlyn, however, views Musk as a dangerous opportunist. “He’s like the modern-day Rasputin,” she says, arguing that he is attempting to seize Trump’s disillusioned followers and build his own cult of personality.

Can Musk credibly enter politics? Peter doubts Americans see him as ideologically serious. Kaitlyn, however, thinks his celebrity power and alignment with Trump-like populism could propel him into politics, given how unconventional candidates have succeeded before. She recalls controversy over whether Musk performed a Nazi salute on television, treating it as a hint at extremist sympathies.

Still, Peter insists Musk cannot replace Trump. He likens Musk’s prospects to those of US President Ronald Reagan, once dismissed as a cartoonish actor, but quickly adds that American politics is now so unpredictable that almost anything is possible. Kaitlyn concedes Musk would probably need to pursue the Republican nomination rather than a third-party bid, and even then, it would be a long-term play.

They also address the constitutional obstacle: Musk’s South African birth bars him from the presidency unless the US Constitution is amended. Kaitlyn acknowledges that Americans have cherry-picked constitutional clauses to suit elites before, but she doubts Trump himself would champion reform, given his anti-immigration stance.

Democrats smell blood

Turning to the Democratic Party, Peter and Kaitlyn outline a strategy of opportunism. Democrats, Peter says, have always obsessed over portraying Trump as an “outsized villain,” from the Access Hollywood tape leaked in 2016 — a 2005 recording of Trump telling television host Billy Bush about his history of sexual harassment — to his current Epstein entanglements. Now they sense an opening to use the scandal against him.

A crucial part of that strategy, Peter suggests, is their willingness to sacrifice US President Bill Clinton. During US President Joe Biden’s administration, exposing Clinton’s Epstein ties was too costly. But now, with Bill Clinton aged and former presidential nominee Hillary Clinton sidelined, Democrats may accept collateral damage if it means fatally wounding Trump. Kaitlyn agrees, describing a spiderweb effect that could entangle numerous elites, not just Clinton. In her view, Democrats are willing to “shoot themselves in the foot” if that is the price of defeating Trump.

What if the files are released?

Finally, the speakers consider what the release of the files might mean. Kaitlyn foresees a massive scandal, possibly involving politicians, tech billionaires, media moguls and especially Hollywood. The impact, she believes, would ripple far beyond government, damaging entertainment and culture itself.

Peter, meanwhile, stresses the deeper revelation: The exposure of a transpartisan elite “big club” where ideology is irrelevant and power, pleasure and secrecy rule. If this truth emerges, he warns, Americans’ understanding of their country could change permanently.

Above all, Peter insists the intelligence dimension is decisive. If these agencies fail to maintain secrecy, revelations could stretch beyond sexual scandal to matters of war and covert regime change. He predicts fierce resistance, with implicated actors colluding to bury the truth. Yet he also notes pressure from figures like Republican Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna, who demands transparency on Epstein. The deep state’s secrets may eventually come under unprecedented scrutiny.

What lies ahead

The Epstein files, whether myth or reality, have already shaken American politics. For Kaitlyn, they reveal Trump’s pattern of manipulation and betrayal. For Peter, they expose intelligence-world shadows and elite complicity. Both agree that the issue is splitting the MAGA movement, tempting Musk into politics and giving Democrats a new weapon.

But the greatest unknown remains: Will the files ever be released? If they are, will they confirm suspicions of individual depravity or something even more profound: a system of elite power that transcends parties and nations?

[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 the team’s Fair Observer’s Chief Strategy Officer, Peter Isackson, and its Chief of Staff, Kaitlyn Diana. They grapple with one of the most charged mysteries in American political life: the so-called…”
post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talk, Rohan Khattar Singh, Peter Isackson and Kaitlyn Diana discuss the controversy over the notorious “Epstein files,” highlighting US President Donald Trump’s broken promises, intelligence ties and elite complicity. The scandal could fracture Trump’s MAGA movement and provide Democrats with leverage. The release, if it happens, may expose both sexual misconduct and systemic deep-state corruption.”
post-date=”Aug 28, 2025″
post-title=”FO° Talks: What Are the Epstein Files and Why Is Trump Trying To Stop the Release Now?” slug-data=”fo-talks-what-are-the-epstein-files-and-why-is-trump-trying-to-stop-the-release-now”>

Josef Olmert”
post_date=”August 27, 2025 05:17″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/world-news/middle-east-news/fo-talks-hundreds-of-israelis-urge-trump-to-end-netanyahus-war-in-gaza/” pid=”157380″
post-content=”

Fair Observer Founder, CEO & Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and former Israeli Government Official Josef Olmert explore the deep divisions within Israel over Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Gaza policy. A petition signed by prominent former security, intelligence and political officials urges US President Donald Trump to intervene and end Netanyahu’s war. This group represents one pole of the debate, while the other body of senior figures largely supports Netanyahu.

The split reflects ideology and policy more than strict party lines. The petitioners lean center-left, while Netanyahu’s supporters stand on the center-right with a stronger right-wing character. Olmert observes that many signatories are not strictly tied to party politics, but most on the right likely back Netanyahu.

War goals and progress

Olmert raises a central question: “What’s the goal? What does the government of Israel want to achieve these days?” After the infamous Hamas attack of October 7, 2023, Netanyahu declared the goals to be the total destruction of Hamas and the complete release of hostages. According to intelligence, of the original 250 hostages, about 20 are believed alive and 30 bodies are noted, leaving around 50 still unreturned. Olmert expresses the hope that all are alive. He adds that while more than 80% of Hamas may have been destroyed militarily, these figures show the government has not achieved its declared goals.

Political pressures and Knesset dynamics

Netanyahu faces relentless pressure from his far-right partners, particularly the factions of Israeli politicians Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, who hold 14 seats. Together, they insist on nothing less than full achievement of the war’s goals. Israel’s Knesset — the Israeli legislature — has 120 seats, and a governing majority requires 61. Netanyahu’s coalition controls about 68–70 seats, meaning that if Ben-Gvir and Smotrich withdraw, his government collapses and new elections follow.

Netanyahu wants to avoid early elections, preferring the scheduled date of November 2026. Although his popularity plummeted after October 7, it has partially rebounded after what Olmert calls a “successful campaign against Iran,” an outcome Netanyahu claimed credit for. The far right, however, continues to push him to destroy Hamas completely, even if this endangers the remaining hostages. Petitioners, by contrast, urge ending the war to save lives and relieve international pressure.

External and international pressures

Olmert argues that Trump is also pressing Netanyahu to bring the conflict to an end, either through a decisive military blow or through a deal. He characterizes Netanyahu as reluctant to make such weighty decisions, fearing the loss of his parliamentary majority.

In addition to Trump, Germany and Great Britain are also applying pressure. According to Olmert, Netanyahu floats the idea of “final occupation” as a delaying tactic to appease the far right while maneuvering for time. He interprets Netanyahu’s stance as brinkmanship — a strategy of pushing Hamas to change its position on hostages under pressure from outside actors such as the United States, Egypt, Saudi Arabia or Qatar.

The Israeli establishment and historical precedent

Olmert highlights the petition’s extraordinary nature: For the first time in Israeli history, former officials openly appeal to a US president to restrain their own prime minister. He mentions reports that many senior officers of the Israel Defense Forces and Mossad national intelligence agency want to end the Gaza war and refocus on Iran, which they view as the greater existential threat. Netanyahu, however, remains mistrusted by much of the defense establishment — a mistrust he uses to his political advantage, casting himself as anti-establishment, much like Trump. Olmert stresses that Netanyahu relies heavily on Trump’s approval, treating it as the ultimate “green light or red light.”

Societal schisms and international perceptions

Olmert underscores that the war is widening Israel’s societal chasms, even though these divides always existed. He points to the extreme right’s rhetoric about “ethnic cleansing,” which unsettles many military and intelligence professionals who see it as diplomatically suicidal. He acknowledges Israel’s deteriorating international status but warns against blaming Netanyahu alone. Deeper forces of bias and antisemitism, he argues, also shape Israel’s isolation. Still, he emphasizes that while Israel was united against the Hezbollah paramilitary group and Iran, the Gaza conflict uniquely splits the country at its core.

Allegations and humanitarian claims

Human rights groups accuse Israel of committing genocide in Gaza, but Olmert rejects these claims outright. He insists, “There is no genocide and no starvation in Gaza.” He argues that Gaza is “swamped with food,” and that problems stem from distribution, not supply. He blames the United Nations — and especially the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East — for playing a “negative role” by enabling Hamas and controlling food aid. He strongly criticizes Cindy McCain, the executive director of the UN World Food Programme, for calling Gaza a humanitarian catastrophe and accusing Israeli troops of firing on civilians; he dismisses her claims as propaganda. For Olmert, starvation “as a phenomenon does not exist in Gaza.”

The catch-22 and Israel’s future

Olmert frames the conflict as a catch-22. If Israel utterly destroys Hamas, the result would be mass casualties and global condemnation. If it refrains, Hamas remains intact, undermining the war’s purpose. He insists that Hamas, not Israel, created this dilemma. On the West Bank, he calls for restraining settlers who “misbehave” but also stresses the need to prevent a Hamas-style threat from emerging there.

Olmert concludes that Netanyahu is not managing the Gaza situation well, prioritizing political survival over national interest. His proposed solution is new elections as soon as possible, though he acknowledges Netanyahu and his far-right allies will resist because polls show they would likely be swept from 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 former Israeli Government Official Josef Olmert explore the deep divisions within Israel over Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Gaza policy. A petition signed by prominent former security, intelligence and political officials…”
post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Atul Singh and Josef Olmert discuss deep divisions in Israel over Netanyahu’s Gaza policy. Former officials urge US President Donald Trump to intervene while far-right allies demand total victory. Netanyahu faces both domestic and international pressure, yet prioritizes political survival over a clear strategy.”
post-date=”Aug 27, 2025″
post-title=”FO° Talks: Hundreds of Israelis Urge Trump To End Netanyahu’s War in Gaza” slug-data=”fo-talks-hundreds-of-israelis-urge-trump-to-end-netanyahus-war-in-gaza”>

Esther Wojcicki”
post_date=”August 26, 2025 06:27″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/business/technology/fo-talks-ai-education-and-how-to-raise-successful-people/” pid=”157365″
post-content=”

Fair Observer Board Member Heather (Heldman) Neeman and renowned educator Esther Wojcicki discuss how artificial intelligence is transforming education. Wojcicki’s TRICK method — Trust, Respect, Independence, Collaboration and Kindness — can empower parents and students alike. The discussion addresses both the micro level of parenting and the macro challenges facing US education.

The TRICK method in 2025

Drawing from her book, How to Raise Successful People, Wojcicki emphasizes that the simple TRICK principles often run counter to today’s parenting habits. She offers a detailed set of actions parents can take to foster independence: letting children set up their own playdates instead of acting as the go-between, involving them in scheduling after-school activities and assigning meaningful household responsibilities. She believes these steps signal trust and help children “be in control of their world,” countering the modern trend of over-accommodation.

Examples range from letting children plan weekend outings to giving them full responsibility for a pet’s care — without stepping in if they fail. She also points to research showing that children who do regular chores grow into more capable and happier adults. She notes that in immigrant families, where children often “pull their weight,” self-sufficiency tends to be higher.

AI’s place in the classroom

Wojcicki draws a direct parallel between the current fear of AI in schools and past overreactions to calculators in the 1980s. She criticizes outright bans, such as those in New York City and Los Angeles, as short-sighted and rooted in fear. Instead, she calls for structured AI literacy programs, likening them to driver’s education: “You wouldn’t give someone a car without teaching them to drive.”

Her classroom philosophy — used successfully when integrating computers decades ago — is to position students as co-learners and teachers, allowing them to share AI discoveries with peers. She argues that this not only demystifies technology but also builds speaking skills, confidence and collaboration. Projects such as AI-assisted video storytelling about personal heroes allow students to engage creatively while learning about the responsible use of powerful tools.

The trust gap in public education

Neeman highlights a broader erosion of trust in American public schools, citing political tensions, rising homeschooling and safety concerns. Wojcicki agrees, attributing much of the problem to a “one-size-fits-all” instructional model. She argues that expecting a single teacher to meet the needs of students who may be years ahead or behind is “almost impossible” in a standard class period. Gifted students, struggling students and those in the middle all require different forms of engagement. The current push for identical treatment in the name of equality, she says, “runs against common sense and human nature,” leaving many parents frustrated and disillusioned.

Rethinking the model

The conversation turns to innovative alternatives. The program 2 Hour Learning, co-founded by MacKenzie Price, offers a concise model that combines individualized AI-driven instruction in the morning with afternoons dedicated to passion projects and collaborative work. Wojcicki sees this as “100% aligned” with her TRICK philosophy, arguing that it avoids the boredom and disengagement common in traditional classrooms where students “sit quietly memorizing material they don’t care about.” She believes public schools could adapt such models, especially with AI’s ability to tailor lessons to each student’s pace and needs.

Wojcicki’s nonprofit, Global Moonshots for Education, founded in 2019, works to spread such approaches worldwide. It recognizes schools that empower students as independent thinkers and collaborative problem-solvers.

Democracy, misinformation and AI risks

Neeman raises concerns about algorithm-driven “information silos” that feed different facts to different political groups, further polarizing the country. Wojcicki links this directly to low literacy levels — she cites data showing that most American adults read at only a sixth-grade level, with many minorities at a fourth-grade level — and the lack of critical thinking instruction.

Wojcicki warns that misinformation, once believed, is stubbornly resistant to correction. A false story about Pope Francis endorsing US President Donald Trump illustrates this. The rise of deepfakes compounds the problem, making it difficult for the public to discern truth from fabrication.

Teaching history, she argues, must go beyond rote memorization and instead connect past events to present realities — for instance, studying ancient Egypt alongside modern Egyptian politics or linking author George Orwell’s famous novel, 1984, to current examples of authoritarian behavior.

Looking ahead with hope

Despite these challenges, Wojcicki ends on an optimistic note. She is developing an AI-supported parenting app called Parenting TRICK to guide parents toward fostering independence rather than hovering over their children. She is also co-authoring a book with 25 of her former students to showcase how her educational style has shaped their lives and careers.

Her hope is that such tools and stories will inspire districts and policymakers to adopt more personalized, flexible models like 2 Hour Learning’s — models she believes can prepare young people to think critically, work collaboratively and contribute meaningfully to a healthy democracy.

[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 Board Member Heather (Heldman) Neeman and renowned educator Esther Wojcicki discuss how artificial intelligence is transforming education. Wojcicki’s TRICK method — Trust, Respect, Independence, Collaboration and Kindness — can empower parents and students alike. The discussion…”
post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Heather (Heldman) Neeman interviews Esther Wojcicki about her TRICK method (Trust, Respect, Independence, Collaboration and Kindness) and how AI can transform education. Wojcicki critiques one-size-fits-all schooling and advocates for independence-building parenting. She also tackles mistrust in public education, misinformation and AI’s potential to affect democracy.”
post-date=”Aug 26, 2025″
post-title=”FO° Talks: AI, Education and “How to Raise Successful People”” slug-data=”fo-talks-ai-education-and-how-to-raise-successful-people”>

Gary Grappo”
post_date=”August 25, 2025 06:08″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/world-news/fo-live-trump-hands-putin-a-win-in-alaska-as-zelenskyy-and-eu-leaders-huddle-in-the-white-house/” pid=”157345″
post-content=”

Fair Observer Founder, CEO & Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh hosts a live chat with retired US Ambassador Gary Grappo and retired CIA Officer Glenn Carle. They dissect US President Donald Trump’s two summits of uncertainty. The conversation moves through three themes: the summit in Anchorage, Alaska, with Russian President Vladimir Putin; the follow-up summit in Washington, DC; and the broader implications for Ukraine, Europe and global security.

The Anchorage summit: a triumph for Putin

Glenn opens with a stark assessment of Trump’s relationship with Russia. He calls it “bizarre” and suggests that Trump is, at the very least, manipulated by Russian intelligence. He argues that Trump often echoes Russian foreign policy talking points verbatim, making him one of the easiest political figures for Moscow to influence. For Glenn, the Anchorage summit is nothing less than a symbolic and practical victory for Putin. By meeting with the world’s leading sanctioning power, Putin breaks out of the containment imposed since the Ukraine invasion.

Glenn dismisses Trump’s pre-summit tough rhetoric as little more than tactical posturing, perhaps designed to create leverage or even burnish his credentials for a Nobel Prize. From Glenn’s perspective, the meeting yields nothing for Washington while granting Russia international legitimacy. He concludes that Trump achieves his personal goal — being the center of attention and restoring Putin’s prominence — while Europe is sidelined and Ukraine left in a vulnerable position.

Gary echoes this view, calling Trump’s treatment of Putin “bizarre, uncanny and solicitous,” almost as if Trump is a subordinate. He highlights Putin’s deliberate tactic of keeping the US president waiting — a classic power play in diplomacy designed to show dominance. For Gary, Trump’s behavior upon greeting Putin is shocking for a US president and signals weakness rather than resolve.

Gary goes further by analyzing Putin’s body language, which he interprets as a display of dominance shaped by the Russian leader’s background in judo. Putin’s habit of speaking at length, he argues, is a strategic move to frame his vision as the superior approach. Trump seems to accept this by abandoning demands for a ceasefire.

Instead, Trump moves toward Putin’s preferred path of a swift “peace plan.” Gary warns that genuine peace agreements are complex and time-consuming, and Trump’s negotiating team lacks the experience to manage such intricacies. In his view, Trump essentially concedes on the ceasefire while Putin flatters Trump with dubious claims, such as saying Trump won the 2020 election and that Russia would not have invaded Ukraine under his presidency. Gary dismisses these as manipulative falsehoods.

A Russian journalist describes the event as a “total victory for Russia and for Putin.” Both Gary and Glenn find this judgment accurate. Glenn reiterates that Trump has no coherent strategy, only the desire to appear successful in the moment. Trump’s foreign policy, he argues, is not guided by principles or philosophy but by self-interest and personal image.

Atul sums up the consensus: The United States gains nothing, Putin emerges as a clear winner and Trump, in his own mind, wins by being the center of attention.

The Washington summit: damage control or crisis?

The Washington follow-up summit was meant to address the fallout from Anchorage, but brought mixed results. Gary notes that Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy prompts the latter to seek a meeting in Washington. This is significant, given Zelenskyy’s bruising experience in February when US Vice President JD Vance publicly told him to capitulate, straining US–Ukraine relations.

Gary believes the presence of European leaders at the Washington summit helped prevent a repeat of that debacle. Trump’s talk of territorial concessions, however, unsettled Zelenskyy and European allies, raising fears of a US pivot toward Russian terms. While some US officials floated the possibility of peacekeeping missions, Gary warns such assurances could vanish quickly if not endorsed directly by Trump.

Atul asks whether the Washington summit amounts to damage control. Gary agrees, though he doubts that is the official intention. Glenn, in typically blunt terms, describes the event as moving from “the jaws of a definitive catastrophe” — namely the collapse of Ukraine, NATO’s unraveling and Russia’s absorption of Central Europe — to a severe crisis. He likens this to shifting from certain death to “fourth-stage cancer.” His advice to Europe is clear: Stay close to the US but prepare to defend yourselves independently. Europe, he argues, has shown more capability and resilience than expected, but reliance on Trump’s America is risky.

Style, strategy and strain: reactions to Zelenskyy and Europe

At this point, Atul introduces three journalistic observations:

Zelenskyy’s appearance: Some European journalists criticize his all-black attire and angled chair as brash. Glenn dismisses such concerns, praising Zelenskyy for presenting himself as a wartime leader rather than a supplicant.

European leaders’ weakness: Most, apart from Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, face domestic political fragility due to economic hardship and low approval ratings. Glenn attributes these vulnerabilities to broader social strains such as modernization and immigration, but insists their support for Ukraine is rational and necessary. Gary acknowledges the fragility but emphasizes that the public understands the importance of standing behind Ukraine and NATO.

Zelenskyy as a “dead man walking:” Some commentators suggest his thin-skinned behavior, corruption scandals and dwindling US support undermine his leadership. Glenn admits he is starting to see troubling signs, citing polls showing Ukrainians’ desire for peace. Gary, however, strongly rejects such polls as misleading. He stresses that large majorities of Ukrainians oppose territorial concessions, comparing pro-peace responses to vague platitudes like “motherhood and apple pie.”

The two experts diverge on polling but agree that European unity on defending Ukraine remains strong. Leaders may overstate praise for Trump to keep him engaged, but Gary worries about the lack of substantive detail in Washington. Both warn that Trump’s negotiating team lacks the expertise for serious diplomacy.

Patterns of aggression and fragile diplomacy

Glenn broadens the lens, pointing to Russia’s record of unchecked aggressions — in Montenegro, Nagorno-Karabakh, Georgia, Moldova, Estonia, Crimea and Ukraine. He argues that the West has consistently ignored these actions, responding only with vague calls for peace. For him, Trump represents a continuation of this failure, offering little interest in complex policy and even less capacity for nuanced statecraft.

Gary, only “microscopically” more optimistic after Washington than Anchorage, hopes Zelenskyy and European leaders can persuade Trump of Ukraine’s security importance. He underscores the brutality of Putin’s policy, particularly the kidnapping of thousands of Ukrainian children, who are placed in Russian families — a tactic with long-term consequences.

Looking ahead: pressure, politics and possibilities

The final portion of the discussion looks ahead. Atul raises two questions: the influence of domestic pressures in Europe, particularly among Muslim populations who see Western support for Ukraine as biased compared to Gaza, and the Republican narrative in Washington portraying Europe as weak and dependent.

Gary believes Trump remains fixated on staging a trilateral summit with Putin and Zelenskyy, though he doubts Putin’s willingness to participate. Without major US financial commitments — perhaps $50–80 billion — Russia has little incentive to engage. NATO’s future, he warns, is tied directly to the Ukraine question. Keeping Trump involved, possibly with the prospect of a Nobel Prize, might help, but Gary doubts Trump will take substantive steps.

Glenn, however, sees a potential path forward. He notes that the US could provide arms to NATO countries, which could then transfer them to Ukraine, allowing Trump to maintain his pro-Putin image without entirely abandoning Kyiv. This arrangement, he argues, might be the most plausible near-term strategy. Ultimately, he lays out two possible outcomes: Either Ukraine collapses or it is sustained by European and American support until Putin is forced to halt or accept defeat.

The future hangs in the balance

The discussion paints a sobering picture of Trump’s foreign policy approach. For Glenn, Trump is a leader driven solely by self-image, easily manipulated yet impossible to control. For Gary, Trump’s diplomatic style is reckless and devoid of substance, leaving NATO allies anxious and Ukraine imperiled. Both agree that Putin emerges strengthened from Anchorage and that Washington offers only a slight reprieve from disaster.

In their eyes, the uncertainty of Trump’s summits reflects a deeper crisis in transatlantic relations, where Europe must prepare to defend itself while still relying on an unpredictable US. The stakes, they conclude, are nothing less than Ukraine’s survival and NATO’s future.

[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 hosts a live chat with retired US Ambassador Gary Grappo and retired CIA Officer Glenn Carle. They dissect US President Donald Trump’s two summits of uncertainty. The conversation moves through three themes: the summit in Anchorage,…”
post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Live, Atul Singh, Gary Grappo and Glenn Carle present US President Donald Trump’s recent summits as deeply destabilizing for Ukraine and NATO. Anchorage, they argue, was a clear win for Putin, while Washington was mere damage control. Gary and Glenn see Trump as driven by ego, leaving Europe to brace for uncertain security.”
post-date=”Aug 25, 2025″
post-title=”FO° Live: Trump Hands Putin a Win in Alaska as Zelenskyy and EU Leaders Huddle in the White House” slug-data=”fo-live-trump-hands-putin-a-win-in-alaska-as-zelenskyy-and-eu-leaders-huddle-in-the-white-house”>

Glenn Carle”
post_date=”August 24, 2025 04:04″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/economics/fo-exclusive-is-the-us-debt-a-big-problem/” pid=”157330″
post-content=”

[Though this video is not recent, the authors’ discussion remains relevant today.]

Fair Observer Founder, CEO & Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and retired CIA Officer Glenn Carle debate whether the US federal debt is truly an economic threat or an overblown worry. The discussion contrasts conventional alarmist views with a more nuanced economic perspective, touching on deficit projections, the role of the dollar, immigration and long-term growth trends.

The conventional alarm

Atul outlines the prevailing Republican view that US debt poses, in Glenn’s words, “almost an existential crisis” to the economy and society. He cites the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)’s Budget and Economic Outlook 2024–2034, which projects the deficit rising from $1.6 trillion in 2024 to $2.6 trillion by 2034 — over 6% of the GDP, a level exceeded only during major crises. The CBO warns of unsustainable trends and calls for fiscal adjustments through spending cuts, tax increases or both.

Atul notes, however, that Republicans often campaign on deficit concerns yet fail to reduce it in practice. The deficit remains “high,” “structural” and “perpetual.”

Glenn’s rebuttal: context and currency power

Glenn agrees with the numbers but calls them “misleading.” He argues that the United States differs from countries that have faced debt crises because it issues debt in its own currency — the world’s reserve currency, the US dollar — and owes much of it to itself. This, he says, makes the threat far less severe. The much-discussed 2039 crisis point would require only a 2.1% GDP adjustment in revenues and spending, hardly existential.

Growth, immigration and the deficit

Glenn believes steady economic growth can resolve the debt issue, with immigration as a critical driver. Immigrants boost tax revenues and GDP, making them, in his view, an “overwhelmingly positive” economic force.

Atul acknowledges their dynamism but warns of pressures on social services and cultural adjustment challenges. Glenn counters that immigrants historically assimilate over three generations and contribute more in taxes than they consume in services, making them essential to sustaining long-term US growth.

Econ0mic performance: optimism vs. caution

Glenn highlights strong post-2022 results: five million new jobs, record-low unemployment, narrowing racial income gaps, rising real wages and a boom in infrastructure and industrial investment. Inflation has fallen sharply, though food costs remain a burden.

Atul praises the achievements but reminds Glenn of the side effects from the Inflation Reduction Act, including protectionism and an ongoing cost-of-living crisis. Glenn maintains that the “broad sunlit uplands” of US growth outweigh the storm clouds, so to speak; he argues that debt fears are more about political agendas than economics.

The dollar and seigniorage

The discussion closes on the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency, attracting capital during global instability. Atul explains seigniorage — the economic benefit from issuing the world’s primary currency — but highlights that it is not permanent. A structurally sound economy, not overreliance on currency status, is essential to maintaining long-term stability.

[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 CIA Officer Glenn Carle debate whether the US federal debt is truly an economic threat or an overblown worry. The discussion contrasts…”
post_summery=”In this section of the August 2024 episode of FO° Exclusive, Atul and Glenn debate whether US debt poses a true economic danger. CBO data suggests structural deficits demand urgent fiscal action, but America’s currency power and immigration advantages temper the threat. The dollar’s dominance is a unique asset, but caution is needed because long-term stability depends on a solid economic foundation.”
post-date=”Aug 24, 2025″
post-title=”FO° Exclusive: Is the US Debt a Big Problem?” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-is-the-us-debt-a-big-problem”>

Glenn Carle”
post_date=”August 23, 2025 05:58″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/world-news/us-news/fo-talks-donald-trump-2-0-are-lunatics-now-running-the-asylum/” pid=”157309″
post-content=”
[Though this video is not recent, the authors’ discussion remains relevant today.]

Fair Observer Founder, CEO & Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and retired CIA Officer Glenn Carle dissect the question: “Donald Trump 2.0: Are lunatics now running the asylum?” Speaking from his experience in intelligence and analysis, Glenn delivers a sobering assessment of US President Donald Trump’s movement, the myth of the “deep state,” and the dangers of Project 2025.

The Trump phenomenon and the sincerity of supporters

Glenn begins by questioning the phrase “lunatics running the asylum.” Calling Trump’s allies lunatics, he says, is too generous, since lunatics are not necessarily duplicitous. The real danger, Glenn insists, is the sincerity of Trump’s supporters.

Polls show that around 40% of Americans are indifferent to democracy and the rule of law. Many openly prefer a strongman who can “get things done” regardless of constitutional limits. For these Americans, politics feels distant, even irrelevant, compared to everyday issues like potholes, taxes or classroom sizes.

Glenn argues that ordinary people, even those who consider themselves honorable, fall in line with authority. He recalls colleagues at the CIA rationalizing torture because “our boss said it’s okay.”

Atul extends the point to history: Countless “good people” served Joseph Stalin, Indira Gandhi or Adolf Hitler not out of villainy, but because they went along with inherited systems. Human nature explains the willingness to comply.

Human nature and historical blind spots

Glenn pushes back against the American belief in exceptionalism. After World War II, many assumed Germans must have been “intrinsically different” to have committed atrocities, while Americans told themselves, “We would never do that.” Glenn rejects this as a blind assumption. Faced with the choice to kill or be killed, he argues, ordinary citizens anywhere can become executioners.

This perspective shapes how he evaluates Trump and his allies. US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, FBI Director Kash Patel, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Trump himself, he says, combine true belief, ambition, opportunism and lack of principle. He highlights something especially troubling: Trump’s statements often repeat Kremlin talking points verbatim.

Glenn poses a rhetorical question: “Have you ever met someone who agrees with you on every single political issue?” Since the answer is no, perfect alignment with Russia’s messaging should alarm Americans.

The CIA, independence and the deep state

Glenn then turns to the intelligence community. The CIA’s mission, he stresses, is to deliver independent, objective analysis — often inconvenient for presidents. The agency warned against escalation in Vietnam, questioned false claims about weapons of mass destruction and provided fact-based views that cut against political narratives.

Glenn recalls one moment vividly: A secretary of defense staffer once glared at him and told him, “You [the CIA] are the enemy.” That hostility, he says, now fuels Trump’s push to “clean house,” eliminating intelligence officials not loyal to him. While all presidents try to steer the CIA, Glenn views Trump’s vendetta as part of a much darker campaign.

Project 2025: a blueprint for authoritarianism

Glenn warns most urgently about Project 2025, a conservative blueprint for the second Trump administration. He calls it “frankly lunatic” and “profoundly dangerous.” Its pages describe civil servants as “cultural Marxists,” depict bureaucracies as proof of totalitarianism and demand loyalty over expertise.

The CIA, Glenn argues, reflects America’s political diversity. Analysts skew toward evidence-based centrism, not ideology. Yet when fact-driven analysis contradicts right-wing preferences — such as skepticism toward Israeli hardline policies — Republicans brand it “biased” or “Marxist.”

For Glenn, the very idea of a deep state is a fascist myth. He traces it back not only to Turkey but to Italian dictator Benito Mussolini and German Führer Adolf Hitler. In this view, the government was cast as oppressive, bureaucrats as conspirators, and only a single strong leader could defend the people. This narrative, Glenn says, resurfaces in modern America through the far-right QAnon movement and the Trump administration.

Bureaucracy, regulation and social frustration

Glenn concedes there is a grain of truth: Bureaucracies can be slow, cautious and resistant to change. Yet this is far from sabotage. Instead, he sees tension in the complexity of modern societies. Democracies need regulation to balance competing interests, but rules often feel burdensome. Citizens lash out at the bureaucrat enforcing them, blaming individuals for systemic problems.

The real challenge is balance. Too much regulation stifles freedom, but unregulated capitalism produces monopoly, exploitation and oligarchy. Glenn believes the United States achieved its best balance between 1933 and 1980, with a regulated market economy under democratic oversight. Since 1980, he says, deregulation has gone too far.

Demographic change and the politics of belonging

Glenn also links Trump’s rise to demographic shifts. In 1956, the US was 89% white. By 2030, the figure will drop below half. Diversity brings enormous benefits, he notes, but it also stresses social cohesion. Sociologists show that when minorities exceed 10% of a population, unrest tends to rise. Integration typically takes three generations. Today’s backlash, Glenn suggests, comes from Americans overwhelmed by change and searching for scapegoats.

DOGE and the erosion of accountability

The proposed Department of Governmental Efficiency (DOGE) becomes Glenn’s case study in authoritarian governance. Marketed as an anti-waste reform, it actually dismantles oversight offices and suspends anti-corruption measures like the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Having spent his career in government, Glenn insists fraud is rare. DOGE, he warns, creates more corruption, not less.

He argues that while reducing government size is not inherently harmful, DOGE’s cuts are “extra-legal,” meaning illegal. The true purpose is not efficiency but to impose orthodoxy, silence dissent and centralize power. Such moves, Glenn concludes, lead to cronyism, corruption and “the loss of democracy and individual rights.”

Rejecting the strongman narrative

Atul asks if Trump could be a Julius Caesar-like figure rescuing America from dysfunction. Glenn strongly disagrees. Caesar destroyed the Roman Republic, while French General Napoleon Bonaparte left tens of millions dead. America’s crisis, he says, is different. The nation has always harbored authoritarian, isolationist and racist currents, but never before have they dominated the entire system.

Still, Glenn emphasizes the progress of the American experiment. Over centuries, the definition of who counts as fully human has expanded — a triumph of US history. Today’s effort to roll back these rights, he argues, contradicts American ideals and undermines the possibility of a pluralistic society.

Facts, lies and the corrosion of truth

Glenn closes with a blunt message: “There are objective facts.” Policy debates are legitimate, but persisting in falsehoods is not disagreement — it is lying. He accuses Trump allies, including Patel and Gabbard, of spreading claims proven false. He concludes that Project 2025 rests on lies, and repeating untruths is willful corruption — corrosive, dangerous and profoundly authoritarian.

[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 CIA Officer Glenn Carle dissect the question: “Donald Trump 2.0: Are lunatics now running the asylum?” Speaking from his experience in…”
post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Atul Singh and Glenn Carle discuss US President Donald Trump’s administration and DOGE. Glenn warns that Trumpism rests not on lunacy but on sincere belief, opportunism and authoritarian instinct. He rejects myths of the deep state, denounces Project 2025 as fascist and sees DOGE as a tool for silencing dissent.”
post-date=”Aug 23, 2025″
post-title=”FO° Talks: Donald Trump 2.0: Are Lunatics Now Running the Asylum?” slug-data=”fo-talks-donald-trump-2-0-are-lunatics-now-running-the-asylum”>

Abdullah O Hayek”
post_date=”August 22, 2025 06:39″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/world-news/middle-east-news/fo-talks-will-iran-deploy-thousands-of-sea-mines-in-the-strait-of-hormuz/” pid=”157288″
post-content=”

[As of the filming of this episode, Iran has not mined the Strait of Hormuz, nor does anyone know for certain that they will.]

Fair Observer’s Video Producer & Social Media Manager, Rohan Khattar Singh, talks with Abdullah O Hayek, an independent Middle East analyst and peace fellow at Young Voices. Hayek assesses Iran’s potential deployment of sea mines in the Strait of Hormuz. He covers the immediate consequences for global shipping and energy markets. He also examines the nation’s capital, Tehran’s, strategic aims, the credibility of the regime’s threat, and the economic, diplomatic and military costs Iran faces.

Disrupting a critical energy chokepoint

Hayek stresses that mining the Strait of Hormuz would instantly threaten one of the world’s most vital energy arteries. The waterway is extremely narrow — less than two miles wide in certain areas — and carries 18 to 20 million barrels of oil and over a billion cubic feet of liquefied natural gas (LNG) each day. This amounts to about 20% of global seaborne petroleum and roughly a quarter of all LNG traded internationally.

Even without detonations, the detection of mines triggers a freeze in tanker traffic as maritime insurers withdraw coverage. Hayek estimates that a small mining campaign halts flows within a week and that clearing a safe corridor takes a month or longer. This causes an immediate and severe energy crisis.

Oil prices spike from $70 to $150 per barrel, hitting Asia’s major importers — China, India, Japan and South Korea — with rationing, higher fuel costs and industrial slowdowns. Gulf producers like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates can offset only about half the lost supply. Beyond energy, freight rates surge, supply chains from electronics to agriculture suffer and vulnerable economies face recessionary pressure.

Asymmetrical maritime deterrence

Hayek frames Iran’s approach as part of a broader asymmetrical deterrence strategy that already includes proxies, drones and missiles. Sea mines extend this into maritime warfare. US intelligence recently observed Iranian vessels loaded with mines after US strikes in June, though none were deployed. Hayek sees this as deliberate signaling — a show of capability intended to raise the global costs of escalation.

Historical precedent reinforces the threat: During the Iran–Iraq War of the 1980s, mining the Gulf sharply drove up oil prices. Domestically, Iran’s parliament passes a near-unanimous, symbolic resolution to close the Strait, underscoring internal unity behind this maritime narrative. Regionally, such a move warns Gulf states and US bases of Tehran’s ability to disrupt their energy lifelines at will. Globally, it aims to strengthen Iran’s position in nuclear or sanctions talks.

A credible and diverse arsenal

Iran’s mines need to be taken seriously. Hayek cites estimates of 5,000 to 6,000 mines in the country’s arsenal, including bottom, contact, acoustic, pressure-sensor, drifting, limpet and rocket-assisted types. This variety, he argues, makes the Gulf “a living hell” for shipping. Even partial mining can be nearly as effective as a full closure, as the threat alone deters operations.

Iran’s naval capabilities, including midget submarines, fast attack boats, drone swarms and missiles, complicate clearance operations and heighten risks for countermine forces. Hayek’s conclusion is unequivocal: Iran has the means, geography and intent to create serious disruption.

The costs of escalation

Hayek also outlines why Iran may hesitate:

Economic costs: Mining the Strait effectively cuts off its own oil exports — 1.5 to two million barrels per day — much of which goes to China. For an already-sanctioned economy, losing this revenue is “economic suicide.” Short-term price spikes do not compensate for lost volume.

Diplomatic costs: Major customers like China, India, Japan and South Korea condemn the move. Even Russia may caution against it as short-sighted. Gulf states could accelerate alternative pipelines and LNG routes, permanently eroding Iran’s leverage.

Military costs: A closure attempt justifies a broad US-led military response, potentially resembling the 1991 coalition against Iraq. Such action could inflict civilian casualties, damaging Iran’s domestic legitimacy and fueling regime-change sentiment.

Washington’s calculus

Turning to US politics, Hayek notes US President Donald Trump’s longstanding opposition to new wars and emphasis on ending existing conflicts. Within the Make America Great Again movement, there is strong resistance to direct intervention, even in the face of Iranian provocations. Hayek argues that deploying US troops to Iran would be “Iraq 2.0” — a decade-long conflict with global and domestic consequences.

Instead, Hayek recommends that Washington equip regional allies to manage the crisis, resorting to military measures only if diplomacy fails. Iran, he warns, is “the most difficult hardened adversary” the United States has faced. It has a tricky blend of population size, missile capability, drones and asymmetrical naval tactics that complicates any conventional campaign.

Regional power and the question of regime change

Hayek states his personal support for regime change in Tehran but insists it should come from within, led by Iranians themselves. Iran continues to wield regional influence through asymmetrical tools while remaining an international pariah, isolated economically and diplomatically. Total collapse appears unlikely in the near term, though economic crisis, severe inflation, mass protests, elite divisions and major military losses could open a path to change.

Hayek cautions that foreign intervention only strengthens the regime’s image and rallies nationalist support, as seen during the June conflict. The most plausible path to change, he argues, is sustained domestic protest and strategic patience from global powers.

To conclude, Khattar Singh notes that Iran still sees itself in an ongoing struggle with regional and global powers. The Strait of Hormuz, the Red Sea and the broader Middle East remain volatile despite pauses in open fighting. Hayek’s analysis underscores that while mining the Strait could give Iran short-term leverage, the long-term costs — economic, diplomatic and military — risk being devastating for both Tehran and the global economy.

[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 Abdullah O Hayek, an independent Middle East analyst and peace fellow at…”
post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Abdullah O Hayek discuss the possibility of sea mines in the Strait of Hormuz, which US intelligence suspects Iran will deploy. Hayek highlights the severe risks they’ll pose for global energy supplies and trade. He explains how mining the Strait fits into Iran’s asymmetrical deterrence strategy and weighs the costs Tehran could face.”
post-date=”Aug 22, 2025″
post-title=”FO° Talks: Will Iran Deploy Thousands of Sea Mines in the Strait of Hormuz?” slug-data=”fo-talks-will-iran-deploy-thousands-of-sea-mines-in-the-strait-of-hormuz”>

Jean-Daniel Ruch”
post_date=”August 21, 2025 06:38″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/world-news/middle-east-news/fo-talks-europe-watches-silently-as-israel-continues-to-bomb-gaza/” pid=”157273″
post-content=”

Fair Observer Chief Strategy Officer Peter Isackson and former Swiss Ambassador Jean-Daniel Ruch discuss the Twelve-Day War between Israel and Iran, its deeper historical roots and the shifting global power dynamics around it. Drawing on his previous experience as ambassador to Serbia, Montenegro, Israel and Turkey, Ruch places the conflict in the long continuum of Persian and Middle Eastern geopolitics. Iran’s strategic position has been central to global power calculations since British geographer Halford Mackinder’s Heartland Theory — that he who rules Eastern Europe ultimately commands the world.

The Twelve-Day War: a managed clash with lasting risks

Ruch describes the recent conflict as an “acute phase” in an ongoing geopolitical struggle — one that may see similar flare-ups in the coming months. Both sides declared victory, but the outcome is ambiguous, with limited public evidence of damage. He argues the confrontation was “choreographed” to avoid mass casualties, with prior signaling and removal of sensitive materials from targeted facilities. While US President Donald Trump had promised to avoid new wars, Ruch views this as a calculated one-off strike, not an opening salvo. Still, he warns that a return to snapback sanctions under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action could push Iran toward leaving the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, escalating the risk of wider conflict.

Ruch is skeptical of claims that Israel’s nuclear-related bombing raids dealt decisive blows. In his view, much of the official Israeli narrative exaggerates successes and downplays the degree of Iranian resilience. He notes that Iran’s retaliatory strike on an “empty base” signaled an intent to save face without triggering uncontrolled escalation. The pause following the war serves both sides’ logistical needs — to resupply, regroup and plan for what could be a renewed confrontation within three to five months.

Netanyahu’s strategy and Israeli objectives

For Ruch, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s political survival hinges on prolonging two “forever wars” — one in Gaza and one with Iran. He argues that Netanyahu has long sought direct strikes on Iran and that current policy leaves little room for compromise, especially on ceasefires that might satisfy the Hamas terror group’s demands. Accepting such terms would fracture Netanyahu’s coalition as extremist ministers abandon the government. Ruch is sharply critical of reported Israeli plans for mass displacement of Gaza’s population, calling them war crimes and possibly evidence of genocidal intent.

Strategically, Ruch sees Israel aiming to weaken Iran to the point of state failure, breaking it into several parts as occurred with Syria. But the Twelve-Day War, he contends, achieved the opposite — strengthening Iranian nationalism, uniting the population behind the regime and boosting hardliners opposed to any US-brokered nuclear agreement. He also points to covert operations inside Iran, allegedly involving the Mojahedin-e-Khalq, but considers them rare, high-preparation events unlikely to be repeated soon.

Europe’s role and strategic blind spots

Ruch warns that European moves toward snapback sanctions would mark a dangerous “first step [on] the escalation ladder,” providing hardliners in Tehran, Iran, justification to pursue nuclear weapons. He questions why Europe would join a US–Israeli confrontation with Iran while simultaneously managing the war in Ukraine. In his view, Europe’s genuine strategic interests lie in ending conflict with Russia, restoring affordable energy and reopening trade corridors to Asia. Yet leadership in Brussels, Paris, London and Berlin appears aligned with US and Israeli policy goals, often without robust parliamentary debate.

He notes that despite high energy costs and inflation, European publics have not mounted large-scale protests to shift foreign policy. Current political elites remain entrenched even when their popularity is low, as seen in European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s easy reelection despite her “less than optimal” record.

Former French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin emerges in his account as a rare establishment figure advocating true European strategic autonomy based on international law. However, Ruch doubts de Villepin’s chances, citing weak political machinery and a media environment that largely reinforces pro-NATO, pro-US positions.

Geopolitical corridors and competing agendas

The conversation broadens to the global contest over trade and transit routes. Ruch links Western pressure on Iran to efforts to block BRICS-aligned projects like the North–South corridor and China’s Belt and Road routes. Shifting freight from Western-controlled sea lanes to land corridors threatens US maritime dominance. Western powers are promoting alternatives via Israel, Syria and Turkey under the Abraham Accords framework. In the Caucasus, projects like the Zangezur corridor could bypass Iran entirely, connecting energy-rich Azerbaijan directly to European markets.

Ruch sees Turkey, Iran and Israel as the region’s most influential actors, often rivals but occasionally aligned — especially in containing Iranian influence in Syria. He also laments missed diplomatic opportunities, such as a Saudi–Egyptian plan for Gaza’s reconstruction that was ignored by Israel and overlooked by Western powers.

Decline of diplomacy and rise of security networks

Ruch laments that diplomacy has been sidelined in favor of intelligence networks and the military–industrial complex. He argues the latter now shapes Western foreign policy more than elected leaders do. He warns that this entrenched “warmongering machinery” channels funding and political will toward militarization while marginalizing arms control or peace initiatives. Unlike the Cold War era, he sees little appetite for negotiated security frameworks.

A call for an independent strategic culture

Ruch concludes by urging citizens to cultivate independence, impartiality and mutual respect while holding all violators of international law accountable. Only by rejecting permanent confrontation can the world address shared existential challenges, from climate change to artificial intelligence, and build a truly cooperative global order.

[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 Chief Strategy Officer Peter Isackson and former Swiss Ambassador Jean-Daniel Ruch discuss the Twelve-Day War between Israel and Iran, its deeper historical roots and the shifting global power dynamics around it. Drawing on his previous experience as ambassador to Serbia, Montenegro,…”
post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Isackson and Ruch analyze the 12-day Israel–Iran war, framing it as part of a long-standing geopolitical struggle. He examines Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s political strategy, the risks of European alignment with US and Israeli policies and the potential consequences of renewed sanctions. Escalating tensions could push Iran toward nuclear weapons.”
post-date=”Aug 21, 2025″
post-title=”FO° Talks: Europe Watches Silently as Israel Continues to Bomb Gaza” slug-data=”fo-talks-europe-watches-silently-as-israel-continues-to-bomb-gaza”>

Stephen Zunes”
post_date=”August 20, 2025 07:48″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/world-news/middle-east-news/fo-talks-iran-vows-stronger-response-if-attacked-again-by-america-israel/” pid=”157262″
post-content=”

Fair Observer Founder’s Video Producer & Social Media Manager, Rohan Khattar Singh, talks with Steven Zunes, director of Middle Eastern Studies and professor of politics at the University of San Francisco. They analyze the US–Israel–Iran relationship and its broader implications. Zunes traces Washington’s hostility toward Tehran, Iran, to the 1979 Iranian Revolution that overthrew the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. He was a US ally installed with CIA support in 1953.

For decades, US policy debates have been split between Democrats favoring diplomacy and sanctions, and Republicans or hawkish Democrats backing direct military measures. Although US President Donald Trump campaigns against “never-ending wars,” Zunes argues his administration shows readiness to back action against Iran, either directly or via Israel, calling recent US-supported airstrikes on Iranian territory a “dangerous escalation” that risks destabilizing the wider region and provoking further retaliatory cycles.

He stresses that such strikes violate the United Nations Charter, which permits force only in self-defense or with Security Council approval. Customary international law allows for preemptive military action, but it is narrowly defined. Zunes maintains that Iran is “years away” from a bomb.

He also criticizes Trump’s disregard for US constitutional requirements, noting that offensive operations require Congressional approval under the Constitution and the War Powers Act of 1973. On Trump’s push for a new Iran deal, Zunes says abandoning the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) undermines credibility. This agreement from the era of US President Barack Obama makes it “physically impossible for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon.” In Zunes’s view, Trump’s claim that he can negotiate better terms is “naive or disingenuous,” reflecting a strategy to weaken Iran rather than resolve the nuclear dispute.

Iran’s foreign ties and nuclear ambitions

Zunes describes Iran’s growing links with Russia and China, including arms sales to Russia and oil exports to China, as an “alliance of convenience” rather than an ideological partnership. He doubts these relationships will significantly alter the regional balance, noting that both powers see Iran as a problematic partner with its own agenda and internal contradictions.

On the nuclear question, Zunes says there is “no indication” Iran has decided to build a warhead, though it began enriching uranium beyond JCPOA limits after the US withdrawal. He recalls Iran’s earlier weapons research in the late 1990s and early 2000s, largely driven by fears of Iraq, but says there is no evidence of such work since.

Zunes warns that bombings could convince Iranian leaders they need a deterrent, citing Iraq’s invasion after disarmament versus North Korea’s survival with nuclear arms. He calls Iran’s civilian nuclear program “unnecessarily provocative” given its energy resources and ability to import nuclear materials for peaceful purposes. While Western responses are aggressive, he says Iran could take steps to ease tensions and signal a genuine interest in reducing hostilities.

National pride, regional role and Gulf state positions

Even Iranians who oppose the regime, Zunes says, resent being singled out when other regional states possess nuclear weapons. He believes recent conflicts strengthen hardliners and weaken opposition movements that struggle to organize under restrictive conditions.

In the Gulf, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar oppose Iran’s nuclear ambitions but remain wary of military escalation, recognizing that war could destabilize the region and threaten vital shipping routes. These monarchies, Zunes argues, take a more pragmatic approach than Washington, accepting Iran’s influence and acknowledging the need for negotiation.

Israel–Iran tensions and strategic calculations

Zunes notes Israel’s recent strikes across the Middle East and the damage caused by Iranian missile attacks — a rare experience for Israeli cities. While some Israeli leaders may prefer caution, he identifies hardliners who benefit from prolonging the Iran crisis, as it shifts international focus from Gaza and alleged Israeli war crimes. These hawks often frame the confrontation as existential in order to consolidate domestic political support and deter compromise.

Zunes predicts an ongoing pattern of low-level confrontation rather than a large-scale war.

The Palestinian question and the shifting debate

The Israel–Iran conflict diverts attention from Gaza, where Zunes has long supported a two-state solution. He argues that settlement expansion and US backing make such a solution increasingly impossible, shifting the conversation toward an apartheid framework. Citing major human rights organizations, he says Israel’s system meets the legal definition of apartheid and warns that unconditional US support may face growing political resistance, particularly among younger Americans and within some progressive movements.

Zunes maintains that arguments should be rooted in universal human rights and international law rather than ideology. Continued settlement expansion, he warns, harms Palestinians, fuels extremism and undermines the global legal order.

This erosion of the rules-based order produces ripple effects far beyond the Israel–Palestine context, weakening the credibility of international institutions in conflicts from Ukraine to the Western Sahara. In the US, he sees a widening divide between the political establishment and grassroots activists, with the latter increasingly vocal in demanding conditional aid and sanctions.

European allies, while slower to shift their stances, face internal pressure from civil society and political opposition parties to align policy with human rights law rather than strategic expedience. These dynamics, Zunes suggests, could reshape the diplomatic landscape over the next decade.

While he fears it may be too late for a two-state solution, he insists that international law must guide all discussions.

[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’s Video Producer & Social Media Manager, Rohan Khattar Singh, talks with Steven Zunes, director of Middle Eastern Studies and professor of politics at the University of San Francisco. They analyze the US–Israel–Iran relationship and its broader implications. Zunes…”
post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Stephen Zunes examine the US–Israel–Iran relationship. The latter argues that Trump’s Iran policy undermines international law, escalates tensions and abandons effective diplomacy. He warns that recent airstrikes may push Iran toward nuclear deterrence, critiques Israel’s use of the crisis to deflect from Gaza and highlights growing challenges to unconditional US support for Israel.”
post-date=”Aug 20, 2025″
post-title=”FO° Talks: Iran Vows Stronger Response If Attacked Again By America, Israel” slug-data=”fo-talks-iran-vows-stronger-response-if-attacked-again-by-america-israel”>

Thomas Greminger”
post_date=”August 18, 2025 07:07″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/region/europe/fo-talks-trump-dominates-nato-summit-as-europe-pledges-5-to-defense/” pid=”157231″
post-content=”

Fair Observer Founder, CEO & Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and the Executive Director of the Geneva Centre for Security Policy, Thomas Greminger, discuss the recent NATO summit and its implications for Europe. Greminger credits NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte with containing US President Donald Trump’s volatility and ensuring the alliance “survived that summit.” However, he warns its medium-term future remains unpredictable under Trump.

At the summit, Europe pledged to spend 3.5% of GDP on defense and 1.5% on areas like cybersecurity and infrastructure, totaling 5%. Greminger sees political resolve to invest more, but doubts all NATO members can or will reach the target. He believes it is largely a concession to please Washington.

Meeting the 5% target could undermine social stability

Singh presses on where Europe will get its funds, given its aging populations, high debt and fragile welfare systems. Greminger predicts significant “crowding out” of spending on health, education, diplomacy and other needs. Such trade-offs could fuel populism on both ends of the political spectrum. He agrees that the political backlash could be substantial if social safety nets erode in pursuit of military targets.

Europe faces a security threat mix that stretches resources thin

Greminger outlines Europe’s security environment as a mix of conventional military risks, primarily from Russia, and hybrid threats like cyberattacks and disinformation. Transnational dangers such as terrorism, violent extremism and trafficking persist, while climate change emerges as a new factor. Politicians face the challenge of stretching limited resources across defense, national resilience and social cohesion.

Globalization’s uneven rewards are weakening social cohesion

Addressing Singh’s intelligence concerns about marginalized youth — both disenfranchised Muslim communities and alienated working-class whites — Greminger says these trends have been building for over a decade. He links them to dissatisfaction with globalization, where perceptions of unequal benefit outweigh objective gains. Left unresolved, this discontent could undermine social cohesion across Europe, including in Switzerland.

Strategic autonomy is rising but Europe’s defense industry lags

Though the current trends are not a formal doctrine, Greminger sees growing determination to reduce dependence on Washington’s “moods” and unpredictability. Europeans have made efforts to unify major players, like the EU three — France, Germany and Italy — and strengthen independent capabilities. He suggests Trump may ironically be remembered as a promoter of European strategic autonomy.

Europe’s defense sector is not yet able to meet its demand, meaning militaries will continue buying US arms in the short to medium term. If the Ukraine war drags on, Europe may reindustrialize its defense base; if the conflict ends on acceptable terms, spending could decline as other priorities reassert themselves.

Trade tensions could erode the transatlantic alliance

Reconciling the US–Europe security partnership with growing trade disputes remains a challenge. Greminger warns that consistently hostile US trade policies will have political repercussions for NATO. Europeans may accept some unfriendly policies to preserve the alliance, but there are limits. Washington should act with care to avoid alienating its partners.

[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 the Executive Director of the Geneva Centre for Security Policy, Thomas Greminger, discuss the recent NATO summit and its implications for Europe. Greminger credits NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte with containing US President Donald…”
post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Atul Singh and Thomas Greminger examine NATO’s survival after a tense summit, Europe’s defense spending goals and the strain they place on domestic priorities. Shifting resources to meet military targets could strain European social cohesion. Europe’s push for strategic autonomy, while promising, faces obstacles from US dominance and rising trade tensions.”
post-date=”Aug 18, 2025″
post-title=”FO° Talks: Trump Dominates NATO Summit as Europe Pledges 5% to Defense” slug-data=”fo-talks-trump-dominates-nato-summit-as-europe-pledges-5-to-defense”>

Glenn Carle”
post_date=”August 17, 2025 05:46″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/world-news/fo-exclusive-trumps-epstein-files-fiasco-worsens-as-democrats-take-aim-at-the-president/” pid=”157214″
post-content=”

Fair Observer Founder, CEO & Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and retired CIA Officer Glenn Carle discuss the political fallout surrounding the late sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and the scandal’s implications for US President Donald Trump. The scandal has re-entered the spotlight not just for its disturbing details, but for the way it fuels conspiracy theories and deepens divisions in American politics. With Trump’s name resurfacing in connection to Epstein, and his base growing restless over broken promises, the conversation probes the uneasy intersection of scandal, loyalty and public perception.

The Epstein scandal resurfaces

Atul and Glenn open the conversation by acknowledging that while Trump has faced many scandals — indictments, convictions and connections to suspected Russian agents — the Epstein case is gaining unusual traction. Glenn calls the affair both “farce” and “sick,” noting that the pedophilia aspect hits a nerve but is also steeped in conspiracy theories.

Epstein was a wealthy financier who used his fortune and connections to sexually exploit adolescent girls, aided by his partner, Ghislaine Maxwell. Glenn emphasizes that both were involved in grooming young women under the guise of employment, including as masseuses or assistants, to serve Epstein and his associates.

Atul interjects with a comment on social status and naming conventions, briefly linking the prominence of Epstein’s and Maxwell’s families to elite networks. He and Glenn note Epstein’s properties in New York and Palm Beach, Florida, and his infamous private island in the Virgin Islands, which served as the backdrop for much of the alleged abuse.

Legal troubles and a suspicious death

Epstein was arrested in 2005, convicted and sentenced to just 13 months in prison — a lenient outcome criticized as protecting powerful figures. A non-prosecution agreement shielded others who may have been implicated, including Trump, former US President Bill Clinton and lawyer Alan Dershowitz.

The case faded until 2018, when the Miami Herald newspaper interviewed survivors and revived public interest, resulting in Epstein’s rearrest. But before his new trial could begin, he was found dead in his prison cell under circumstances that Glenn and many others find deeply suspicious. Crucial surveillance footage vanished, and the prison guard assigned to watch him inexplicably left his post. Glenn sarcastically compares the event to a “Godfather movie or a Mossad operation.”

Trump, the client list and political blowback

Trump’s name appears repeatedly in the context of Epstein’s social circle. Though no illegal conduct has been publicly linked to Trump, Glenn and Atul explain how the mere association has political consequences — especially since Trump once vowed to release Epstein’s client list to expose elites like the Clintons. Once in office, however, he reportedly backed off after being told his own name appears in the testimony, though not as a client. This U-turn has enraged the conspiracy-minded Make America Great Again (MAGA) base that had hoped Trump would “drain the swamp” and hold elites accountable.

Another political flashpoint is the viral meme, “Epstein didn’t kill himself,” which has become a symbol of deep distrust in American institutions. Glenn expresses his disbelief at the convenient disappearance of the prison video and suggests the scenario reeks of a cover-up. Trump’s base feels betrayed — the justice it was promised never materialized. Glenn quips that Trump has gone from crusading against conspiracies to dismissing them as a distraction.

Impact on the political landscape

Despite the scandal, Glenn notes Trump’s poll numbers remain resilient. While most Americans disapprove of him, many MAGA supporters see the renewed attention to Epstein as just another Democratic attack. Traditional Republicans are divided — some approve, others disapprove and many claim not to know enough. Atul speculates the issue could hurt Republicans in the upcoming midterms, though he acknowledges that such damage might be modest.

Conspiracies, psychology and social media

Atul and Glenn go on to examine how conspiracy theories shape political behavior. Atul compares the dynamic to Soviet-era communists who reversed their beliefs overnight after the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact of 1939, illustrating how tribal loyalty can override facts. Glenn adds that people often cling to the worldview of their “tribal leaders,” regardless of contradictory evidence.

While these psychological patterns aren’t new, social media has radically accelerated their spread.

Glenn shares a personal story about friends who fled the Soviet bloc and were lifelong anti-Russians — until they became fervent Trump supporters. These friends now see any criticism of Trump’s ties to Russia as betrayal, which Glenn finds both tragic and illustrative of the broader social phenomenon. In his view, the Epstein case may create political cracks for Trump, but not an existential collapse. Atul agrees that this scandal may leave a mark, just not a decisive one.

[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 CIA Officer Glenn Carle discuss the political fallout surrounding the late sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and the scandal’s implications for US President Donald Trump. The scandal has re-entered the spotlight not just for…”
post_summery=”In this section of the July 2025 episode of FO° Exclusive, Atul and Glenn discuss the political fallout from the Jeffrey Epstein scandal and its potential impact on Donald Trump. Trump’s association with Epstein and failure to release the promised client list have frustrated his MAGA base. This conversation also explores conspiracy theories and psychological loyalty to political figures.”
post-date=”Aug 17, 2025″
post-title=”FO° Exclusive: Trump’s Epstein Files Fiasco Worsens as Democrats Take Aim at the President” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-trumps-epstein-files-fiasco-worsens-as-democrats-take-aim-at-the-president”>

Glenn Carle”
post_date=”August 16, 2025 07:13″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/world-news/middle-east-news/fo-exclusive-trump-changes-tone-on-gaza-will-he-ditch-netanyahu-and-israel/” pid=”157201″
post-content=”

Fair Observer Founder, CEO & Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and retired CIA Officer Glenn Carle unpack the worsening crisis in Gaza, shifting global sentiment toward Palestinian statehood, and how internal Israeli politics continue to drive the conflict. The discussion also highlights US President Donald Trump’s surprising rhetorical pivot, questions the role of international institutions and reflects on the broader geopolitical fallout.

Humanitarian collapse and the politics behind it

Starvation intensifies in Gaza despite Israeli claims of humanitarian pauses in their operations. The UN warns of impending famine, while Israeli human rights groups like B’Tselem accuse Israel of genocidal conduct. Atul and Glenn agree that the Israeli government’s far-right coalition and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s political survival instincts fuel the war’s continuation, despite quiet dissent within Israeli military circles.

Trump’s rhetorical pivot and the decline of the UN

In a striking shift, Trump recently acknowledged “real starvation” in Gaza and suggested Israel — not the United Nations — should manage food aid. Atul views this as a symbolic sidelining of postwar international institutions. Critics call Jordan and the United Arab Emirates’s aid efforts ineffective, reflecting the broader failure of coordinated relief.

Europe’s response and the limits of diplomacy

France and the United Kingdom have signaled they may recognize a Palestinian state if Israel refuses a ceasefire. Atul attributes this to domestic political pressure. Glenn doubts the practical impact, asserting that only the United States and Israel hold real power. Still, he concedes these symbolic gestures could shift the political center of gravity over time.

Continuity in US policy and Netanyahu’s calculations

While Trump’s tone has changed, Glenn argues that both his and former US President Joe Biden’s policies have ultimately enabled Israel. Netanyahu has, in Glenn’s view, successfully manipulated US support, allowing him to pursue longstanding territorial goals. Atul agrees that US foreign policy has long protected Israeli impunity, regardless of who is in the White House.

Displacement, historical parallels and growing isolation

Glenn draws a controversial parallel between the displacement of Palestinians and the forced removal of Native Americans in US history. He argues that starvation and destruction in Gaza amount to de facto ethnic cleansing. Atul emphasizes that Israel’s international support is eroding, with the exception of Germany, which remains loyal due to Holocaust guilt.

Internal divides and unpredictable fallout

Atul points to Israel’s internal fractures, especially between secular and religious communities. He highlights early protests against Netanyahu and growing military dissatisfaction. He warns that the loss of support in culturally aligned regions like Europe could have lasting psychological and political consequences.

Atul closes by noting rising antisemitism, emboldened Muslim communities in Europe and the unpredictable “unknown unknowns” that may soon follow.

[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 CIA Officer Glenn Carle unpack the worsening crisis in Gaza, shifting global sentiment toward Palestinian statehood, and how internal Israeli politics continue to drive the conflict. The discussion also highlights US President…”
post_summery=”In this section of the July 2025 episode of FO° Exclusive, Atul and Glenn discuss the worsening humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Starvation is escalating despite Israeli claims of humanitarian pauses, and even US President Donald Trump now acknowledges the crisis. Internal divisions in Israeli society are deepening, and symbolic diplomatic moves may set the stage for unpredictable geopolitical shifts.”
post-date=”Aug 16, 2025″
post-title=”FO° Exclusive: Trump Changes Tone on Gaza, Will He Ditch Netanyahu and Israel?” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-trump-changes-tone-on-gaza-will-he-ditch-netanyahu-and-israel”>

Glenn Carle”
post_date=”August 15, 2025 05:17″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/world-news/fo-exclusive-japan-eu-strike-trade-deals-as-trump-slaps-india-with-tariffs/” pid=”157184″
post-content=”

Fair Observer Founder, CEO & Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and retired CIA Officer Glenn Carle unpack two major trade agreements recently concluded by the United States — one with the European Union and another with Japan. They analyze the terms of each deal and explore their deeper implications for global trade, economic stability and the evolving world order.

Atul identifies that both trade deals were finalized while US President Donald Trump was in Scotland, golfing and promoting his properties. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen visited him in what Atul describes as “homage to Emperor Trump,” resulting in a preliminary EU–US agreement.

US–EU trade agreement: strategic concessions and investments

Under the deal, the US imposed 15% tariffs on European exports — especially automobiles — while exempting aircraft, shipbuilding equipment, chemicals and raw materials. In exchange, the EU agreed to increase imports of American fuel and AI chips and committed to investing $600 billion in the US.

US–Japan trade agreement: lower tariffs, preferential treatment

The US–Japan deal mirrors the EU agreement in many ways but includes unique provisions. Tariffs on Japanese cars and other goods were also set at 15%, while Japan pledged $550 billion in US investments. Notably, Japan secured a guarantee that it will always receive the lowest tariff rates on chips and pharmaceuticals relative to other US trade partners. Unlike the EU deal, there was no joint statement issued with Japan.

Atul’s six takeaways

Atul outlines six key insights into the significance of these agreements:

Avoiding trade wars: He believes these deals have prevented a full-blown trade war, avoiding a repeat of 1930s-style protectionism.

US global dominance: He calls the US “the 800-pound gorilla in the room,” asserting its central role in shaping global trade.

Assertion of US power: The US is clearly “throwing its weight around” in international negotiations.

EU and Japan’s appeasement: Both partners appear to have yielded to US pressure.

Death of the rules-based order: Atul argues that the World Trade Organization is now irrelevant, and the era of multilateralism in trade is effectively over.

Rise of VUCA: He warns that these deals are short-lived and unstable, ushering in a future of volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity in global commerce.

Glenn’s expansive analysis

Glenn largely agrees with Atul but adds depth and concern to the discussion.

Impact on Canada: Glenn highlights that Japanese cars will now face lower US tariffs than Canadian ones — despite Canada being a major ally and top trading partner. He warns that these bilateral deals distort trade flows, capital allocation and economic efficiency.

Shift from norms to power: He reflects on global critiques of US hegemony, noting that while past accusations of imperialism were often overstated, today’s reality makes them ring true. The world is moving from a flawed normative system to a raw power-based model.

Consequences for global order: According to Glenn, almost no country can afford to challenge the US, and while the deals may appear beneficial to Americans, they will erode global and even domestic economic efficiency. He calls this shift “historic and terrible,” driven by figures like Chinese President Xi Jinping, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump and his Republican backers.

Rising economic instability: Glenn echoes Atul’s concerns about rising VUCA, forecasting inflation, higher interest rates, and supply chain disruptions.

Warning against economic complacency

Glenn critiques what he sees as misplaced economic optimism. He explains that macroeconomic effects take time: Short-term interest rate changes usually show results after six months, while long-term impacts take up to two years. Since the Trump administration’s trade measures are still in their early stages, Glenn warns that the economy hasn’t yet absorbed their consequences.

He points to the historical dangers of high tariffs, recalling the Great Depression and its root causes in trade and capital flow disruption. He finishes with a stark analogy: “The consequences are real… gravity exists, and if the motor stops, the plane will come down.” The implication is clear: Economic reality will catch up, and the outcome won’t be pleasant.

Closing note

Atul concludes this section by highlighting Fair Observer’s broader economic coverage, with insights from economists like Alex Gloy from Germany, Masaaki Yoshimori from Japan and Manu Sharma from India.

[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 CIA Officer Glenn Carle unpack two major trade agreements recently concluded by the United States — one with the European Union and another with Japan. They analyze the terms of each deal and explore their deeper…”
post_summery=”In this section of the July episode of FO° Exclusive, Atul and Glenn discuss US trade deals with the EU and Japan, highlighting their strategic terms and geopolitical implications. These agreements, they argue, reflect the rise of bilateralism, the waning influence of the World Trade Organization and an increase in global economic instability. They appear favorable for the US, but long-term consequences include diminished efficiency, distorted trade flows and mounting uncertainty.”
post-date=”Aug 15, 2025″
post-title=”FO° Exclusive: Japan, EU Strike Trade Deals as Trump Slaps India With Tariffs” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-japan-eu-strike-trade-deals-as-trump-slaps-india-with-tariffs”>