What’s Next for the Houthis?

Fernando Carvajal”
post_date=”November 03, 2025 05:31″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/world-news/middle-east-news/fo-talks-the-yemen-conflict-explained-whats-next-for-the-houthis/” pid=”158934″
post-content=”

Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and retired Executive Director of The American Center for South Yemen Studies Fernando Carvajal discuss one of the Middle East’s most complex and forgotten wars. Their conversation traces how local rivalries, sectarian identities and international ambitions have turned Yemen into a battleground for regional power and ideological confrontation. Carvajal emphasizes that the conflict is not simply a civil war, but a protracted struggle involving overlapping agendas from Tehran, Iran, to Tel Aviv, Israel, and from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, to Washington, DC.

The Houthis and the regional escalation

Singh and Carvajal begin by talking about the latest flashpoint: the Israeli strike that killed Ahmed al-Rahawi, a senior Houthi leader. The Houthis, otherwise known as Ansar Allah, began in 2004 as a small Zaydi Shia revivalist movement in northern Yemen. They evolved into the country’s dominant insurgent force, opposing what they viewed as corrupt Saudi-backed regimes. Their slogan, “Death to Israel, Death to America,” encapsulates both their defiance and the ideological connection to Iran’s Axis of Resistance.

Carvajal explains that Israel’s attempt to “seize the moment against the Houthis” by targeting them under the cover of its broader regional operations has inflicted civilian suffering and, in his view, violated international law. He warns that states such as Israel and the United States risk losing moral ground when they mimic the lawlessness of non-state actors.

The Houthis, meanwhile, have leveraged their confrontation with Israel to project themselves as defenders of the Palestinians. Yet Carvajal argues that this stance is less about Palestine and more about Iran, since Tehran has supplied them with weapons and political direction. Their attacks on commercial ships and naval vessels in the Red Sea and the Bab al-Mandab Strait have turned one of the world’s busiest maritime corridors into another front in the regional conflict.

The civil war itself, Singh reminds viewers, began in earnest after Yemeni President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi invited Saudi intervention in March 2015. This created a battlefield where Iranian-supplied drones and missiles face off against Western-approved air power, with millions of Yemenis trapped in between.

Yemen’s fragmented state and southern secessionism

To understand today’s divisions, Carvajal retraces Yemen’s modern history. Before unification in 1990, there were two Yemens: a northern republic led by military officer Ali Abdullah Saleh and a socialist south aligned with the Soviet Union. Even after unification, deep social and theological differences persisted. The northern Zaydi faith — a Shia offshoot distinct from Iran’s Twelver Shi’ism — coexisted uneasily with the Sunni majority in the south.

Saleh’s decades-long rule maintained this fragile unity through patronage and repression until the Arab Spring destabilized the regime. The Houthis, once his allies, turned against him and killed him in 2017. Meanwhile, southern resentment revived in the form of the Southern Transitional Council, led by Major General Aidarus al-Zoubaidi, which now controls much of the oil-rich south and seeks to restore pre-1990 independence.

Yemen is a highly complex tribal society where ideology mixes with kinship and geography. The Sana’a regime crushed the peaceful Southern Movement (also known as al-Hirak, or “the movement”) in the late 2000s, giving way to militarized separatism once the Saudi-led coalition intervened. Carvajal believes it is delusional to think the Houthis represent Yemen’s organic leadership — their revolutionary zeal, he contends, is more about domination than governance.

Foreign hands and proxy wars

The conversation turns outward to the states that have transformed Yemen into a regional chessboard. Saudi Arabia sees Yemen as its “backdoor to Mecca,” and for decades treated it as a dependent buffer state. The collapse of this influence after Saudi King Abdullah’s death in 2015 left a vacuum quickly filled by Iran. Through weapons transfers confirmed by UN reports in 2017, Tehran has turned the Houthis into a testing ground for missile and drone technology later seen in other conflicts, including Ukraine.

Carvajal calls Yemen “Saudi Arabia’s backyard.” Riyadh’s interventions, from the 1960s to the present, have been driven by the fear of republicanism or Iranian expansion near its borders. Yet Saudi Arabia’s own campaign has stagnated, draining resources and producing no decisive outcome.

To Yemen’s east, Oman plays a quieter but equally strategic role. It has hosted Houthi representatives and Iranian envoys under the guise of mediation while tolerating cross-border smuggling. Carvajal views Oman’s stance as pragmatic: By accommodating Tehran, it shields itself from both Salafi Islamic extremism and the chaos of another southern state on its frontier.

The United Arab Emirates occupies a different niche — backing the southern secessionists as part of a marriage of convenience. Its 2015 intervention and subsequent drawdown created an enduring alliance between Emirati financiers and southern militias. The UAE’s economic links with Iran complicate its position, making it both an ally in the anti-Houthi coalition and a bridge in the Gulf’s shadow diplomacy.

Iran’s goals, Carvajal says, are threefold: to consolidate the Axis of Resistance, to establish a strategic foothold on the Arabian Peninsula and to bring Zaydi Shi’ism closer under the orbit of Twelver orthodoxy. In that sense, Yemen serves as Tehran’s laboratory for expanding its influence westward while tying down Saudi military bandwidth.

The fading diplomacy

Both Singh and Carvajal agree that the humanitarian catastrophe is inseparable from diplomatic failure. Yemen’s economy has imploded under inflation, with oil revenues collapsing and the United Nations receiving barely a quarter of the funding it requests for relief operations. Since mid-2023, the Houthis have detained aid workers and imposed restrictions on international non-governmental organizations, strangling what remains of civil society.

Carvajal argues that the world has grown numb to Yemen’s suffering. “Donor fatigue” reflects a hierarchy of empathy in which Ukraine or Sudan draws resources while Yemen slips off the radar. The failure of the 2018 Stockholm Agreement, especially the inability to retake Yemen’s key port of Hodeidah, marked a turning point. The Houthis emerged emboldened, convinced that time and endurance are on their side.

Singh notes that external powers may find the current stalemate convenient — predictable, containable and far cheaper than a peace settlement that would require reconstruction and reconciliation. Carvajal warns that this cynical equilibrium allows the Houthis to grow stronger, eliminate dissent and deepen Iranian integration. “The Houthis basically have the entire country hijacked,” he says, “because they’re not interested in peace unless they swallow up the whole.” Without genuine political inclusion for the south, any settlement will merely legitimize Houthi dominance.

A conflict without closure

As their exchange closes, Singh observes that Yemen’s tragedy lies in its invisibility: a war without victory, a state without sovereignty and a population without relief. Carvajal echoes that the conflict persists because every external actor calculates that an endless crisis is safer than unpredictable peace. The Houthis thrive on resistance, Iran gains leverage, the Saudis preserve a buffer and the West avoids the burden of rebuilding a failed state.

After two decades of war, Yemen stands as both a mirror and a warning — a mirror of the Middle East’s entangled rivalries and a warning of how neglected conflicts can outlast the ambitions that created them.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

”
post-content-short=”
Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and retired Executive Director of The American Center for South Yemen Studies Fernando Carvajal discuss one of the Middle East’s most complex and forgotten wars. Their conversation traces how local rivalries, sectarian identities and international ambitions have turned…”
post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Atul Singh and Fernando Carvajal analyze Yemen’s protracted conflict, tracing its roots in sectarian divides and regional rivalries. Carvajal highlights the Houthis’ evolution from local insurgency to Iranian proxy and the complicity of external powers in perpetuating the stalemate. Yemen’s suffering endures because peace is less convenient than war.”
post-date=”Nov 03, 2025″
post-title=”FO° Talks: The Yemen Conflict Explained: What’s Next for the Houthis?” slug-data=”fo-talks-the-yemen-conflict-explained-whats-next-for-the-houthis”>

FO° Talks: The Yemen Conflict Explained: What’s Next for the Houthis?

Leonardo Vivas”
post_date=”November 02, 2025 04:20″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/region/latin_america/fo-talks-maria-corina-machado-the-nobel-peace-prize-winner-forced-into-hiding/” pid=”158918″
post-content=”

Fair Observer’s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with Leonardo Vivas, a professor at Lesley University, about María Corina Machado. This former deputy of the National Assembly of Venezuela is an opposition leader who has gone from political exile to Nobel Peace Prize laureate. Once branded a traitor by Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, Machado now stands as the face of Venezuela’s pro-democracy struggle, a movement that has endured exile, repression and stolen elections.

From aristocrat to activist

Vivas was stunned to learn Machado had won the Nobel Peace Prize. The award recognizes her as the leading figure in Venezuela’s long fight for democracy and freedom. For over 20 years, she has challenged authoritarian power — first under Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, then under Maduro — in a country that, in Vivas’s words, has spent the past decade under “a very crude dictatorship.”

Born into privilege, Machado turned toward public service early in life. Under Chávez’s rule, the government expropriated her father’s metalworking empire. Her mother, a national tennis champion, inspired her commitment to social causes. Machado founded nonprofits for abandoned children and later established Súmate, a group promoting electoral transparency. When she ran for Congress, she won the highest vote share in the nation, solidifying her reputation as one of the government’s most forceful critics.

A new hope and a dangerous victory

By 2023, her image began to shift from right-wing hardliner to unifying reformer. In opposition primaries that year, she captured an overwhelming 92% of the vote, igniting a sense of hope Venezuela had not felt since Chávez’s early years. Her campaign promise — to bring home the nearly nine million Venezuelans living abroad — resonated deeply across the country.

Though barred from running in the general election, Machado helped rally support for veteran diplomat Edmundo González, who won roughly 70% of the vote in a contest the Maduro government refused to recognize. González fled to Spain after Maduro’s administration jailed his son-in-law. Machado went underground, continuing to coordinate the opposition from hiding.

The Nobel effect

Machado’s Nobel Prize thrust her into the global spotlight and, paradoxically, offered her a measure of safety. Vivas believes the award shields her from arrest, since targeting her now would deepen Maduro’s diplomatic isolation. More importantly, it restores legitimacy to a fractured opposition, transforming what was once a two-sided standoff between Washington and the Venezuelan capital of Caracas into a three-way dynamic that includes the Venezuelan democratic movement itself.

Across Venezuela, the news of the award felt, Vivas says, like “fresh air.” It revived hope and renewed attention from abroad. While Maduro dismissed the Nobel Prize as a political ploy, international solidarity grew: Spanish and American musicians wrote songs in her honor, and democratic activists across Latin America rallied to her cause.

Critics, allies and the Trump connection

Machado’s critics accuse her of being too close to the United States, citing her ties with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and her viral conversation with Donald Trump Jr. about privatizing Venezuela’s oil sector. Vivas rejects these charges, noting that US policy toward Venezuela has long been bipartisan. Both parties, he argues, see the country’s crisis through the lens of democracy and human rights rather than partisan interest.

He also insists that her call for privatization is not ideological but practical. Venezuela’s once-mighty oil industry — which produced more than three million barrels per day before collapsing under corruption and debt — cannot recover without private investment. Rebuilding, he says, requires rational policy, not political purity.

Critics condemn Machado for her open support of Israel, even during the ongoing Gaza conflict. Vivas reminds listeners that Venezuela historically maintained close ties with Israel and that Machado has not endorsed any particular military action.

After winning the Nobel Prize, Machado phoned US President Donald Trump to dedicate the award to both the Venezuelan people and to him. Vivas interprets the gesture as a calculated act meant to secure continued US backing. In his view, Venezuela’s democratic transition won’t happen without US support.

What’s next for Venezuela?

The Nobel Prize has rekindled international interest in Venezuela’s fate. With González in exile and Machado in hiding, the opposition now operates through dispersed networks and quiet acts of defiance — from university campaigns to movements demanding the release of political prisoners.

Vivas argues that lasting change depends on two forces working together: readiness inside the country and sustained external pressure from democratic allies. The challenge, he warns, is to keep the movement alive under relentless repression.

Khattar Singh concludes that this is no ordinary peace prize. It has turned a persecuted dissident into a global symbol and returned Venezuela’s struggle for freedom to the world’s attention.

[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 Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with Leonardo Vivas, a professor at Lesley University, about María Corina Machado. This former deputy of the National Assembly of Venezuela is an opposition leader who has gone from political exile to Nobel Peace Prize laureate. Once…”
post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Leonardo Vivas discuss Venezuelan freedom fighter María Corina Machado’s Nobel Peace Prize and its political fallout. The award shields her from persecution while revitalizing Venezuela’s fractured opposition. They explore her US ties, privatization agenda and prospects for democratic renewal.”
post-date=”Nov 02, 2025″
post-title=”FO° Talks: Maria Corina Machado: The Nobel Peace Prize Winner Forced Into Hiding” slug-data=”fo-talks-maria-corina-machado-the-nobel-peace-prize-winner-forced-into-hiding”>

FO° Talks: Maria Corina Machado: The Nobel Peace Prize Winner Forced Into Hiding

Josef Olmert”
post_date=”November 01, 2025 06:25″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/world-news/middle-east-news/fo-talks-the-gaza-peace-deal-could-define-trumps-legacy-and-break-netanyahus/” pid=”158904″
post-content=”

Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and Josef Olmert, a former Israeli government official and Middle East scholar, analyze the ceasefire between Israel and Gaza that has reshaped regional politics. Together, they examine how US President Donald Trump’s pressure on both sides produced the agreement, whether it can evolve into real peace and what the future now holds for Israel, Gazans and the Sunni Palestinian political organization Hamas.

Peace in the Middle East?

Singh and Olmert open by puncturing the headline hope: This is not a region-wide settlement. Olmert stresses that what just happened is a ceasefire agreement, not a comprehensive peace. The breakthrough, he argues, comes from sequencing and leverage: The Trump team spots a narrow window when both Israel and Hamas are susceptible to simultaneous pressure, and it pushes both sides into a first step that neither can easily walk back.

On Israel’s side, Olmert says Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu boxed himself into reliance on Trump, who paired pressure with a powerful incentive: the return of hostages. On the United States’s side, Washington secured Qatari commitments to squeeze Hamas and offered the Turkish capital of Ankara sales of F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters to enlist Turkish pressure. Fatigue within Hamas helped; Olmert says, “In diplomacy, timing is at least 50% of everything.” A process has begun, and that momentum is itself an achievement — yet it creates new dilemmas for all actors.

What’s next in Gaza?

The “day after” is where rhetoric meets risk. Olmert lists immediate friction points: who controls areas the Israel Defense Forces vacates, whether local clans and ad-hoc militias can hold ground against a reassertive Hamas and how quickly enforcement mechanisms appear. He warns that reports already suggest Hamas is retaking territory and carrying out reprisals, while weapons flow back into its hands.

The most combustible near-term issue is disarmament. If an international force is tasked to oversee it, Olmert doubts Western governments will accept casualties for that mission. He cites Israel’s bad memories with the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon.

Deradicalization is the other pillar — education, curricula and the role of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. Olmert remains skeptical that outside actors will shutter institutions or field enough teachers to effect deep change. For him, Gaza’s social reality matters: It is not only political Islam, it is also tribal power, with the Gazan city of Rafah and other locales shaped by big clans and local loyalties. Any plan that ignores this tapestry, he suggests, will fray on contact.

The peace agreement

Singh presses for the architecture behind the headlines. Olmert frames it as a 20-point roadmap whose “first painful stage” is the hostages’ return. This is still incomplete, with 19 bodies outstanding and families without closure. The bargain rests on synchronized pressures: concessions traded for guarantees, with Trump as the central broker. He credits Washington’s leverage over Netanyahu’s political calculus and over regional actors who can pressure Hamas, but he is clear-eyed about limits. External brokers can start processes, but they cannot substitute for force, governance and legitimacy on the ground.

Crucially, Olmert draws a line between a ceasefire and statecraft. A ceasefire pauses fire; statecraft must decide borders, security control, administration and education. Those choices are where this agreement will either ripen into something durable or stall. His gut check on the core test — Hamas laying down arms — is cautious: “The likelihood is 51% it will not be done.” It is possible in theory, he says, but improbable in practice without actors ready to bleed for enforcement.

What’s next for Israel?

Olmert portrays Netanyahu as politically exposed and time-bound. From the outset of the war, he says, Netanyahu avoided “day after” debates. Now, each step that hints at Palestinian Authority control in Gaza triggers pushback from hawkish partners and parts of Likud, Israel’s right-wing political party. Elections loom in 2026 (perhaps earlier), tightening the vice. Meanwhile, US bipartisan reflexes on Israel have weakened. Paradoxically, this gives Trump more room to pressure Jerusalem while Netanyahu depends on him.

Could a unity government widen Israel’s maneuvering room? Olmert floats that only as a hypothetical, noting Netanyahu’s past concessions but doubting he will now cross lines that imply a Palestinian state. Israel’s option set on the Palestinian file is between bad and worse. The strategic temptation, he adds, is to avoid another Gaza round while focusing attention on Iran. But the tinder is dry, and any spark, such as an ambush or a misfire, could reignite combat at short notice.

Life of Gazans

Singh turns to the ground truth: shattered buildings, a gutted economy and disrupted aid. Olmert contends that several prominent accusations against Israel were unfounded and insists there was neither famine nor genocide. He concedes, though, that Israel has lost the battle of global perception, especially among younger audiences. He points to harmful ministerial rhetoric about annexation and Greater Israel, plus a broader failure of Israeli public diplomacy. Even if one accepts his factual rebuttals, he says, perception now constrains policy.

Reconstruction will be vast and slow. Olmert believes the suggested $50 billion floor may be optimistic. Who secures the streets while concrete is poured? Who pays, who teaches, who polices? Gaza’s future hinges on four hard questions the agreement cannot wish away:

Can an enforceable security regime actually disarm Hamas?

Can governance shift from warfighting networks to accountable administration?

Can education and social services be depoliticized at scale?

And can daily life improve fast enough to outpace spoilers?

Until those questions are credibly answered, coexistence will remain precarious — hopeful in moments, reversible in minutes.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

”
post-content-short=”
Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and Josef Olmert, a former Israeli government official and Middle East scholar, analyze the ceasefire between Israel and Gaza that has reshaped regional politics. Together, they examine how US President Donald Trump’s pressure on both sides produced the agreement,…”
post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Atul Singh and Josef Olmert examine the fragile ceasefire between Israel and Gaza and the diplomacy behind it. Olmert credits US President Donald Trump’s timing and leverage, but doubts the deal will lead to true peace. He foresees difficult disarmament, political fatigue and a Gaza still struggling for survival.”
post-date=”Nov 01, 2025″
post-title=”FO° Talks: The Gaza Peace Deal Could Define Trump’s Legacy and Break Netanyahu’s” slug-data=”fo-talks-the-gaza-peace-deal-could-define-trumps-legacy-and-break-netanyahus”>

FO° Talks: The Gaza Peace Deal Could Define Trump’s Legacy and Break Netanyahu’s

Alex Rosado”
post_date=”October 31, 2025 06:17″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/politics/fo-talks-trump-deploys-the-national-guard-is-america-turning-into-a-police-state/” pid=”158890″
post-content=”

Fair Observer’s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with Alex Rosado, a Young Voices contributor, about US President Donald Trump’s decision to federalize and deploy the National Guard across multiple American cities. Their conversation weighs the legal, political and historical dimensions of Trump’s move and asks whether it’s a necessary security measure or a step toward authoritarian overreach.

Is Trump weaponizing the National Guard?

Khattar Singh begins by asking Rosado to explain what it means to federalize the National Guard. Rosado notes that the Guard usually operates under state authority but can be placed under federal command, shifting its chain of control to the president and the secretary of defense. This process, he says, invokes the tension at the heart of the Tenth Amendment between state autonomy and federal supremacy.

Federal troops are restricted by the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits their role in civilian law enforcement. Unless the president invokes the Insurrection Act, governors retain a say in their deployment. Rosado points out that Trump has not done so, making this federalization legally unusual. The Guard is now active in Washington, DC; Chicago, Illinois; Los Angeles, California; Portland, Oregon and Memphis, Tennessee. Advisors have floated the idea of sending troops to San Francisco, California, as well.

Trump’s justification, Rosado explains, rests on the argument that local governments have failed to keep their cities safe. He cites data showing alarming rises in crime, overdose deaths and homelessness, portraying the Guard’s presence as “restorative justice” for communities that local leaders have neglected. Chicago and Memphis, he says, have mayors with dismal approval ratings, while Washington, DC, faces one of the country’s highest homicide rates.

Critics see this as political opportunism aimed at Democratic strongholds. Rosado, however, does not believe that Trump is weaponizing the Guard to punish blue states. He insists that the deployment is not an act of vengeance but an attempt to impose order where municipal systems have broken down. The president, he argues, is responding to terrible stress in major urban centers rather than seeking political advantage.

Legal aspects

Khattar Singh presses Rosado on the legal foundation for the federalization. Rosado explains that Trump’s team leans on Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 of the US Constitution, which empowers the president to call up militias to “execute the Laws of the Union,” and on the Supremacy Clause, which affirms federal authority in protecting national interests. The administration’s lawyers have also tested what Rosado calls the protective power theory — the idea that executive mobilization of the Guard is constitutional if it stems from the president’s duty to enforce laws.

Several states have filed lawsuits claiming the move violates the Tenth Amendment and exceeds federal authority. Rosado notes that some deployments operate under Title 32, a hybrid framework allowing federal pay and benefits while maintaining nominal state control. Still, governors argue that the line between cooperation and coercion has been crossed.

A history of National Guard deployment

To contextualize the standoff, Khattar Singh asks how Trump’s action compares with past deployments. Rosado recalls that presidents have called out the Guard at least nine times in modern history. In 1957, Dwight Eisenhower used it to enforce desegregation in Little Rock, Arkansas. In 1992, George H. W. Bush invoked the Insurrection Act during the Los Angeles riots. After Hurricane Katrina, George W. Bush deployed troops to maintain order and assist relief efforts.

What makes Trump’s move different, Rosado argues, is its open-ended justification. Eisenhower and Bush acted either with court approval or gubernatorial consent; Trump’s rationale is more diffuse, based on a nebulous sense of crisis. A federal judge in Portland even issued a temporary restraining order against the Guard, deeming the protests, in Rosado’s words, “not significant enough to warrant federal invasion.”

Impact on midterm elections

The political fallout, Rosado says, is impossible to separate from the upcoming midterm elections. Democrats accuse Trump of militarizing domestic politics, while supporters of his Make America Great Again movement applaud him for “supporting and enforcing law and order.” Rosado sees this polarization as “more of an asset than a liability,” arguing that the public debate itself strengthens American democracy by forcing citizens to confront hard questions about power and safety.

Early data from Washington, DC, shows measurable declines in violent crime since the Guard’s arrival — a 27% drop in assaults, a 32% fall in robberies and an 82% reduction in carjackings compared with the same period last year. Rosado calls this evidence that tough-on-crime policies can work, though he concedes that enduring reform must come from the local level.

Rosado maintains that the Guard’s deployment, though controversial, has reopened a national discussion on the balance between liberty and security. “Our best days are still ahead,” he concludes.

[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 Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with Alex Rosado, a Young Voices contributor, about US President Donald Trump’s decision to federalize and deploy the National Guard across multiple American cities. Their conversation weighs the legal, political and historical…”
post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Alex Rosado discuss US President Donald Trump’s decision to federalize and deploy the National Guard. They unpack the legal and historical context behind the move and the lawsuits challenging it. Does Trump’s action enforce law and order, or signal growing authoritarian control?”
post-date=”Oct 31, 2025″
post-title=”FO° Talks: Trump Deploys the National Guard, is America Turning Into a Police State?” slug-data=”fo-talks-trump-deploys-the-national-guard-is-america-turning-into-a-police-state”>

FO° Talks: Trump Deploys the National Guard, is America Turning Into a Police State?

Daniel Idfresne”
post_date=”October 30, 2025 05:43″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/politics/fo-talks-how-zohran-mamdani-and-gen-z-voters-are-shaping-the-new-york-mayoral-race/” pid=”158875″
post-content=”

Fair Observer’s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with Daniel Idfresne, a Young Voices contributor and native New Yorker, about the shifting landscape of New York City politics following Mayor Eric Adams’s withdrawal from the mayoral race. Their discussion traces how the exit of an incumbent has transformed the contest into a stark choice between progressive activism and centrist pragmatism, embodied in the candidacies of New York State Assembly member Zohran Mamdani and former US Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Andrew Cuomo.

Adams drops out

Adams’s decision to suspend his campaign has reshaped the city’s political dynamics. Idfresne feels the mayor “dropped out because of money and lack of popularity.” He notes that Adams’s attempt to run as an independent after alienating the Democratic establishment left him without a reliable donor base or clear ideological allies. While Adams benefited from incumbency, his lack of popularity made it impossible to sustain momentum in a crowded field.

His withdrawal, Idfresne argues, strengthens Cuomo’s hand among centrist and moderate voters who were previously divided between Adams, Cuomo and Republican candidate Curtis Sliwa. Adams’s departure consolidates opposition to Mamdani’s left-wing campaign.

Mamdani’s policies

The rise of Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist and state representative from Queens, has reoriented the race. Idfresne credits Mamdani with excellent public relations skills and a social media strategy that mobilized young and first-time voters. Yet, he considers Mamdani’s economic proposals unrealistic within New York’s fiscal structure.

Mamdani’s platform centers on three core initiatives: freezing rent on stabilized apartments, introducing fare-free public buses and creating city-owned grocery stores. Idfresne critiques each as economically untenable: Rent stabilization distorts the housing market by creating a spillover demand effect that inflates prices in the unregulated sector. Fare-free transit would deprive the Metropolitan Transportation Authority of roughly $638 million in annual revenue, necessitating higher taxes or service cuts. City-owned grocery stores would repeat failed experiments seen elsewhere. One such example includes a publicly funded supermarket that quickly ran large deficits in Kansas City, Kansas.

The politics of Mamdani

Mamdani’s movement has drawn national attention for its blend of moral urgency and populist framing. Idfresne views this as part of a broader democratic-socialist wave that translates frustration over affordability into radical proposals. He warns that such populism risks demagogic candidates winning elections by exploiting the passions of the moment.

Khattar Singh challenges this by noting that many once-radical ideas, from women’s suffrage to public education, later became mainstream. Idfresne replies that those earlier reforms were qualitative shifts in values, whereas Mamdani’s policies are quantifiable and can be “tested against economic reality.”

Why Gen Z likes Mamdani

Mamdani’s strongest support comes from New Yorkers of Generation Z. Idfresne acknowledges that the candidate “address[es] a pain point” for a generation burdened by high rents and stagnant wages. His social media presence and message of economic justice have broken through long-standing voter apathy. Yet Idfresne separates empathy for the problem from belief in the solution. Drawing on personal experience, he argues that rent freezes and a higher minimum wage may backfire by worsening job scarcity and limiting affordable housing for newcomers.

These reflections highlight a broader generational divide: enthusiasm for reform versus skepticism about execution. For Idfresne, Mamdani’s popularity reflects youth frustration, not policy consensus.

New York’s undecided voters

The final portion of the conversation turns to the city’s undecided voters — families, professionals and long-time residents unsettled by rising costs and declining services. Idfresne contends that education may prove decisive in the race. He contrasts past administrations that invested in gifted-and-talented and charter programs with Mamdani’s opposition to both. In his view, that stance could drive middle- and working-class families out of the city, eroding its tax base.

This viewpoint captures a central anxiety in New York politics: whether the pursuit of equity will undermine stability. As Idfresne sees it, Mamdani’s coalition of “childless, young, college-educated New Yorkers” may not reflect the families who sustain the city’s civic life.

Khattar Singh closes by mentioning that New York’s future will depend on whether its next leader can bridge these divides between generations, classes and competing visions of fairness. For now, the race between Mamdani and Cuomo stands as a microcosm of America’s urban political dilemma: idealism colliding with economic constraint.

[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 Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with Daniel Idfresne, a Young Voices contributor and native New Yorker, about the shifting landscape of New York City politics following Mayor Eric Adams’s withdrawal from the mayoral race. Their discussion traces how the exit of an…”
post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Daniel Idfresne examine how New York City Mayor Eric Adams’s withdrawal reshapes the city’s mayoral race between progressive Zohran Mamdani and centrist Andrew Cuomo. Idfresne argues that Mamdani’s appeal to Generation Z clashes with the city’s economic realities. Education, affordability and political polarization define New York City’s uncertain future.”
post-date=”Oct 30, 2025″
post-title=”FO° Talks: How Zohran Mamdani and Gen Z Voters Are Shaping the New York Mayoral Race” slug-data=”fo-talks-how-zohran-mamdani-and-gen-z-voters-are-shaping-the-new-york-mayoral-race”>

FO° Talks: How Zohran Mamdani and Gen Z Voters Are Shaping the New York Mayoral Race

Saboor Sakhizada”
post_date=”October 29, 2025 05:58″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/world-news/middle-east-news/fo-talks-afghanistan-pakistan-clashes-why-is-the-durand-line-controversial/” pid=”158863″
post-content=”

Fair Observer’s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with Saboor Sakhizada, Program Manager at Syracuse University and former interpreter with the US military in Afghanistan, about rising tensions between Afghanistan and Pakistan along their border, the Durand Line. Drawing on firsthand experience of the war on terror, Sakhizada explains how clashes have reignited, what the Taliban’s shifting alliances reveal and why India and the United States may yet reshape South Asia’s next chapter.

Afghanistan–Pakistan clashes

Khattar Singh opens by asking why violence has flared again along the border. Sakhizada says the latest firefights are the product of deep mistrust, not isolated incidents. Both sides feel they are defending their sovereignty, but both are losing control of the narrative and the frontier.

The fighting, he explains, stems from the Taliban’s growing assertiveness since returning to power on August 15, 2021. Pakistan, which once saw the Taliban as a proxy ally, now accuses the Afghan capital of Kabul of harboring militants attacking Pakistani forces. The Taliban counters that the Pakistani capital of Islamabad shelters anti-Taliban factions and conducts unprovoked cross-border strikes. These mutual accusations, Sakhizada warns, risk escalating into a sustained confrontation neither side can afford.

The Durand Line

Khattar Singh then asks Sakhizada to revisit the historical fault line dividing the two countries. The Durand Line, drawn in 1893 by British colonial administrators, cut through Pashtun tribal lands without regard to geography or kinship. For Afghans, it remains a line drawn in sand, not in hearts.

Successive Afghan governments have refused to recognize the line as an international border, while Pakistan treats it as settled law. That tension has shaped every major conflict between the neighbors. Sakhizada points out that today’s battles are not just territorial but symbolic — part of a struggle over national identity and the legacy of the British empire.

Border fighting escalates

After years of uneasy cooperation, relations between the Taliban government in Kabul and Pakistan’s military establishment have deteriorated sharply. Sakhizada highlights how economic desperation, refugee flows and armed groups moving freely across the frontier have amplified the danger. Both militaries are reinforcing outposts and issuing aggressive statements, creating a feedback loop of fear.

Khattar Singh asks whether mediation by China, Iran or Qatar could cool the situation. Sakhizada expresses skepticism: Regional powers prefer a stable status quo to direct involvement, leaving the two neighbors to settle their feud alone. The risk, he warns, is that low-intensity clashes could escalate into open war.

Taliban–India ties and India’s role

Turning to India, Khattar Singh notes that the Indian capital of New Delhi once froze all engagement with the Taliban after 2021. Sakhizada observes that this policy has begun to shift. The Taliban, isolated and cash-strapped, now seeks diplomatic recognition and investment. India, meanwhile, views re-engagement as a way to contain Pakistan and maintain access to Central Asia.

Ideology is less important than survival, Sakhizada explains. The Taliban need partners who can invest, and India wants stability to its north. Even modest steps, like reopening trade routes or cultural exchanges, could reshape South Asia’s balance of power. For India, Afghanistan remains a testing ground for whether it can act as a regional stabilizer rather than a distant observer.

Will Trump get Bagram?

Khattar Singh raises the question dominating Washington headlines: Is US President Donald Trump seeking to regain Afghanistan’s Bagram Airbase? The facility, located 40 kilometers (over 24 miles) north of Kabul, was once the centerpiece of America’s military presence in Afghanistan. Sakhizada doubts that US troops will return in force but believes the symbolism matters. Bagram, he says, “has always been more than an airbase.” It serves as a reminder that the US can still project its power into Central and South Asia if it so chooses.

A renewed US foothold, even limited, could deter regional adventurism by Pakistan or China. Yet Sakhizada cautions that any American re-entry risks reigniting Afghan resentment toward foreign occupation. Washington, he argues, must avoid repeating past mistakes of overreach and neglect if it wishes to rebuild credibility in the region.

Why is the world silent?

Why do global powers appear so indifferent? Sakhizada describes the silence as deliberate: Russia, China and Iran prefer containment to confrontation, while Western nations are preoccupied with Ukraine, Gaza and domestic crises. Afghanistan has fallen from the front of the world’s collective mind.

He warns that neglect could prove costly. The Durand Line may seem peripheral, yet instability there can trigger wider fallout, from extremist mobilization to trade disruption. Without diplomatic engagement, both Afghanistan and Pakistan risk dragging their neighbors into another prolonged conflict.

A fragile balance

Khattar Singh closes by asking whether the two nations can still come back from the brink. Sakhizada believes a narrow window remains. Dialogue, confidence-building measures and regional diplomacy could halt the slide toward war, but only if both sides overcome decades of suspicion. Unfortunately, ordinary Afghans and Pakistanis will pay the price for decisions made in distant capitals.

The Durand Line, once drawn by empire, still divides hearts, homes and histories. Whether it remains a border or becomes a battlefield again will depend on how Kabul, Islamabad and the silent powers watching from afar choose to act.

[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 Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with Saboor Sakhizada, Program Manager at Syracuse University and former interpreter with the US military in Afghanistan, about rising tensions between Afghanistan and Pakistan along their border, the Durand Line. Drawing on firsthand…”
post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Saboor Sakhizada discuss renewed clashes along the Afghanistan–Pakistan border and the enduring disputes over the Durand Line. Sakhizada explains the Taliban’s shifting ties with India, US President Donald Trump’s possible push to retake Bagram Airbase, and the world’s silence as violence resurges. Regional indifference could spark another devastating war.”
post-date=”Oct 29, 2025″
post-title=”FO° Talks: Afghanistan–Pakistan Clashes: Why is the Durand Line Controversial?” slug-data=”fo-talks-afghanistan-pakistan-clashes-why-is-the-durand-line-controversial”>

FO° Talks: Afghanistan–Pakistan Clashes: Why is the Durand Line Controversial?

Ashraf Haidari”
post_date=”October 28, 2025 06:06″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/video/fo-talks-trump-wants-bagram-back-decoding-the-power-game-between-the-us-taliban-and-china/” pid=”158843″
post-content=”

Fair Observer’s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with Ambassador Ashraf Haidari, a former Afghan diplomat and the president of Displaced International, about US President Donald Trump’s renewed interest in Afghanistan and the geopolitical battle there over Bagram Air Base. The discussion explores how Bagram’s history as a symbol of foreign intervention now intersects with shifting regional power dynamics involving the Taliban, China, Russia and the United States itself.

Bagram’s strategic weight

Haidari begins by outlining why Bagram Air Base has always loomed large in the Afghan story. Built by the Soviets in the 1950s, it sits 40 kilometers (nearly 25 miles) north of the Afghan capital of Kabul and forms one of the most valuable pieces of military real estate in Asia. The base has changed hands repeatedly — from Soviet forces to the communist regime, to the Mujahideen, the Taliban and then the US after September 11, 2001. Under American control, Bagram became a city within a city, complete with a 12,000-foot runway and vast logistics and intelligence infrastructure. Its location at the crossroads of South and Central Asia gave Washington a launch pad to project power from the Middle East to the Far East.

When the US withdrew in 2021, it left behind more than empty hangars. To Haidari, the loss of Bagram symbolized the collapse of the international order’s last major foothold in Afghanistan. The Taliban’s takeover soon after turned the base from an anchor of global security into a potential hub for renewed instability. Now, Trump’s suggestion that the US could retake Bagram has reignited debate over sovereignty, legality and strategy in the region.

Sovereignty and stability

Haidari argues that any attempt by the US to reoccupy Bagram “would foremost violate Afghanistan’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity.” He sees such a move as legally impossible under international law and politically disastrous. Instead, he calls on Trump to support a UN-led peace process that brings together all Afghan factions — including reconcilable Taliban elements — to reach a sustainable settlement.

This diplomatic path, Haidari says, would stabilize Afghanistan and enhance regional and global security. He envisions an Afghanistan free from terrorism, drugs and separatism, capable of anchoring peace between Asia’s major powers. The goal, he stresses, is not to re-militarize Afghanistan but to rebuild it through collaboration with its neighbors.

The Taliban’s unreliability

Turning to Trump’s reputation as a dealmaker, Haidari warns that the Taliban are “a non-state actor and a proxy that is available for rent by any actor in the region and beyond.” He considers them unreliable and dangerous partners. Afghanistan already has two formal agreements with the US, the 2011 Strategic Partnership Agreement and the Bilateral Security Agreement, both signed with the former Islamic Republic. The Taliban, by contrast, remain sanctioned under multiple UN Security Council resolutions, and several of their leaders face International Criminal Court warrants.

According to Haidari, Afghanistan under Taliban control harbors more than twenty terrorist networks, including al-Qaeda, the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, the East Turkestan Islamic Movement and Islamic State Khorasan Province. These groups, he says, threaten every power that borders or once intervened there. Making a deal with such actors would only perpetuate violence.

Regional power play

Haidari’s analysis of regional dynamics is equally blunt. India, which recently hosted the Taliban’s acting foreign minister, should not, in his words, “miss the forest for the trees.” The “forest” represents the Afghan people, democracy and human rights; the “trees” are the temporary Taliban regime, which he sees as mercenary and transient. He criticizes the Doha peace process for devolving into a deal process that handed Afghanistan’s future to the Taliban while excluding legitimate representatives of the former republic.

Pakistan fares no better. While Haidari acknowledges the compassion of ordinary Pakistanis, he accuses the Pakistani state and military of undermining Afghanistan for decades, including after September 11, when US funds were allegedly diverted to rebuild and redeploy the Taliban. Pakistan and Iran, he notes, are now deporting Afghan refugees in great numbers, compounding the humanitarian crisis.

China and Russia, meanwhile, oppose Trump’s interest in Bagram and pursue transactional engagement with the Taliban — pragmatic deals to protect their own borders and investments while ignoring repression. He points to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization’s warnings about terrorism emanating from Afghanistan but notes that the Taliban continue to consolidate power, even banning Internet access for women and girls. For Haidari, no power should tolerate a “medieval terrorist extremist group [that] rules over 40 million Afghans.”

The road ahead

Haidari concludes that Afghanistan today is ruled by the threat of violence. The myth of a moderate “Taliban 2.0,” he says, has been shattered; the group is more menacing than before. As long as the world engages the Taliban on transactional terms, Afghanistan will continue exporting refugees, terrorism and narcotics. The solution lies not in isolation or coercion, but in coordinated diplomacy. Haidari calls for enforcing existing UN resolutions and launching a UN-led process to form a legitimate, inclusive government.

Only such an approach, he argues, will open the door for meaningful cooperation — and perhaps, one day, a lawful, consensual US return to Bagram. Afghanistan’s future, like its most famous air base, depends on whether global powers choose expedience or principle.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

”
post-content-short=”
Fair Observer’s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with Ambassador Ashraf Haidari, a former Afghan diplomat and the president of Displaced International, about US President Donald Trump’s renewed interest in Afghanistan and the geopolitical battle there over Bagram Air Base. The…”
post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Ashraf Haidari discuss US President Donald Trump’s renewed push to reclaim Bagram Air Base and its effect on Afghanistan’s sovereignty. Any US return would violate international law and strengthen the Taliban. Haidari urges a UN-led peace process to establish an inclusive Afghan government and restore regional stability through cooperation.”
post-date=”Oct 28, 2025″
post-title=”FO° Talks: Trump Wants Bagram Back: Decoding The Power Game Between the US, Taliban and China” slug-data=”fo-talks-trump-wants-bagram-back-decoding-the-power-game-between-the-us-taliban-and-china”>

FO° Talks: Trump Wants Bagram Back: Decoding The Power Game Between the US, Taliban and China

Brendan Howe”
post_date=”October 27, 2025 07:35″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/region/asia_pacific/fo-talks-why-south-korea-matters-more-than-ever-in-a-fragmented-world/” pid=”158814″
post-content=”

Fair Observer’s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with Brendan Howe, Dean at Ewha Womans University in Seoul, about South Korea’s evolving foreign policy in a time of great-power turbulence. Their discussion traces Seoul’s balancing act between the United States, China and North Korea while exploring whether the country can emerge as a regional leader in its own right.

Multilateralism and foreign policy

Khattar Singh opens the conversation by asking Howe to clarify the frameworks shaping South Korea’s diplomacy. Howe explains that multilateralism seeks the broadest participation — global institutions like the United Nations or the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) aim to give all members a voice. Yet as membership expands, reaching consensus grows more difficult, and major powers resist being bound by equal rules.

That frustration has driven a shift toward minilateralism — smaller, purpose-driven partnerships focused on defense and technology. Most in East Asia revolve around the US. South Korea, long caught between larger neighbors, remains embedded in the American hub-and-spoke alliance structure that dates back to the early Cold War.

The Korean War, fought under a United Nations mandate, left a deep imprint on the country’s strategic identity. It revealed both the promise and limits of global cooperation — and convinced many South Koreans that national survival depends on active engagement with the rules-based order.

US relations and Seoul’s hedging

Although South Korea’s alliance with Washington remains central, Howe notes that Seoul has been left outside key US-led groups like the Quad, AUKUS and Five Eyes. A new trilateral arrangement with Japan and the US aims to close that gap, yet South Korean policymakers, he says, are “not really happy about any of this.” The country prefers flexibility and dislikes being pressed into rigid choices between security and commerce.

For decades, Seoul described itself as a middle power — a state that uses diplomacy and specialization to amplify limited resources. Today, Howe argues, South Korea’s economic and military weight exceeds that category. It is a second-tier power: not a superpower, but far more influential than traditional middle states. Militarily, it aligns closely with Washington, though enthusiasm for the minilateral model is waning, even in the US.

While conservatives have long favored coordination with Japan and the US, the current progressive administration has maintained these ties. In Howe’s view, that continuity gives South Korea the freedom to widen cooperation with Japan, Australia and ASEAN without weakening its alliance with Washington.

Preemptive diplomacy and regional security

Turning to North Korea, Howe emphasizes how limited international institutions have become in shaping the behavior of its capital, Pyongyang. UN sanctions have been undermined by Chinese and Russian disregard, and earlier negotiations, such as the Six-Party Talks, failed to achieve their goals.

Seoul has begun to practice what Howe calls preemptive diplomacy: acting early to stay part of the conversation. Its willingness to discuss recognizing North Korea’s nuclear status temporarily aims to restart talks. Though controversial, this signals a determination to influence outcomes rather than merely react to them.

Meanwhile, Howe warns that the major powers — the US, China and Russia — are behaving “like monsters in a Godzilla movie,” leaving smaller states to absorb the fallout. He argues that this instability compels South Korea to think creatively about defense and deterrence, anticipating crises rather than waiting for them.

ASEAN and the Indo-Pacific order

South Korea’s New Southern Policy reflects a forward-looking regional vision. Through deeper ties with ASEAN, especially Vietnam and Indonesia, Seoul applies its own experience as a country that achieved economic transformation under difficult circumstances. Its cooperation extends beyond commerce to humanitarian aid, peacekeeping and disaster relief — including military assistance to the Philippines after Typhoon Haiyan in 2013.

These initiatives show that influence can arise from competence and credibility. During the pandemic, South Korea’s efficient vaccine outreach contrasted sharply with the erratic behavior of larger powers. By emphasizing public health, climate resilience and development, Seoul has positioned itself as a pragmatic problem-solver and a reliable regional partner.

Can South Korea lead?

Looking ahead, Howe envisions a network of capable democracies — including Germany, Japan, Australia, the United Kingdom and South Korea — that could “punch above their weight” by leading on technology, development and human security while the great powers remain mired in rivalry.

South Korea’s task, he concludes, is to balance universal ideals with regional pragmatism: to uphold its alliance with the US while advancing an Asian concept of security that values social welfare and economic stability alongside military strength. By hedging less between Washington and Beijing and more between global and regional visions of order, Seoul is redefining leadership for the 21st century.

Khattar Singh ends by asking whether South Korea can truly become a leader in this divided landscape. Howe answers that success depends on how deftly Seoul manages its overlapping webs of trade, security and diplomacy — but few nations, he adds, are better prepared for the task.

[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 Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with Brendan Howe, Dean at Ewha Womans University in Seoul, about South Korea’s evolving foreign policy in a time of great-power turbulence. Their discussion traces Seoul’s balancing act between the United States, China and North…”
post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Brendan Howe discuss how South Korea is redefining its foreign policy amid intensifying global rivalry. They explore Seoul’s shift from multilateralism to targeted partnerships, its delicate balance between Washington and Beijing and the growing importance of preemptive diplomacy toward North Korea. South Korea is evolving into a proactive regional power.”
post-date=”Oct 27, 2025″
post-title=”FO° Talks: Why South Korea Matters More Than Ever in a Fragmented World” slug-data=”fo-talks-why-south-korea-matters-more-than-ever-in-a-fragmented-world”>

FO° Talks: Why South Korea Matters More Than Ever in a Fragmented World

Rob Avis”
post_date=”October 26, 2025 05:50″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/more/environment/fo-talks-regeneration-explained-redesigning-our-planet-our-food-and-our-future/” pid=”158809″
post-content=”

Fair Observer’s Communications and Outreach officer, Roberta Campani, speaks with Rob Avis, Chief Engineering Officer at 5th World, about what it means to think regeneratively. Their exchange moves from theory to practice — from how humans view their place in nature to how cities, farms and even small gardens can repair ecological cycles.

What is regeneration?

Avis contrasts regeneration with conventional and sustainable systems, arguing that the former is not about minimizing damage but about creating conditions for more life to flourish. He frames regeneration as both a mindset and a movement toward active partnership with the Earth.

He outlines three paradigms shaping humanity’s relationship with the planet. The conventional system prioritizes economic growth while externalizing environmental costs and depleting resources. The sustainable system aims for “net zero,” yet he finds this logic self-defeating since it implies humanity’s best outcome is to vanish.

The regenerative paradigm begins with the premise that humans are part of nature, not separate from it. Every action we take affects something — the question is whether it produces more life or less. Regeneration accepts that humans cannot be neutral; they can only be creative or destructive participants. The goal is to design systems that convert human energy into abundance and ensure that every footprint becomes a foundation for growth rather than decline.

Reimagining spaces

To illustrate this shift, Avis turns to the beaver. On his land in northern Alberta, Canada, beavers fell trees and flood valleys that at first seem ravaged. Yet their dams store millions of liters of water, slow erosion and multiply biodiversity. Their apparent destruction becomes the foundation for new life.

Translating that principle into human spaces, Avis argues that cultural norms block progress more than technology does. Nearly 40 million acres of land in the United States are devoted to lawns — an area equal to all the nation’s wheat fields. Maintaining them burns fuel, uses chemicals and yields nothing edible.

If even a fraction were converted to gardens, communities could feed themselves while farms revert to perennial systems. Urban agriculture, he says, can be the seed of a larger transformation, where food production and ecosystem health reinforce each other. For Avis, regeneration is not austerity but designing abundance into daily life.

Regenerative agriculture

At the farm level, Avis’s method begins with diagnostics — what the land wants to be, what the owner needs, and what resources exist. The intersection of these forms the sweet spot for regenerative design.

The keystone is the water cycle. Without functioning hydrology, no ecosystem can thrive. “The sun is the gas pedal,” Avis remarks, and “water is like the gasoline.” Restoring the water cycle through ponds and vegetation restarts the biological engine. Examples range from China’s Loess Plateau to India’s Water Cup project and American farmers like Gabe Brown, who regenerate soils by integrating livestock and perennials.

For individuals, regeneration begins in the garden. Avis advises starting small; even a one-meter plot is enough to learn ecological feedback. “You don’t have a slug problem, you have a duck deficiency,” he jokes, showing that every pest has a predator. The goal is to add missing relationships, not apply poisons.

Improving nutrition in crops

Industrial farming, Avis notes, has drained nutrient density from food. Regenerative practices restore minerals and microbial life to soil, improving plant nutrition and taste alike. Healthy soil acts as a living digestive system; chemicals disrupt the exchange of carbon and nitrogen that makes crops nourishing.

Rebuilding soil’s organic matter through composting, cover crops and rotational grazing links directly to public health. Declining soil vitality parallels rising endocrine disorders, infertility and chronic disease. Avis sees this as evidence that human well-being and ecological integrity are intertwined — the health of people mirrors the health of the land.

Reducing the carbon footprint

Despite his background in carbon engineering, Avis calls the world’s fixation on emissions “misguided.” The real issue is that humans dismantled ecosystems that once managed carbon naturally.

Before colonization, North America’s grasslands teemed with bison and beavers that stored water and carbon. Today, soils that once contained 20% organic matter hold less than 3%. Each ton of grain harvested erodes several tons of soil, leaving about 60 crop cycles at current loss rates.

The regenerative answer is to restore the life that cycles carbon for us. Grasslands and forests evolved to regulate the planet’s chemistry through growth and renewal. Focusing on carbon numbers, Avis warns, misses the elegance of these living processes. “We need life-based thinking, not mechanism-based reduction,” he says.

Campani observes that regeneration sounds more like participation than protest. Avis agrees, describing it as a forward movement, not a return to the past. If humanity can engineer nuclear weapons, he concludes, it can also engineer regeneration to make the future brighter. “It has to taste better, it has to be more fun,” he says. We can start by growing a tomato plant, setting a rain barrel or propagating a patch of living soil.

[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 Communications and Outreach officer, Roberta Campani, speaks with Rob Avis, Chief Engineering Officer at 5th World, about what it means to think regeneratively. Their exchange moves from theory to practice — from how humans view their place in nature to how cities, farms and…”
post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Roberta Campani and Rob Avis discuss regeneration as a philosophy that redefines humanity’s relationship with the Earth. Avis contrasts the extractive and net-zero mindsets with a regenerative approach that creates conditions for more life. Their conversation links soil health, urban design and ecological restoration to a hopeful planetary future.”
post-date=”Oct 26, 2025″
post-title=”FO° Talks: Regeneration Explained: Redesigning Our Planet, Our Food and Our Future” slug-data=”fo-talks-regeneration-explained-redesigning-our-planet-our-food-and-our-future”>

FO° Talks: Regeneration Explained: Redesigning Our Planet, Our Food and Our Future

Leonardo Vivas”
post_date=”October 25, 2025 05:44″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/region/latin_america/fo-talks-will-the-trump-administration-deploy-troops-in-venezuela-to-remove-maduro/” pid=”158787″
post-content=”

Fair Observer’s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with Leonardo Vivas, a Venezuelan scholar of Latin American politics, about the escalating standoff between the United States and Venezuela. Their conversation explores how Washington’s strategy has evolved under US President Donald Trump’s administration, how Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro’s regime has managed to endure and what these developments mean for Venezuelans.

US–Venezuela tensions

Relations between Washington and the Venezuelan capital of Caracas have been tense for decades. The conflict deepened after the rise of former Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and deteriorated further under Maduro. As Vivas explains, the early Trump administration pursued a “maximum pressure” campaign designed to remove Maduro from power. Yet over time, that posture shifted. The administration’s rhetoric now emphasizes national security over regime change — a pivot that reflects both declining enthusiasm within the Republican Party and an attempt to frame the Venezuelan issue for a domestic audience.

The new narrative links Venezuela to terrorism and narcotrafficking, particularly through the “cartel of the suns,” a network of military and political insiders accused of running drug operations from within the state. These allegations justified a naval deployment to the Caribbean involving warships, stealth jets in Puerto Rico, and a nuclear submarine. While Pentagon statements warned that any aggression from Maduro’s forces would be met in kind, Vivas stresses that a full invasion is “totally out of the picture.” Venezuela, he notes, is far too large, and such a move would dwarf the 1989 Panama invasion that required 25,000 troops.

Cartels or oil?

Khattar Singh asks whether the focus on cartels conceals a more traditional motivation: access to Venezuela’s vast oil reserves. Vivas rejects the theory outright, pointing out that the industry is in “pretty bad shape.” Production has collapsed from over three million barrels per day to roughly half that figure, and much of Venezuela’s heavy crude requires expensive refining technology that few facilities possess.

Vivas concludes that oil can no longer drive US policy. Instead, he suspects the security narrative helps Washington sell its approach internally. Behind the public rhetoric may lie other objectives — pressuring Caracas to cooperate on deportations or creating leverage to push Maduro toward negotiations.

Who supports Maduro

Maduro’s survival has baffled outside observers. Vivas explains that the regime functions as a coalition of vested interests, centered on the military. With Cuban assistance, the armed forces were restructured to make coups nearly impossible. Security agencies monitor officers and politicians alike, ensuring loyalty through surveillance and lucrative side deals.

As oil wealth declined, illicit economies replaced ideology as the main source of cohesion. Drug trafficking, gold smuggling and corruption now underpin the system. Vivas recounts a case near the Colombian border where a landowner was jailed after refusing to sell land coveted for drug operations, highlighting how criminal networks and state actors intertwine. Colombian insurgents such as the National Liberation Army also operate freely inside Venezuela, sustaining this hybrid order.

Maduro, Vivas says, serves as the cement holding it all together. His fall would shatter the current structure. While democracy’s return would face immense obstacles — the regime dominates the courts, media and oil sector — Vivas doubts that the coalition could survive without its central figure.

What Venezuelans feel

Khattar Singh turns the conversation to public sentiment. Vivas believes most Venezuelans have lost faith in elections after the July 28 contest, when the opposition’s clear victory was nullified by the government. For many, it proved that ballots alone cannot end authoritarian rule.

The despair extends to the diaspora. Around 800,000 Venezuelans live in the US under temporary protection, asylum or refugee status. Many risk deportation yet cannot return to a country suffering hyperinflation, chronic power outages and institutional decay. Vivas suggests that, despite their disillusionment, many quietly welcome American pressure as a potential catalyst for change.

Gen Z in Venezuela

Asked about the younger generation, Vivas compares Venezuela to Nepal, where youth movements recently drove political reform. He argues that Venezuelans have not surrendered completely. The country’s 40 years of 20th-century democracy left a collective memory of freedom that resists authoritarian normalization. Nonetheless, frustration is intense. Young people, seeing few prospects at home, increasingly choose emigration over activism.

Maduro’s allies

Internationally, Maduro stands more isolated than ever. “Nobody wants to take […] a selfie with Maduro,” Vivas jokes. His only dependable allies remain Cuba and Nicaragua, while former regional partners now keep their distance. The regime further alienated neighbors by reviving claims to annex the Essequibo region between Venezuela and Guyana, provoking Brazil to deploy troops along its northern border. Even Cuba, despite its alliance, has sided with Guyana on this dispute.

For Vivas, this combination of diplomatic isolation, economic collapse and creeping military pressure leaves Maduro in his weakest position yet. Still, he cautions, the Venezuelan regime has repeatedly shown a remarkable capacity to adapt — and its end, however near it may seem, is far from guaranteed.

[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 Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with Leonardo Vivas, a Venezuelan scholar of Latin American politics, about the escalating standoff between the United States and Venezuela. Their conversation explores how Washington’s strategy has evolved under US President Donald…”
post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Leonardo Vivas explore how shifting US priorities have reshaped its confrontation with Venezuela. What began as a campaign for regime change has evolved into a national-security narrative. Vivas traces how corruption, cartels and military control sustain Maduro’s rule while ordinary Venezuelans lose hope for democracy.”
post-date=”Oct 25, 2025″
post-title=”FO° Talks: Will the Trump Administration Deploy Troops in Venezuela to Remove Maduro?” slug-data=”fo-talks-will-the-trump-administration-deploy-troops-in-venezuela-to-remove-maduro”>

FO° Talks: Will the Trump Administration Deploy Troops in Venezuela to Remove Maduro?

David Vine”
post_date=”October 24, 2025 06:25″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/region/africa/fo-talks-chagos-and-diego-garcia-understanding-colonialism-displacement-and-geopolitics/” pid=”158773″
post-content=”

Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and political anthropologist and author David Vine explore the history, displacement and enduring struggle over the Chagos Islands, a remote archipelago in the Indian Ocean that saw one of the most significant legal and moral confrontations in modern geopolitics. Together, they trace the arc from colonial dispossession to a landmark international victory, examining what justice might still mean for the Chagossians today.

What are the Chagos Islands?

The Chagos Islands sit almost equidistant between Africa and Indonesia, directly south of India. This isolation, Vine explains, made them strategically appealing to imperial powers but devastating for their inhabitants. The largest island, Diego Garcia, now hosts one of the most important US military bases outside North America.

The islands were uninhabited until the late 18th century, when French settlers brought enslaved Africans from Madagascar and mainland Africa, followed by Indian indentured laborers. After the Napoleonic Wars, Britain took control of the territory, which remained tied to Mauritius until 1903. For generations, a small Creole-speaking population developed a self-sustaining society — until Cold War strategy intervened.

Strategic importance of Diego Garcia and UK-US takeover of Chagos

In 1965, Britain and the United States struck a secret agreement to build a base on Diego Garcia. The arrangement came with a $14 million payment — disguised as a military debt write-off — and the understanding that the local population would be removed. Between 1967 and 1973, British officials expelled roughly 1,500 Chagossians, forcing them onto ships bound for Mauritius and the Seychelles, an archipelago north of Madagascar.

Vine recounts how the US falsely told Congress that the islands had no permanent inhabitants. The displaced islanders were left destitute while the Pentagon built a massive air and naval complex on their homeland. This act of ethnic cleansing, carried out in secrecy, remains one of the darkest chapters in postwar Anglo-American relations.

For decades, Diego Garcia has served as a linchpin of US military operations, launching missions in the Gulf War, Afghanistan and Iraq. Singh notes that the island occupies a pivotal position in American strategy.

Vine challenges the claim that Diego Garcia is indispensable, arguing that national security is invoked reflexively with little evidence to support it. He adds that most conflicts launched from the island produced catastrophic consequences. Singh counters that some wars achieved their goals, but Vine identifies that even military success cannot erase the moral cost of war.

British vs. Chagossians

When the Chagossians sought justice, British authorities resisted fiercely. Their lawsuits were initially successful: In 2000, the High Court ruled their expulsion unlawful and recognized their right to return to all islands except Diego Garcia. Yet the government appealed, and in 2008, Britain’s House of Lords reversed the ruling.

Soon afterward, London announced a Marine Protected Area (MPA) across the archipelago, ostensibly for conservation. Leaked diplomatic cables later revealed that the MPA had been designed to prevent the Chagossians’ return — a cynical move that disguised political obstruction as environmentalism.

Despite decades of defeat, the Chagossians never gave up. Under leaders like Louis Olivier Bancoult and the Chagos Refugees Group, they organized protests, petitions and legal cases. Vine calls it a “David and Goliath story,” a small, impoverished community confronting two of the world’s most powerful states.

Their persistence paid off on February 9, 2019, when the International Court of Justice ruled that Britain’s 1965 separation of Chagos from Mauritius had been illegal. The UN General Assembly followed with a resolution demanding that the United Kingdom end its colonial administration. London, backed by Washington, ignored the verdict — showing, Vine says, the lingering arrogance of the empire.

Pro bono lawyers and resettlement plans

Behind this struggle stood a network of pro bono lawyers drawn to a simple moral case: a people unlawfully deprived of their homes. Their creativity turned a local injustice into a global precedent for decolonization and exposed how Cold War politics outlived their purpose.

After years of denial, on November 3, 2022, the UK announced it was reversing course. It began negotiating with Mauritius, culminating in a treaty transferring sovereignty while leasing Diego Garcia back to Britain for 99 years. The arrangement, backed by the US and India, marked what Singh calls a rare triumph of diplomacy and law.

Still, the treaty prevents Chagossians from resettling on Diego Garcia — a restriction Vine calls “a major flaw.” He points out that civilians live near other military bases and that large parts of the island are unoccupied. The agreement provides £45 million (over $60 million) for Chagossian welfare and £125 million (over $167 million) in development funds, but divided among 8,000 people, the payments are modest.

Resettlement studies suggest that rebuilding on smaller islands would be feasible. The possible industries would include fishing, coconut processing and ecotourism. Chagossians emphasize that they are the natural stewards of their environment and want to rebuild sustainably.

What’s next for Chagossians?

While the treaty marks a milestone, the fight for full justice continues. Some Chagossians support the sovereignty deal, hoping it will enable return and reconstruction. Others, wary of promises, demand an independent Chagossian administration or full Mauritian rights. Internal divisions, often reinforced by colonial manipulation, still complicate unity.

Vine concludes that the Chagos story is not just about geopolitics but about racism and the theft of a homeland. The British and American governments built a base for power projection; the Chagossians built a moral case for dignity. Their decades-long campaign has already changed international law, and they are determined to make sure it also changes their 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=”
Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and political anthropologist and author David Vine explore the history, displacement and enduring struggle over the Chagos Islands, a remote archipelago in the Indian Ocean that saw one of the most significant legal and moral confrontations in modern geopolitics….”
post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Atul Singh and David Vine discuss the long struggle of the displaced Chagossians, whose island homeland in the Indian Ocean was seized by Britain and the United States to build a military base on Diego Garcia. They trace the Chagos Islands’ colonial history, legal victories and the community’s ongoing fight for justice.”
post-date=”Oct 24, 2025″
post-title=”FO° Talks: Chagos and Diego Garcia: Understanding Colonialism, Displacement and Geopolitics” slug-data=”fo-talks-chagos-and-diego-garcia-understanding-colonialism-displacement-and-geopolitics”>

FO° Talks: Chagos and Diego Garcia: Understanding Colonialism, Displacement and Geopolitics

Nuno Guimarães”
post_date=”October 23, 2025 06:23″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/business/technology/fo-talks-who-controls-the-internet-decoding-privacy-ai-and-global-regulation/” pid=”158761″
post-content=”

Fair Observer’s Communications and Outreach officer, Roberta Campani, speaks with Nuno Guimarães, a professor of Computer Sciences at ISCTE-University Institute of Lisbon. They discuss the complex relationship between technology, privacy, artificial intelligence and global regulation. Guimarães examines how technological progress transforms social structures and individual behavior. Campani notes how digital tools have become both pervasive and intrusive, opening a broader reflection on privacy, power and human agency in the digital era.

Digital privacy

Guimarães traces the evolution of technology from the early days of personal computing — when systems like MS-DOS offered limited, local control — to today’s connected world. He explains that the same connectivity that empowers users also allows corporations to commodify their attention and data. Concentrated control over platforms, he argues, is not a conspiracy but the natural consequence of network effects. Artificial intelligence intensifies these dynamics, and privacy remains possible only at significant cost. For most users, convenience and dependence on digital systems outweigh privacy concerns, which raises questions about whether individuals can truly opt out.

Bridging digital gaps

Guimarães expresses deep concern about what he calls a “flat” and unmediated information space. Without the traditional filters once provided by editors, teachers or institutions, he believes society risks losing the very conditions for rational thought.

He compares the digital commons to a lecture hall where hundreds of people speak at once, producing confusion instead of understanding. Campani agrees that what began as an open space for exchange has evolved into one that rewards emotional and tribal reactions. For Guimarães, defending a mediated, structured public sphere is essential because it keeps conversation grounded in reason rather than impulse.

Regulating the Internet

Turning to solutions, Guimarães advises against obsessive efforts to control technology, arguing that calm assessment is necessary for mental balance. He outlines three levels of intervention: individual efforts, legal regulation and deglobalization. On the individual level, people can use privacy tools or alternative platforms, though these options remain accessible mainly to those with the education or resources to manage them.

At the legal level, regulation often feels like a “guerrilla war,” with governments struggling to keep up with fast-changing global firms. He highlights Denmark’s attempt to treat a person’s face and voice as property — a creative way to counter deepfakes through copyright law. However, he warns that consent mechanisms, such as cookie pop-ups, create an illusion of choice since few users have the time or expertise to review every policy.

Deglobalizing digital media

Guimarães argues that the assumption of a global Internet is outdated. What he calls “deglobalization” acknowledges that the world’s digital ecosystems have already fragmented. China has built its own self-contained system, and India is developing a different model. Europe, by contrast, continues to act as though the digital sphere were unified.

Campani observes that Europe’s reliance on large fines against major US platforms often functions less as punishment than as a cost of doing business. Guimarães clarifies that deglobalization does not mean isolation but rather an effort to break the network effects that entrench monopoly power.

Digital India

Guimarães cites India’s national digital ID system as a model of both opportunity and risk. While such programs can raise concerns about state surveillance, they also reduce reliance on private corporations for identity management and allow citizens to access services more efficiently.

In his view, India demonstrates that sovereignty and accessibility can coexist if democratic systems preserve mechanisms for public accountability. The ability to legally challenge the state, he notes, remains a distinct feature of democratic contexts — a reminder that digital governance must reflect political culture as much as technological capability.

Does restricting social media work?

Campani and Guimarães consider whether limiting technology use can improve public well-being. Guimarães describes a turning point in public attitudes toward technology: After decades of uncritical faith in innovation, societies are beginning to impose limits. He points to policies such as banning mobile phones in schools as a positive sign that “technological sanctity” is fading.

Yet he cautions that new ethical challenges persist. Emotion-recognition software, he argues, crosses moral boundaries by treating private emotions as data. The deeper problem lies in the engineering culture that assumes all technological progress is inherently good. Campani agrees that optimism must be tempered with reflection on how digital systems influence behavior and shape collective values.

How AI changes digital spaces

The conversation concludes with a reflection on growth, sustainability and the future of AI. Campani argues that endless economic expansion is incompatible with a finite planet. Guimarães criticizes the belief that technology can always solve the problems it creates, citing ambitious AI projects meant to address crises such as forest fires or urban congestion. He suggests that many technologists suffer from an “epistemological bug,” a drive to pursue massive, complex problems for their own sake. Campani wonders if this impulse reflects ego as much as intellect.

Guimarães predicts that digital technology will eventually find its rightful place, though only after what he calls a “phoenix moment” — a crisis severe enough to force societies to rebuild their relationship with technology from the ground up.

[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 Communications and Outreach officer, Roberta Campani, speaks with Nuno Guimarães, a professor of Computer Sciences at ISCTE-University Institute of Lisbon. They discuss the complex relationship between technology, privacy, artificial intelligence and global regulation….”
post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Roberta Campani and Nuno Guimarães discuss how technology has reshaped privacy, rationality and governance in a fragmented digital world. Individual and legal actions are insufficient without structural reform to counter monopoly power. Digital technology will eventually find its rightful place once a crisis forces society to change.”
post-date=”Oct 23, 2025″
post-title=”FO° Talks: Who Controls the Internet? Decoding Privacy, AI and Global Regulation” slug-data=”fo-talks-who-controls-the-internet-decoding-privacy-ai-and-global-regulation”>

FO° Talks: Who Controls the Internet? Decoding Privacy, AI and Global Regulation

Josef Olmert”
post_date=”October 22, 2025 03:32″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/world-news/middle-east-news/fo-talks-france-uk-canada-and-australia-recognize-palestine-what-does-it-mean-for-israel/” pid=”158746″
post-content=”

Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and former Israeli Government Official Josef Olmert explore the diplomatic and political fallout after several Western powers formally recognized the State of Palestine. The two examine how this shift affects Israel’s global standing, its internal politics and broader regional alignments.

Recognition of Palestine

On Sunday, September 21, the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia recognized Palestine, followed by France the next day. Olmert calls this a symbolic yet consequential moment. In his view, the gesture has little immediate legal impact but carries deep political implications for Israel, marking what he calls “bad days for Israel.” He adds a touch of irony, noting that Britain’s supposed reward was an enormous demand for reparations from the Palestinian Authority.

Olmert sees the recognition as largely political signaling. He explains that the governments are responding to domestic pressure rather than to developments on the ground. Yet even symbolic acts can have real-world consequences when they alter perceptions and embolden political movements.

Is Israel’s popularity declining?

Olmert’s first major point concerns what he describes as a shift in public opinion against Israel across the West. He attributes it to changing demographics and new political coalitions, particularly in the UK. The Labour Party now appeals both to Muslim voters and to liberals who frame Palestine as an anti-colonial cause. Once firmly pro-Israel, the country’s major trade union federation has also reversed its stance.

These trends complicate relations between Israel and its traditional allies. Olmert recalls that under former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, Palestinian flags outnumbered British ones at party conventions, a symbolic sign of how opinion has turned. Large street demonstrations illustrate how the issue has become a moral rallying point for many voters.

He also predicts political backlash, suggesting that Britain’s right-wing Reform Party might gain ground in the next election. France is facing political paralysis reminiscent of its pre-war instability. The overall trend points to growing polarization: Sympathy for Palestinians is rising, while support for Israel among mainstream parties is eroding.

Israel’s military actions

The second major consequence, Olmert says, lies in the potential diplomatic and operational problems recognition may cause. He expects friction if Western nations try to open consulates for a new State of Palestine that requires access through Israeli territory. Israel, he warns, could respond by limiting cooperation or restricting diplomatic access.

Olmert explains Israel’s diplomatic prickliness within a much older Jewish experience of persecution. External pressure, he explains, tends to reinforce the sense of isolation that has historically defined Jewish identity. He recalls an old Hebrew expression that “the more you torture them, the stronger they get.” This idea, he says, reflects centuries of resilience shaped by exile and discrimination.

Outside criticism often strengthens Israel’s internal unity, especially during war. They agree that the charge of genocide leveled at Israel is false. Olmert emphasizes that Gaza’s population continues to grow and insists that wartime casualties, while tragic, do not constitute genocide. Drawing historical comparisons, he points out that civilian losses in past conflicts, such as the bombing of Tokyo in 1945, were far greater without being labeled as genocide.

Israel’s goals

Turning to domestic politics, Olmert is blunt about his disappointment in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. As Israel’s longest-serving leader, he says, he understood the country’s diplomatic challenges but failed to act on them. Olmert argues that Netanyahu should have rebuilt bipartisan goodwill abroad and moderated his government but instead allowed extremists like Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir and Minister of Finance Bezalel Smotrich to dominate the political narrative.

Olmert attributes Israel’s loss of international support to three converging trends: demographic change in Western cities, the ideological evolution of Europe’s social democracies and a new alliance of progressives, leftists and Islamists united by hostility toward the West.

On strategy, both speakers agree that Hamas, the Sunni Islamist Palestinian nationalist political group, remains Israel’s chief obstacle to peace. Destroying its military infrastructure, Olmert says, is essential to prevent another crisis on par with the October 7 attacks. Yet he also urges restraint: For Israel’s own long-term interest, the war should end as soon as possible. He proposes that Israel declare a short ceasefire to allow the unconditional release of hostages, resuming military operations only if that demand is ignored. Olmert believes peace requires neutralizing those who violently oppose it.

Saudi–Pakistani defense pact

Singh and Olmert also examine regional geopolitics. The Abraham Accords, once a centerpiece of Israeli diplomacy, have stalled, while new alliances are emerging, such as the recently announced Saudi–Pakistan defense pact. Olmert interprets it as a diplomatic signal from Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to US President Donald Trump, conveying that the Saudi capital of Riyadh “may have other options.” He argues that the agreement is not directed against Israel but could, paradoxically, strengthen ties between Israel and India as both countries coordinate more closely on security.

Despite Israel’s current diplomatic challenges, Olmert remains cautiously hopeful. Netanyahu still holds valuable leverage and could yet restore Israel’s standing if he acts decisively. Israel’s immediate challenge is to balance its security imperatives with the need to rebuild trust abroad. Ultimately, the recognition of Palestine by the two former European imperial powers and the two former Anglo-Saxon colonies is not the end of the story but the beginning of a new, unpredictable phase in the Middle East’s evolving power dynamics.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

”
post-content-short=”
Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and former Israeli Government Official Josef Olmert explore the diplomatic and political fallout after several Western powers formally recognized the State of Palestine. The two examine how this shift affects Israel’s global standing, its internal politics and broader…”
post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Atul Singh and Josef Olmert discuss how the coordinated recognition of Palestine by Western nations signals shifting global politics. Israel’s growing isolation stems from Western demographic and ideological changes and its own leadership decisions. Despite challenges, Singh and Olmert see potential for renewed diplomacy amid emerging alliances like the Saudi–Pakistan defense pact.”
post-date=”Oct 22, 2025″
post-title=”FO° Talks: France, UK, Canada and Australia Recognize Palestine, What Does It Mean for Israel?” slug-data=”fo-talks-france-uk-canada-and-australia-recognize-palestine-what-does-it-mean-for-israel”>

FO° Talks: France, UK, Canada and Australia Recognize Palestine, What Does It Mean for Israel?

Saya Kiba”
post_date=”October 21, 2025 05:35″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/politics/fo-talks-who-will-be-japans-next-prime-minister/” pid=”158734″
post-content=”

[This video was recorded before Sanae Takaichi was chosen as the president of the Liberal Democratic Party on October 4, 2025. It has been updated to include this information.]

Rohan Khattar Singh, Fair Observer’s Video Producer & Social Media Manager, speaks with Saya Kiba, an associate professor at Japan’s Kobe City University of Foreign Studies, regarding the resignation of former Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba. They explore why Ishiba stepped down, the Liberal Democratic Party’s (LDP) leadership race, the top contenders and the challenges awaiting Japan’s next leader, from economic strain to a rising wave of right-wing populism.

Why did Ishiba resign?

As Kiba explains, Ishiba resigned on September 7, 2025, after the LDP suffered a string of electoral defeats. Under his leadership, the party lost three major elections: the lower house election shortly after he took office, the Tokyo Metropolitan Assembly election in June and the upper house election in July. These losses shattered the party’s dominance and triggered anxiety among LDP lawmakers who feared for their own seats.

Ishiba’s downfall was less about public opinion than internal revolt. Many within the LDP concluded he could not lead them to victory again. Lawmakers, worried about losing their constituencies, decided they needed a change in leadership before the next general election. His departure thus reflected a survival instinct within the party more than a change in national sentiment.

What’s next for Japan?

Japan will choose its next prime minister through an internal LDP leadership contest. The contest was held on October 4. In this contest, party members and parliamentarians shared the vote equally. The winner must be confirmed by the Diet to become prime minister. As Kiba explains, this parliamentary step is largely ceremonial — a “confirmation” rather than an election.

Once the LDP selects its new leader, the transition of power will be swift, with the new prime minister expected to take office quickly. But beyond the formalities, Khattar Singh and Kiba agree that this vote is highly impactful to Japan’s direction on both domestic and foreign policy, particularly given the split between the party’s liberal and ultra-conservative wings.

Top contenders and a winner

Kiba outlines five candidates for the LDP leadership but emphasizes three frontrunners.

The first is Sanae Takaichi, the only female contender. At 64 years old, she is known for her staunch conservatism and her close alliance with the late Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Takaichi has opposed same-sex marriage and progressive gender policies, and she has made controversial remarks about historical events. Her campaign slogan, “Japan is Back,” echoes the populist tone of US President Donald Trump’s rhetoric.

The second major contender was Shinjiro Koizumi, aged 44, son of former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi. Currently serving as the agriculture minister, he built his platform around addressing inflation and rejuvenating Japan’s economy.

The third was Yoshimasa Hayashi, a 64-year-old diplomat who served as Ishiba’s chief of staff and government spokesperson. Kiba describes him as a pragmatic candidate with strong foreign policy credentials and close ties to former Prime Minister Fumio Kishida.

Ultimately, Takaichi won the LDP’s choice for president. She is currently on track to become Japan’s first female prime minister.

Who is Takaichi?

Takaichi’s rise captures the emotional pulse of Japan’s conservative base. As Kiba notes, many within the LDP miss Abe, whose strong leadership style still resonates. Takaichi represents a return to that era, promising discipline and national pride.

Her conservatism, however, divides the party. Critics within the LDP recall the Abe-era scandals over campaign financing and misuse of funds that eroded public trust. Yet these same controversies have ironically boosted Takaichi’s appeal among ultra-right voters who feel alienated by the more centrist Kishida and Ishiba factions.

This political shift has been reinforced by the rise of Sanseitō, a new far-right party that performed strongly in July’s upper house elections. Many of its supporters were once loyal to the LDP but defected over dissatisfaction with moderate policies. Khattar Singh and Kiba see this as a warning sign that the Japanese right is fracturing, and whoever succeeds Ishiba will need to mend these internal divisions.

Japan’s economy

Japan’s economy remains a central challenge for any incoming prime minister. Ishiba’s administration came under fire for a July 23 trade deal with the United States that many believed leaned in the US’s favor. The agreement left unresolved issues over tariffs on semiconductors and medical supplies, sparking criticism across party lines.

Kiba argues that the next leader must repair Japan’s trade posture and manage relations with the US, particularly as protectionist policies resurface in Washington. Inflation, still a pressing concern, is likely to dominate domestic debate. Khattar Singh adds that Japan’s recovery depends on restoring confidence in both fiscal policy and the leadership steering it.

Japan’s top issues

Beyond the economy, Khattar Singh and Kiba identify three major policy fronts:

Trade and security: Japan must balance its tariff disputes with maintaining a strong US–Japan security alliance. Washington continues to pressure Tokyo to contribute more to defense costs — a politically sensitive issue amid voter fatigue.

Inflation and domestic stability: The cost-of-living crisis has eroded public patience, and the new prime minister will need quick wins to restore confidence.

Diplomacy and regional relations: Japan faces an increasingly tense neighborhood. On September 3, Chinese President Xi Jinping, Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un met in Beijing, signaling a new phase of coordination among Japan’s nuclear-armed rivals. Managing this trilateral threat while maintaining close cooperation with the US and South Korea will be an early and defining test of Japan’s next leader.

The leadership race is about far more than replacing Ishiba. It is about the soul of Japan’s ruling party — whether it will return to Abe’s hardline nationalism or chart a new, pragmatic path through turbulent economic and geopolitical waters.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

”
post-content-short=”

Rohan Khattar Singh, Fair Observer’s Video Producer & Social Media Manager, speaks with Saya Kiba, an associate…”
post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Saya Kiba discuss the vote to replace Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba. Japan now confronts economic stagnation and a growing ultra-right movement demanding strong conservative leadership. The next prime minister — perhaps Liberal Democratic Party President Sanae Takaichi — must tackle inflation, US trade tensions and regional security challenges.”
post-date=”Oct 21, 2025″
post-title=”FO° Talks: Who Will Be Japan’s Next Prime Minister?” slug-data=”fo-talks-who-will-be-japans-next-prime-minister”>

FO° Talks: Who Will Be Japan’s Next Prime Minister?

Douglas Hauer”
post_date=”October 20, 2025 07:12″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/world-news/fo-talks-will-south-korean-companies-reconsider-business-in-america-after-the-hyundai-ice-raid/” pid=”158716″
post-content=”

Fair Observer’s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with Douglas Hauer, a former partner at Mintz and a lawyer with nearly three decades of experience, about the sudden Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raid at the Hyundai Motor Company’s Georgia plant. Hauer calls the event a watershed moment for US immigration enforcement. In his view, it marked a shift from deliberate coordination with corporate actors toward abrupt and highly visible action.

The raid, he explains, shows that US President Donald Trump’s administration “will not necessarily plan around trying to understand business considerations of a company […] before just launching into an enforcement action.” Such operations traditionally follow extensive fact-finding to avoid errors affecting large, publicly traded companies. The Hyundai case, however, seemed to unfold with limited caution and unclear justification. As Hauer understands it, the trigger may have been irregularities in employment documentation.

What disturbed him most was the excessive use of restraint. Individuals were handcuffed despite no evidence that they posed physical threats. The optics of the raid — images of workers detained in cuffs — left Hauer questioning whether officials had properly assessed the risks. He characterizes the operation as an overreaction and a failure of deliberation that disregarded economic and human stakes.

South Korea launches a probe

The raid quickly took on international dimensions. Facing public outrage, the South Korean government launched an investigation into possible human rights violations against its citizens employed at the Hyundai facility. Khattar Singh notes that this move placed Washington in an uncomfortable diplomatic position.

Hauer believes the probe is likely an internal initiative by the South Korean capital of Seoul to reassure its domestic audience rather than an accusation aimed squarely at the United States. Though he does not want to overstate it as a major diplomatic rupture, he acknowledges that it forced US officials to act defensively. Reports indicated that the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security began coordinating to ensure that the immigration records of deported workers were cleared so they could return.

For both Hauer and Khattar Singh, this episode illustrates how labor enforcement in one state can spiral into a foreign policy headache. The US, long seen as a reliable investment destination, suddenly appeared unpredictable — particularly when global companies employ a transnational workforce with complex visa histories.

More raids coming?

The broader question, Khattar Singh asks, is whether the Hyundai operation signals more such actions ahead. Hauer is skeptical. He predicts that this situation won’t recur, reasoning that the government will likely exercise greater caution after the backlash. While acknowledging the administration’s willingness to take aggressive action, he does not foresee a pattern of raids targeting high-profile corporations.

Still, he cautions that the damage is not purely reputational. Foreign investors should take away lessons in proactive engagement. A company investing millions in US facilities must build early relationships with government stakeholders. Had Hyundai worked with the US Embassy in Seoul to establish streamlined visa pathways, the crisis could have been averted.

Hauer sees the incident as a failure of relationship management rather than evidence of hostility to foreign business. He describes the administration as simultaneously “friendly” to investment and “negligent” in enforcement. That duality of welcoming capital while mishandling compliance creates uncertainty. His advice to corporations is to be sharp, not scared: Hire experienced advisers, anticipate scrutiny and document the economic value they bring.

What should immigrants do?

The conversation concludes with practical guidance for immigrants. Hauer stresses that individuals on visas cannot assume stability in the current environment. He advises them to check in with their immigration attorneys every few months, likening it to a routine dental appointment. Rules can shift rapidly, and the US Department of State’s Foreign Affairs Manual, once a reliable guide for consular officials, has been largely eliminated.

For workers with pending applications or prior infractions, he warns that leniency is no longer guaranteed. Even minor lapses can now trigger severe consequences. Khattar Singh presses him on whether the raid reflects a political effort to energize anti-immigrant sentiment. Hauer rejects that interpretation outright. He maintains that the event was “one additional misstep” rather than a calculated message to the president’s political base.

Yet he acknowledges a deeper cultural problem: Anti-immigrant sentiment remains the “connective tissue” that binds extremes on both the right and left. It surfaces during moments of social tension and feeds on economic fear. The Hyundai raid, viewed in that light, is less a singular scandal than a symptom of a nation still struggling to balance enforcement, compassion and global credibility.

Hauer closes by recommending immigrants to stay informed, maintain clean records and seek professional advice early rather than wait for crises. Businesses, meanwhile, must understand that the US remains open for investment — but no longer offers the predictability it once promised.

[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 Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with Douglas Hauer, a former partner at Mintz and a lawyer with nearly three decades of experience, about the sudden Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raid at the Hyundai Motor Company’s Georgia plant. Hauer calls the event a…”
post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Douglas discuss the recent ICE raid at Hyundai’s Georgia plant, which signals a reckless enforcement shift with diplomatic fallout. South Korea’s probe and the US backpedaling expose the raid’s global repercussions. Immigrants should stay legally vigilant and companies should engage the government early to prevent similar crises.”
post-date=”Oct 20, 2025″
post-title=”FO° Talks: Will South Korean Companies Reconsider Business in America After the Hyundai ICE Raid?” slug-data=”fo-talks-will-south-korean-companies-reconsider-business-in-america-after-the-hyundai-ice-raid”>

FO° Talks: Will South Korean Companies Reconsider Business in America After the Hyundai ICE Raid?

Douglas Hauer”
post_date=”October 19, 2025 06:09″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/world-news/fo-talks-what-does-trumps-h-1b-visa-fine-mean-for-us-india-relations/” pid=”158698″
post-content=”

Fair Observer’s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with Douglas Hauer, a former partner at Mintz and a lawyer with nearly three decades of experience, about the US President Donald Trump’s surprise announcement imposing a $100,000 annual fee on new H-1B visa applications. The discussion examines the legal foundation of the measure, its market effects, and what it reveals about the direction of US immigration policy.

Legal ambiguity and administrative turmoil

Hauer begins by clarifying that the new rule, announced September 19, is not automatically enforceable. Its legality depends on whether courts allow implementation, since the administration bypassed standard rule-making procedures requiring public notice and comment. If blocked, it could be frozen before taking effect.

Should it proceed, employers will need to prove each foreign hire serves the “national interest of the United States.” Hauer predicts this evidentiary burden will shrink H-1B hiring, particularly in technology. The outcome, he explains, will be a trickle-down effect hurting international graduates on F-1 student visas who normally transition to H-1B roles after science, technology, engineering and mathematics training. Many may instead seek employment in Canada, the European Union or elsewhere.

Initial confusion worsened matters. The announcement first seemed to cover all H-1B holders before the White House clarified it applied only to new applicants. Hauer calls this political backpedaling, typical of an administration that releases sweeping ideas and then retreats once consequences become clear.

Hauer recalls a client who waited eight hours for an L-1 visa to be processed at a Canadian airport checkpoint, a procedure that usually takes only 15 minutes. This underscores the immediate administrative chaos the rule created.

Costs, ethics and corporate pressure

Khattar Singh next raises the key question: Who pays the $100,000 fee? Hauer confirms employers bear the cost but issues an ethical warning: Any firm asking employees to help cover the fee behaves unethically. Forcing repayment through unpaid labor, he argues, risks creating “a type of indentured servitude.” He cautions that some employers might expect workers to spend nearly half a year repaying these costs, an arrangement he says would violate both the spirit and ethics of US labor law.

Lobbying by large corporations led to a partial rollback. Tech and finance giants — Amazon, Microsoft, JPMorgan Chase and others — can afford selective sponsorships and were extremely influential in getting the administration to “walk this back.” Smaller firms, however, may lose global competitiveness under the new cost burden.

Disproportionate impact and the role of race

Khattar Singh cites a statistic that roughly 70% of all H-1B visas go to Indian nationals, many in IT and engineering. That concentration, Hauer argues, makes the rule racially and geographically discriminatory. Drawing a parallel to the Chinese Exclusion Acts of the 1880s, he contends racial bias has long shaped US immigration law and continues today.

“I think […] race figures into their policies on immigration all the time,” Hauer says. He asserts that the $100,000 fee is “absolutely meant to block many people from coming to the United States who are from India.” Such exclusion, he adds, is both racist and self-defeating. The US, he notes, has long benefited from Indian technical expertise — without which Apple, Microsoft and Amazon might not thrive.

A deteriorating climate for immigrants

Hauer warns that the US has become “unfriendly to immigrants more so than ever, probably since the 1880s.” He advises F-1 visa holders to reflect before committing to long-term US careers. The atmosphere of hostility, he predicts, will not vanish quickly, even once the administration changes. He speculates that a future administration could be even more ruthless, faulting both parties for decades of inaction.

Democrats, he says, have sat idly by for over 20 years, failing to modernize immigration in that time. Meanwhile, corporations that can afford lobbyists may tolerate the fee rather than fight it, leaving smaller employers and international talent exposed.

Exemptions and the road ahead

Hauer concludes with a note of conditional optimism. If courts do not overturn the rule, he expects national interest exemptions — likely for artificial intelligence, medical technology, healthcare institutions, satellites and semiconductor production. These carve-outs could be “fairly broadly construed,” tempering the worst effects but leaving the broader message intact: the door to US immigration is narrowing.

For Khattar Singh, the conversation underscores a larger trend: how economic nationalism is reshaping immigration into a privilege reserved for strategic industries, rather than a shared engine of growth. Whether courts block the policy or not, Hauer sees it as a test case in the ongoing struggle between political symbolism and the rule of law.

[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 Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with Douglas Hauer, a former partner at Mintz and a lawyer with nearly three decades of experience, about the US President Donald Trump’s surprise announcement imposing a $100,000 annual fee on new H-1B visa applications. The discussion…”
post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Doug Hauer discuss US President Donald Trump’s controversial decision to impose a $100,000 annual fee on new H-1B visas. Hauer warns that the policy, though legally uncertain, will shrink skilled immigration, especially from India. He predicts partial exemptions for strategic industries but a lasting chill toward immigrants.”
post-date=”Oct 19, 2025″
post-title=”FO° Talks: What Does Trump’s H-1B Visa Fine Mean for US–India Relations?” slug-data=”fo-talks-what-does-trumps-h-1b-visa-fine-mean-for-us-india-relations”>

FO° Talks: What Does Trump’s H-1B Visa Fine Mean for US–India Relations?

Ilia Shumanov”
post_date=”October 18, 2025 04:02″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/business/fo-talks-russian-diamonds-flood-europe-and-america-despite-sanctions-heres-how/” pid=”158679″
post-content=”

Fair Observer’s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with Director of Arctida Ilia Shumanov about how Russian diamonds continue entering Western markets despite sanctions. Shumanov, who has long reported on corruption, explains that the diamond trade offers a textbook case of legal evasion. Russia, the world’s largest source of rough diamonds, officially faces bans from the US, the UK and the EU. Yet its stones still sparkle in luxury boutiques across those same markets. The secret lies in a laundering triangle involving Russia, its “friendly” partners and the G7.

Russian diamond smuggling

Shumanov outlines how the network works. Rough stones leave Russia for “friendly countries” such as the United Arab Emirates, India and Armenia. There, they are cut, polished and certified. Once re-exported to Western destinations, they carry new paperwork claiming non-Russian origin.

Sanctions imposed in 2022 banned direct imports from Alrosa, the state-linked mining giant, but not diamonds processed elsewhere. So diamond producers can pull a technical trick: Russian diamonds become legally Indian or Armenian on paper. According to Shumanov, this bureaucratic disguise ensures that the volume of Russian stones in G7 markets remains unchanged from pre-sanction years.

Who profits?

Khattar Singh asks who truly benefits from this business. Shumanov explains that Alrosa and, by extension, the Russian state are still the principal winners. Alrosa has preserved its cashflow almost intact, channeling billions into Moscow’s budget through parallel routes. The secondary profiteers, he adds, are the middlemen — Dubai’s traders, Indian cutting houses and new Armenian brokers who have turned paperwork and logistics into a business of their own. Western retailers, too, are implicated.

“They know,” Shumanov insists, that every third diamond mined globally originates in Russia. Luxury stores prefer to rely on documents showing an Indian or Armenian source, even though “there are no Armenian […] diamond mines at all.”

Armenia’s role

Armenia, Shumanov notes, is the most surprising node in the chain. Official data show its diamond exports exceeded half a billion dollars in 2023, even though 96% of its imports came from Russia. The country has become the “ultimate loophole,” a jurisdiction untouched by US or EU sanctions where Russian stones can be legally processed and recertified. Once stamped with Armenian paperwork, they often move to Dubai and then into European and American markets.

Russian media have linked this flow to a Financial Stability Board-exposed embezzlement scheme involving Alrosa stones and Armenian companies, suggesting political complicity. For Shumanov, Armenia functions as a legal interface designed for “laundering the status and origin” of Russian gems.

How Alrosa evades sanctions

When Khattar Singh asks about Alrosa’s apparent resilience, Shumanov states that the company has multiplied proxies. After Alrosa was sanctioned, new firms, such as the Far Eastern Diamond Center, Trading Horizont and the First Brilliant Company, suddenly appeared. Their executives are former Alrosa employees. These fronts now handle shipments greater than Alrosa’s official exports. None are named on Western sanctions lists, making enforcement nearly impossible.

Shumanov calls them “classic cutouts,” noting that the West’s fixation on a single corporate name allowed Russia to rebrand its diamond trade overnight.

Blockchain tracks Russian diamonds

Khattar Singh turns to the technology fix. The G7 and Belgium have championed blockchain tracing systems that could follow a diamond’s origin from mine to boutique. Shumanov calls this innovation a “silver bullet” in theory, but “not actually implemented” in reality. The system covers only rough stones above one carat and remains voluntary.

Worse, the US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control granted a license in 2024 allowing global trade in Russian diamonds sold before March of that year. This, Shumanov says, opened a gaping loophole: Sellers can simply claim their stock predates the cutoff. Blockchain verification collapses under such claims because there is no global enforcement body ensuring truthful reporting.

Russia finds loopholes in sanctions

This situation parallels Russian oil being rerouted through India before returning to Western consumers as non-Russian refined fuel. Shumanov agrees that the diamond pattern mirrors that trade. “Friendly countries” like India, the UAE and Armenia, he says, have no incentive to enforce Western sanctions when they profit from the arbitrage. The West, meanwhile, prefers to maintain supply for its luxury markets. Political friction and limited regulatory capacity make it easier to look the other way. Russia, therefore, continues to fund its budget through diamonds.

Shumanov delivers a stark verdict: Western sanctions have failed. The stones may have new passports, but their glitter still finances Moscow’s war machine.

[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 Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with Director of Arctida Ilia Shumanov about how Russian diamonds continue entering Western markets despite sanctions. Shumanov, who has long reported on corruption, explains that the diamond trade offers a textbook case of legal evasion….”
post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Ilia Shumanov discuss how Russian diamonds continue entering Western markets despite sanctions. Russian stones are laundered through friendly countries like India, the United Arab Emirates and Armenia, exploiting legal loopholes. The operation exposes how global luxury markets still fund Russia’s economy under new labels.”
post-date=”Oct 18, 2025″
post-title=”FO° Talks: Russian Diamonds Flood Europe and America Despite Sanctions, Here’s How” slug-data=”fo-talks-russian-diamonds-flood-europe-and-america-despite-sanctions-heres-how”>

FO° Talks: Russian Diamonds Flood Europe and America Despite Sanctions, Here’s How

Agustina Vergara Cid”
post_date=”October 16, 2025 06:51″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/politics/fo-talks-trump-administration-targets-legal-and-illegal-immigrants-with-ice-raids-heres-how/” pid=”158645″
post-content=”

Fair Observer’s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with Agustina Vergara Cid, an immigration law expert and Young Voices contributor, about her journey from Argentina to the United States and the state of US immigration under US President Donald Trump. Cid recently became a US citizen after a long, complex process that inspired her article for The Hill, titled “I just became an American citizen — don’t close the door behind me.” Becoming an American was not only a personal milestone for her, but also a call to defend the nation’s founding ideals, which she believes are at risk of being undermined by an unjust immigration system.

Cid’s legal journey to citizenship was difficult, expensive and emotionally draining. She arrived on a student visa and had to navigate a maze of legal categories, paperwork and fees. The process was so restrictive that it forced her to make painful sacrifices. Because those adjusting their immigration status cannot leave the country without risking their application, she was unable to visit her father in Argentina before he died. Thus, she views the immigration system as inhumane and detached from the values that America claims to uphold.

Immigration system

Cid describes the US immigration system as overly bureaucratic and structurally exclusionary. She argues that for most people who want to live and work in the country, there are simply not enough legal pathways. The law has evolved into what she calls an “anti-immigration system” — one that discourages and penalizes even those who attempt to comply with its requirements.

She frames the problem as a moral contradiction within American identity. Cid says she chose to become a citizen because she admired the principles of liberty and equality that define the nation’s founding story. Yet she finds that the system now betrays those ideals. She characterizes it as cruel, unfair and un-American, saying that it closes the door to others who wish to follow in her footsteps.

Discussing public attitudes, Cid remarks that the idea of America as a “land of immigrants” has been more myth than reality since the 1920s, when severe restrictions were first enacted. She attributes anti-immigrant sentiment partly to political fear-mongering, where leaders portray migrants as criminals to gain support for harsh enforcement.

However, she also believes that ordinary Americans are welcoming once they meet immigrants in person. She cites polling that shows record-high public support for immigration. This shift, she reasons, is a growing recognition that aggressive enforcement harms not only undocumented workers but also their law-abiding neighbors and coworkers.

Life for immigrants under Trump

Singh asks about the real-world effects of Trump-era policies on immigrant communities. Cid responds that the past decade has been defined by fear and uncertainty. She argues that the government’s focus on deportations, combined with military-style raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), created what she calls a “reign of terror” for both legal and undocumented immigrants.

According to her, the enforcement system under Trump blurred the line between legal and illegal status. Even those who followed every legal requirement — such as asylum seekers and green card holders — found themselves at risk of detention or revocation of status. She adds that some US citizens were mistakenly detained without access to lawyers or family, a violation of their constitutional rights.

Cid clarifies key legal distinctions: Entering the country without authorization is a criminal offense, while overstaying a visa is a civil violation. Yet she stresses that most undocumented immigrants are working people who contribute to society but lack a feasible legal route to do so. To her, the system punishes effort and compliance rather than rewarding them.

Trump 1.0 vs. Trump 2.0

Comparing the two Trump terms (2017–2020 versus now), Cid observes a major shift in focus. During Trump’s first presidency, the emphasis was on external barriers — the physical wall and restrictive regulations advocates call “Trump’s invisible wall.” The second term, she says, centers on internal enforcement: large-scale deportations and intensified removal operations.

She points out that former US President Barack Obama oversaw more deportations than Trump’s first administration, but the tone and tactics differ sharply. The current approach, she argues, prioritizes extracting people who are already integrated into American communities “by any means necessary,” often disregarding due process. While she agrees that violent offenders should be deported, she insists that most ICE targets are peaceful, law-abiding residents. Cid cites cases where asylum-seekers with pending claims were forcibly returned to dangerous conditions abroad, calling this a profound breach of both law and morality.

Advice to immigrants

Despite the turmoil, Cid ends on a note of cautious optimism. She urges immigrants to be meticulous about their applications, stressing that even minor errors can lead to rejection. Her strongest advice is to secure legal representation, since navigating the system without expert help has become nearly impossible.

Cid acknowledges that these are “very dark times” for immigrants, but she continues to see America as a beacon of freedom whose core values can endure. She expresses faith that the country will ultimately correct its course and live up to the promise that drew generations of newcomers to its shores. For her, the long road to citizenship serves as both a warning and a reminder: The ideals that make America worth joining must be defended by those who have fought hardest to be part of it.

[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 Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with Agustina Vergara Cid, an immigration law expert and Young Voices contributor, about her journey from Argentina to the United States and the state of US immigration under US President Donald Trump. Cid recently became a US citizen…”
post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Agustina Vergara Cid discuss her path to US citizenship and the challenges facing immigrants under America’s restrictive legal framework. Cid contrasts American ideals with an exclusionary, unjust system. She warns that US President Donald Trump’s deportation drive deepens fear but urges immigrants to persist and seek legal support.”
post-date=”Oct 16, 2025″
post-title=”FO° Talks: Trump Administration Targets Legal and Illegal Immigrants with ICE Raids, Here’s How” slug-data=”fo-talks-trump-administration-targets-legal-and-illegal-immigrants-with-ice-raids-heres-how”>

FO° Talks: Trump Administration Targets Legal and Illegal Immigrants with ICE Raids, Here’s How

Kyle Moran”
post_date=”October 15, 2025 07:16″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/region/latin_america/fo-talks-venezuelas-maduro-rallies-his-supporters-as-tensions-with-us-escalate/” pid=”158649″
post-content=”

Fair Observer’s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with Kyle Moran, a political commentator and Young Voices contributor, about rising hostilities between the US and Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. The discussion explores US military strikes, oil and drug politics, regional instability and the risk that tensions could turn into open conflict.

US–Venezuela tensions

Singh notes “quite a bit of escalation” in recent weeks. US forces have carried out multiple strikes on Venezuelan boats allegedly carrying narcotics bound for the US, the latest (at time of recording) on September 15, 2025. The Pentagon has also moved aircraft and naval assets into the Caribbean, prompting speculation about preparations for war.

Moran characterizes the American strategy as one of “maximum pressure and minimum coherence.” While Washington tightens sanctions, it still allows Chevron Corporation to operate oil wells in Venezuela. The policy makes little sense because Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A., the state-owned giant, controls all exports and has even blocked shipments over unpaid fees. Since Chevron cannot pay in dollars, it compensates the regime in crude oil — effectively free oil for Maduro. Pursuing this policy while increasing military pressure, Moran argues, demonstrates the inconsistency at the heart of US strategy.

Trump wants war?

The US buildup includes Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighter jets in Puerto Rico and Navy destroyers near Venezuelan waters. Washington calls the attacks anti-narcotics operations, while Maduro claims they hit civilians. Moran believes a full invasion is unlikely, but intermediate military actions remain possible.

He argues that Maduro “has had a terrible track record” and accuses him of aiding drug networks like Cartellis de Solas and Tren Aragua. Moran agrees with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s condemnations, viewing the regime’s narco-terrorism links as a financial lifeline amid cash shortages. He predicts growing military escalation in the region.

Can Maduro respond?

Maduro claims to have mobilized eight million militia volunteers, but Moran says intelligence suggests the move is largely symbolic. He doubts Venezuela’s ability to counter modern US operations, arguing that its forces would struggle severely.

Moran sees the regime’s show of unity as political theater: Maduro must project national cohesion, yet the ground reality is very different. Once richer than many European countries, Venezuela now faces extreme poverty, food shortages and hyperinflation. Moran expresses sympathy for ordinary citizens and says the regime’s loss of legitimacy is “hard to overstate.”

Drugs or oil?

Venezuela holds the world’s largest oil reserves, but sanctions restrict sales mostly to China, India and Iran. The US has recently resumed small-scale purchases, a move Moran criticizes. When Singh asks whether this conflict is about oil or drugs, Moran replies that “the simple answer to that is it’s about the drugs.”

Moran labels the renewed oil purchases a “very bad misstep” akin to the era of US President Joe Biden, forced by high energy prices. The administration of US President Donald Trump both revoked and later restored oil licenses, undercutting its own maximum pressure campaign. Such policy swings, he says, expose Washington’s strategic incoherence.

China and Russia

Over ten million Venezuelans have fled abroad, destabilizing neighbors like Colombia. Moran highlights the territorial dispute over the Essequibo region with Guyana, calling Venezuela’s annexation threat an “existential threat to […] Guyana.” Guyana is firmly aligned with the US, while Brazilian President Lula da Silva performs a “delicate balancing act” — opposing war but sympathetic to Maduro.

Among global patrons, Moran believes China wields far greater influence than Russia. He rejects the claim that US drilling deters Chinese dominance, calling it “a fever dream” designed to justify Chevron’s presence. The oil output gains from this policy, he adds, are extremely unfortunate.

Will tensions spike?

Moran predicts further action against the Venezuelan capital of Caracas. He foresees strikes stronger than recent boat attacks but short of invasion. Moran insists Trump is “not a war hawk” yet “not an isolationist.” He will use force if he deems it in the national interest.

Given deployments, Moran does not see this conflict simply disappearing, though he stops short of predicting regime change. If US forces down Venezuelan aircraft, Maduro will face a dilemma: retaliate and risk collapse, or stand down and appear weak. “If he starts bombing or really messing around with US military personnel,” Moran warns, “this is going to end badly for him.”

Moran concludes that a decisive attack would end Maduro’s regime, but limited conflict now seems more likely than peace.

[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 Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with Kyle Moran, a political commentator and Young Voices contributor, about rising hostilities between the US and Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. The discussion explores US military strikes, oil and drug politics, regional…”
post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Kyle Moran examine escalating US-Venezuela tensions, sparked by American strikes on alleged drug-running vessels and a broader military buildup. Moran argues Washington’s approach mixes pressure with confusion — sanctioning Caracas while allowing the Chevron Corporation to drill for oil. He predicts further US action and warns that regional instability could intensify.”
post-date=”Oct 15, 2025″
post-title=”FO° Talks: Venezuela’s Maduro Rallies His Supporters as Tensions With US Escalate” slug-data=”fo-talks-venezuelas-maduro-rallies-his-supporters-as-tensions-with-us-escalate”>

FO° Talks: Venezuela’s Maduro Rallies His Supporters as Tensions With US Escalate

Saya Kiba”
post_date=”October 14, 2025 06:34″
pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/region/asia_pacific/fo-talks-japans-ties-with-philippines-soar-amid-china-tensions-will-india-join-the-alliance/” pid=”158622″
post-content=”

Rohan Khattar Singh, Fair Observer’s Video Producer & Social Media Manager, speaks with Saya Kiba, an associate professor at Japan’s Kobe City University of Foreign Studies, regarding the growing importance of the Philippines in Southeast Asia and its deepening partnership with Japan. Their conversation traces history, new security arrangements and the potential role of India in shaping regional dynamics.

Japan–Philippines relations

Khattar Singh notes that the Philippines is seen as Japan’s most trusted ally in Asia. Kiba recalls how former Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida called the relationship a “golden age” two years ago, echoed by Filipino President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. during Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba’s visit this year.

Post-World War II relations were strained. Reparations concluded by the 1970s, but anti-Japanese sentiment lingered. Over time, “people-to-people exchange” transformed perceptions. Japanese businesspeople gained a reputation for being sincere, unlike wartime memories. In the 1980s and 1990s, Filipino entertainers migrated to Japan, married and settled there, deepening social links.

This exchange expanded further after the 2008 Free Trade Agreement, when Filipino nurses and caregivers began working in Japan, aiding its aging society. Japanese youth also traveled to the Philippines for English education, as they admired Filipino teachers. Conversely, Filipinos valued Japan’s public order, safety and cleanliness, qualities seen as rare in the region. Khattar Singh calls this transformation a “brilliant case study” in how grassroots connections foster alliances beyond formal diplomacy.

Tensions with China

China’s assertive actions in the West Philippine Sea remain the “elephant in the seas.” Kiba describes rising tensions, and Khattar Singh notes Beijing’s bullying behavior toward the Philippine capital of Manila.

Japan and the Philippines share a commitment to freedom of navigation. Japan has bolstered the Philippines’ maritime capacity with advanced incoherent scatter radar systems. Though Tokyo’s rules forbid lethal weapons, these exports strengthen the Philippines’ monitoring and defense capacity.

Japan also supplies Coast Guard vessels through Official Development Assistance. Though framed as tools for law enforcement, they are deployed in contested waters like Scarborough Shoal in the South China Sea, often facing Chinese challenges. These moves show how Japan balances pacifist limits with real-world security needs and growing pressure from its regional environment.

Balikatan 2025

Cooperation accelerated with the 2024 Reciprocal Access Agreement, which eased joint operations between the Philippine military and Japan’s Self-Defense Forces. As a result, Japan joined the 2025 Balikatan exercise as a full participant.

Kiba calls this shift remarkable, given Balikatan’s historic focus on Philippine-US ties. Japan’s inclusion demonstrates Tokyo’s growing seriousness and signals that its role in regional security is changing. For Khattar Singh, it also illustrates how Japan’s cautious stance is giving way to more proactive engagement, driven by shared concerns over China and regional stability.

India–Japan–Philippines partnership

Khattar Singh and Kiba then turn their attention to India. Kiba highlights former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s lasting impact, which linked Japan’s strategy with India. India has supplied BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles to Manila, and President Marcos visited the Indian capital of New Delhi recently. These developments signal stronger defense ties.

A trilateral alliance of India, Japan and the Philippines is not formalized, but analysts are discussing it at the Track II level — when non-state actors converse to reduce tensions between conflicting groups. India, unlike Japan, does not face pacifist constraints on arms exports. It can provide maritime awareness systems and equipment more freely, making it an attractive partner for Manila. Khattar Singh and Kiba agree that a future framework could significantly boost Indo-Pacific security.

What do Filipinos feel?

Based on her personal experience, Kiba praises the Philippines’ vibrant political culture, with voter turnout exceeding 80%, far higher than Japan’s. She admires Filipinos’ civic engagement and commitment to free speech.

Filipinos increasingly see Japan as a top tourist destination and model of governance. Once viewed mainly as a source of jobs, Japan is now sought out for education and business opportunities. For many, Japanese institutions embody stability, order and reliability. Kiba concludes that Filipinos hold strong respect for Japan’s achievements and admire its ability to maintain social cohesion.

Future of Japan–Philippines ties

Kiba notes that the Philippines has a median age of 25 and believes Japan must refresh its view. Her generation saw the Philippines as a developing aid recipient, but today’s Japanese youth see it as modern and even a source of teachers.

Khattar Singh agrees Japan must adapt. The Philippines is emerging as a provider of regional public goods. For example, in 2021, the Japanese government issued disaster relief equipment to aid the Philippines during Typhoon Rai. Then, in February 2023, Philippine forces reused this equipment to aid Turkey, providing earthquake relief. Manila is also exploring South–South cooperation, supporting other developing nations and aspiring to donor status.

Kiba predicts such initiatives will grow. With shared democratic values, expanding defense ties and deep cultural links, Japan and the Philippines have positioned themselves not just as allies but as co-providers of stability in Southeast Asia and the broader Indo-Pacific.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

”
post-content-short=”
Rohan Khattar Singh, Fair Observer’s Video Producer & Social Media Manager, speaks with Saya Kiba, an associate professor at Japan’s Kobe City University of Foreign Studies, regarding the growing importance of the Philippines in Southeast Asia and its deepening partnership with Japan….”
post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Saya Kiba explore how Japan and the Philippines have built trust through decades of cultural exchange and stand together in the face of rising regional tensions. They highlight joint security efforts and Japan’s growing role as a defense partner. They also consider India’s place in this evolving Indo-Pacific partnership.”
post-date=”Oct 14, 2025″
post-title=”FO° Talks: Japan’s Ties With Philippines Soar Amid China Tensions. Will India Join the Alliance?” slug-data=”fo-talks-japans-ties-with-philippines-soar-amid-china-tensions-will-india-join-the-alliance”>

FO° Talks: Japan’s Ties With Philippines Soar Amid China Tensions. Will India Join the Alliance?