This web page was created programmatically, to learn the article in its unique location you’ll be able to go to the hyperlink bellow:
https://www.fairobserver.com/video/fo-talks-gen-zs-anti-left-shift-women-turn-to-conservative-and-religious-lifestyle/
and if you wish to take away this text from our web site please contact us
Rohan Khattar Singh, Fair Observer’s Video Producer & Social Media Manager, speaks with Anna Mays, a Young Voices contributor, about why American girls from Generation Z are turning away from progressive politics and adopting cultural conservatism. They spotlight disillusionment with the guarantees of the left, the attraction of conventional existence and the rising affect of religion and social media.
Mays defines the left as a broad progressive ideology in American life that places emphasis on deconstructing the household, increasing authorities applications, prioritizing autonomy and dismantling gender norms. For many Gen Z girls, this has not delivered the enjoyment and group it promised.
Her era was taught that success meant avoiding household life and specializing in careers, but many younger girls really feel burnt out and lonely. Rejecting hookup tradition and following traditions like motherhood now seem extra fulfilling.
Khattar Singh observes that Gen Z girls are sad with the lives they have been advised to stay. Polling exhibits increased charges of hysteria and dissatisfaction in comparison with earlier generations. Mays sees no coincidence that this group is each essentially the most progressive and the least blissful. She emphasizes that this discontent is just not summary however rooted in lived every day expertise — stress, shallow relationships and lack of help. It is that this hole between principle and actuality, she argues, that fuels the seek for new choices.
Mays stresses that the change is especially cultural, not political. Many nonetheless vote for the left, however their lives transfer proper. A spot has opened between how girls stay and the political beliefs they as soon as embraced.
She notes that life-style typically precedes political realignment. As individuals achieve work and household expertise, they have an inclination to lean conservative. Many discover it tough to maintain a life the place every day decisions contradict political opinions.
Still, Mays emphasizes that the motivation is just not partisan. Women are looking for extra fulfilling lives, with politics generally adjusting later. Over time, she suggests, this widening hole may create important stress on conventional get together loyalties. The small cultural decisions of in the present day — rejecting hookup tradition, prioritizing household, selecting religion — might develop into the political dividing strains of tomorrow.
Mays argues the left guarantees autonomy however fails to ship group. Rhetoric about liberation rings hole when the end result is fractured relationships and widespread psychological well being struggles.
When freedom produces isolation, individuals conclude: This is just not happiness. Cultural conservatism fills that void by providing function and rootedness, even when it cuts in opposition to cultural expectations.
Conservative influencers on the social media platforms TikTookay, Instagram and YouTube are gaining hundreds of thousands of followers by mixing life-style content material with cultural critique. Many spotlight their Christian religion. For audiences uninterested in progressive beliefs, this creates an interesting package deal: clear morals, pleasure and stability. Whether or not viewers undertake Christianity, they’re drawn to the consistency.
She believes that is greater than a passing fad. Real life-style modifications like embracing motherhood will doubtless outlast viral cycles. These influencers should not simply creating content material; they’re modeling another lifestyle that resonates with hundreds of thousands of younger girls who crave stability and that means.
Khattar Singh asks whether or not that is international. Mays factors to Sweden, the place younger girls influenced by conservative voices embrace sluggish dwelling and conventional roles.
While the pattern is most seen within the West, the place progressive concepts are strongest, such change is stirring elsewhere. In areas the place the household stays sturdy, like different elements of Europe and India, the shift is much less apparent however nonetheless current. This means that cultural conservatism is an element of a bigger worldwide sample, not simply an American backlash.
Mays credit early feminism for increasing rights however argues it was later hijacked. Instead of celebrating female roles, it inspired girls to undertake masculine-coded behaviors — full-time work and a rejection of motherhood.
She requires a brand new female motion that validates decisions past the “girlboss” archetype. Khattar Singh agrees this flip towards custom and faith warrants shut consideration. They stress that this isn’t a retreat from progress, however a requirement for broader definitions of success and success that resonate with girls’s lived experiences.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed on this article/video are the writer’s personal and don’t essentially replicate Fair Observer’s editorial coverage.
” post-content-short=” Rohan Khattar Singh, Fair Observer’s Video Producer & Social Media Manager, speaks with Anna Mays, a Young Voices contributor, about why American girls from Generation Z are turning away from progressive politics and adopting cultural conservatism. They spotlight disillusionment with the…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Anna Mays examine why Gen Z women are leaving progressive politics for right-aligned lifestyles. Disillusionment with autonomy and burnout has pushed many toward traditional roles, faith and community. Social media influencers amplify this shift, raising questions about feminism, politics and the global spread of cultural conservatism.” post-date=”Oct 09, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Gen Z’s Anti-Left Shift: Women Turn to Conservative and Religious Lifestyle” slug-data=”fo-talks-gen-zs-anti-left-shift-women-turn-to-conservative-and-religious-lifestyle”>Rohan Khattar Singh, Fair Observer’s Video Producer & Social Media Manager, speaks with Anna Mays, a Young Voices contributor. Together, they study the decline of Christian church attendance within the United States. They evaluate organized faith with cultural giants just like the National Football League (NFL) and streaming platforms, asking whether or not these have develop into the “new sacred.”
Mays argues that the church’s future will depend on returning to its core mission quite than competing with leisure. She believes that religion establishments should rediscover their distinctive strengths — non secular nourishment, ethical instructing and real group — quite than imitating the ways of shopper tradition. This rediscovery may permit the church to thrive in a distracted age.
Mays begins with a provocative analogy: For many Americans, NFL Sundays are handled as extra sacred than church. Football followers present extraordinary dedication — displaying up weekly, dressing the half and investing emotionally. Yet church attendance has collapsed, with solely about 20% of Americans attending weekly.
What does American society actually worth: faith or sports activities? Mays argues that the NFL, Netflix or perhaps a restful sofa ought to by no means outrank God. For her, the very best human function is being in relationship with God, and church companies ought to stand above all different choices.
Khattar Singh ponders if the digital age explains the decline. Mays disagrees, saying the issue is just not too many decisions however the church’s try to compete with them. Churches that attempt to “out-Netflix Netflix” or “out-comfort the couch,” she says, will at all times lose. The church should stay targeted on worship and group rooted in Jesus Christ.
She critiques the pattern of overly comforting sermons that dilute the gospel into palatable slogans. Asked if the church has fallen behind technologically, Mays responds that the problem is preferences, not platforms. People formed by TikTookay’s eight-second clips want distraction over prayer or scripture.
The answer, Mays insists, is just not imitation however reordering priorities towards what’s fulfilling and everlasting. In her framing, digital instruments may be useful, however they need to by no means develop into substitutes for the deeper calling of discipleship, which can’t be compressed into a brief video or a catchy headline.
While many church buildings have weakened, Mays sees others holding true to biblical mandates. She factors to Generation Z as proof: Many are leaving progressive denominations that emphasize consolation and as a substitute gravitating towards extra orthodox practices, such because the Latin Mass.
She cites information displaying the Presbyterian Church USA misplaced over 140 congregations and 150,000 members in a single yr, whereas the United Methodist Church is experiencing a historic fracture. Mays interprets these developments as proof that her era has found cultural success and social media doesn’t result in happiness. Instead, they’re drawn to the “what is true, what is good and what is more beautiful” — which, as scripture says, is God.
Khattar Singh highlights the NFL’s monumental cultural footprint, noting that stars like quarterback Tom Brady and tight finish Rob Gronkowski get pleasure from international recognition. Mays agrees, situating soccer alongside figures like singers Taylor Swift or Beyoncé.
She displays on how the group has been redefined. It as soon as meant neighbors who worshiped with you and cared for you in want. Now, group is usually primarily based on hobbies or fandoms. While not inherently unhealthy, such loyalties develop into dangerous in the event that they take priority over God. To illustrate, she recollects the Israelites’ golden calf and thinker Plato’s warnings about misordered priorities. Khattar Singh remarks that the NFL has constructed loyalty that the church has did not match.
Asked how the church can attain Generations Z and Alpha, Mays presents three factors: First, it should proclaim the complete gospel with out watering it down. People, she argues, are drawn to reality, and the Bible speaks to that need.
Second, it should transfer away from seeker-sensitive actions and shallow sermons. While Jesus says “come as you are,” Mays stresses he by no means stated “stay as you are.” The mission is to make disciples who make disciples.
Finally, Mays emphasizes prayer and reliance on God. Christians ought to embrace their weak spot compared to God’s power. This humility, she argues, is the muse of a stronger church in a position to achieve new “souls for heaven.” If the church remembers that success is measured not in numbers or reputation however in faithfulness, it might regain credibility and encourage future generations to construct lasting communities of hope and devotion.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed on this article/video are the writer’s personal and don’t essentially replicate Fair Observer’s editorial coverage.
” post-content-short=” Rohan Khattar Singh, Fair Observer’s Video Producer & Social Media Manager, speaks with Anna Mays, a Young Voices contributor. Together, they study the decline of Christian church attendance within the United States. They evaluate organized faith with cultural giants just like the National…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Anna Mays discuss the decline of church attendance in the United States and the cultural dominance of the NFL and streaming services. Mays believes that Christian churches should not imitate entertainment trends but return to their Biblical mission, renewing focus on truth, discipleship and prayer.” post-date=”Oct 08, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Netflix and NFL Are More Popular Than Church, Gen Z Moving Away From Religion?” slug-data=”fo-talks-netflix-and-nfl-are-more-popular-than-church-gen-z-moving-away-from-religion”>Martin Plaut, a journalist, tutorial and writer, delivers a sweeping historic account of African enslavement throughout 5 millennia, tracing its international routes, atrocities and lasting legacies. He additional highlights its brutality and enduring affect.
Plaut opens with a quote from former African American slave Elizabeth Freeman: “Any time while I was a slave, if one minute’s freedom had been offered to me, and I had been told I must die at the end of that minute, I would have taken it — just to stand one minute on God’s earth a free woman — I would.” For Plaut, this testimony captures the essence of slavery’s horror and the immeasurable worth of freedom.
Plaut turns to the transatlantic slave commerce, which lasted from 1444 to the 1850s. While the outlines are acquainted, he emphasizes that tens of hundreds additionally got here from Portuguese and East Africa, some reaching the United States. Captors included Portuguese, British, French, Danish and others, every taking advantage of the huge human site visitors.
He recollects the notorious Zong incident of 1781, which he calls “possibly the worst thing, the worst event of all.” The captain of the slave ship Zong claimed to be operating out of water and threw 133 slaves overboard alive. The occasion grew to become identified solely by a courtroom case — an insurance coverage dispute over “lost cargo.” To Plaut, the truth that human life was diminished to a monetary declare demonstrates slavery’s cruelest logic.
Plaut observes that the enslavement of Africans predates the Atlantic system. Egyptian slavery alongside the Nile lasted centuries. After Muhammad’s loss of life, Arab armies swept into Egypt, throughout North Africa and into Spain and Portugal. This conquest fueled Mediterranean and trans-Saharan trades, generally reaching so far as China. Large numbers, particularly from Sudan and Ethiopia, have been taken throughout the Red Sea to the Saudi Arabian metropolis of Mecca, Iraq and Syria. These routes endured for generations, shaping populations removed from Africa’s shores.
Plaut notes how enslaved Africans, normally males, have been taken to India as navy slaves. He cites navy chief Malik Ambar, a slave from Ethiopia who defeated two Mughal emperors. Descendants stay in India and Pakistan, typically known as the Siddi ethnic group. Plaut feedback that they “all have a pretty tough time of it,” reflecting on their marginalized standing in trendy society.
He describes the Indian Ocean commerce dominated by the Omanis. Beginning within the first century CE, it later expanded with Portuguese, Dutch and British involvement. Omanis relied on Indian retailers and financiers to arrange actions and mercenaries from the Baloch ethnic group. The wealth was so immense that the Omani Sultanate moved its capital from Muscat in Oman to the Tanzanian archipelago of Zanzibar, an emblem of slavery’s monetary engine.
Plaut highlights Afro-Omani ivory and slave dealer Tippu Tip, whose title echoed the sound of his weapons. He cites the 1866 account of Edward Seward, the British consul in Zanzibar, who noticed a caravan of 300 slaves. Purchased for mere cotton fabric, they marched 9 hours every day and have been fed solely boiled sorghum and water. Men have been certain in forked sticks; girls and youngsters have been tied by the arms. Seward described kids crushed to loss of life and paths plagued by corpses, a haunting file of human distress.
Plaut discusses slavery that continued into the 20 th century, displaying a 1935 picture of Ethiopian retailers and their slaves delivering cash to Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie for his struggle in opposition to Italy. This, he observes, is a side of Selassie’s reign “not much commented on.”
Plaut explores the Sokoto Caliphate, an Islamic state that lasted a century and comprised 30 emirates from Cameroon to Burkina Faso. In the mid-nineteenth century, Sokoto might have held as many slaves because the 4 million within the US on the eve of its Civil War. Plaut finds it “extraordinary that something of such importance has somehow been missed.”
Plaut estimates that throughout 5 millennia, “at least 50 million Africans” have been enslaved. He additionally notes that present-day battle zones typically align with outdated slave routes. He suggests slavery’s harmful legacy persists.
Plaut ends with the picture of former US President Barack and former First Lady Michelle Obama on the Door of No Return on Gorée Island, Senegal, in 2013. He calls it “extraordinarily uplifting” and proof that “injustice is not imprinted on history.” His discuss, drawn from his book, Unbroken Chains: A 5,000-Year History of African Enslavement, reminds us that slavery’s story is historic, tragic and nonetheless echoing.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed on this article/video are the writer’s personal and don’t essentially replicate Fair Observer’s editorial coverage.
” post-content-short=” Martin Plaut, a journalist, tutorial and writer, delivers a sweeping historic account of African enslavement throughout 5 millennia, tracing its international routes, atrocities and lasting legacies. He additional highlights its brutality and enduring affect. Plaut opens with a quote from former African…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Martin Plaut traces five millennia of African enslavement, beginning with the Atlantic trade before exploring earlier Egyptian, Islamic and Indian systems. He highlights the Indian Ocean trade and the Sokoto Caliphate’s vast slave population across West Africa. Slavery has taken a staggering human toll, and its legacy endures.” post-date=”Oct 07, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: The 5,000-Year Secret History of African Slavery They Don’t Teach You” slug-data=”fo-talks-the-5000-year-secret-history-of-african-slavery-they-dont-teach-you”>Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and retired CIA Officer Glenn Carle analyze financial ache and political turmoil throughout the globe. The US is just not distinctive in going through division and stagnation; a long time of sluggish development and rising inequality have left residents pissed off, and in latest months, protests and authorities crises in a number of main international locations have toppled leaders and fueled new uncertainty.
Atul underscores that revolutions correspond with the value of bread or rice within the case of Asia. Per capita development during the last twenty years has been dismal: simply 0.6% within the UK and 0.7% in each France and Japan. These averages masks the truth that many of the advantages have gone to a small elite, whereas the bulk have seen declining dwelling requirements. Glenn stresses that when development slows and inequality rises, residents search for scapegoats — typically immigrants, rivals overseas or their very own leaders.
Japan exemplifies how financial pressure destabilizes politics. Inflation reached 3.2% in January, whereas the value of rice doubled. Outrage grew after a cupboard minister joked about rice, forcing his resignation.
The ruling Liberal Democratic Party has misplaced its grip, failing to win majorities in each homes of parliament. Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba resigned as US tariffs and regional tensions mounted. Japan now faces the prospect of its fourth prime minister in 5 years, a exceptional churn for a nation as soon as thought of a bastion of stability. Atul’s sources in Tokyo fear about fragmentation in Japanese politics that might hamper Japan’s response to each financial challenges and regional safety threats.
Meanwhile, France is caught in what Glenn calls a “perpetual crisis.” In simply 9 months, parliament has voted out two governments. Michel Barnier, finest identified for negotiating Brexit, grew to become the prime minister however did not win the vote of confidence in parliament. François Bayrou changed him however shortly fell additionally, warning that France was “living beyond its means.” French President Emmanuel Macron then appointed loyalist Sébastien Lecornu, making him France’s fifth prime minister since 2022.
The numbers are stark: a funds deficit of 5.8%, the very best within the eurozone, and debt at 114% of GDP. Borrowing prices are climbing and markets are nervous. Bayrou warned of a Greece-style debt disaster, elevating the specter of International Monetary Fund intervention. On the streets, protests have erupted, concentrating on each the federal government and financial situations. Atul’s sources in Paris fear that polarization and fragmentation in French politics have made governments short-lived and blocked any motion to handle the disaster. Some analysts even query the sturdiness of the French Fifth Republic itself.
The UK faces a fair worse state of affairs. Its financial system was hammered by three shocks: the 2008 monetary disaster, Brexit and the Covid-19 pandemic. Productivity lags behind friends, infrastructure is deteriorating and actual wages have barely grown since 2008, whilst debt has ballooned.
Economic ache has fed political unrest. Recently, 150,000 individuals marched in London below the banner of far-right activist Tommy Robinson, a far-right anti-immigration activist with a number of legal convictions. Immigration, notably unlawful crossings of the English Channel, has develop into a lightning rod. Atul observes that contacts in London and Manchester count on the right-wing Reform UK get together to construct help on the expense of each the Labour Party and the Conservatives. The rise of far-right populism, mixed with financial stagnation, suggests a interval of deepening polarization.
Glenn presents a historic context to present issues, likening the present second to the revolutions of 1848. At that point, agricultural failures created financial ache whereas nationalism fueled cultural unrest, sparking uprisings throughout Europe. Today’s financial stagnation, combined with cultural anxiousness, exhibits a placing parallel.
He observes that once-dominant teams, notably within the West, really feel they’re dropping management of their societies. Immigration typically turns into the image of this perceived decline. Glenn provides that the focus of wealth because the Nineteen Eighties has amplified the anger. In the US, 1% of the inhabitants now controls 40% of wealth, whereas the underside 80% maintain simply 10%. Glenn warns that inequality may undermine the legitimacy of democratic establishments, as occurred earlier in Ancient Rome.
The disaster is just not confined to developed economies. Across South Asia, widespread anger has boiled over. Nepal is the most recent flashpoint: High youth unemployment, falling remittances and visual corruption ignited protests led by Generation Z. Social media highlighted the lavish existence of politicians’ kids — dubbed “nepo kids.” Mobs stormed parliament, torched buildings and attacked get together leaders.
Atul locations this upheaval in a regional sample: Sri Lanka in 2022, Pakistan in 2023 and Bangladesh in 2024 all noticed mass actions that toppled or almost toppled governments. Indian analysts worry that Nepal’s protests may unfold. Although India has grown sooner than its neighbors, it’s not immune. Atul stresses that dissatisfaction, unemployment and inequality may spark unrest even in India, including to the pressures companies already face in Western markets.
The recurring theme is evident: Economic ache is destabilizing political order worldwide. In the developed world, a long time of low development and excessive inequality have hollowed out belief in governments. In the growing world, corruption, weak establishments and youth outrage are driving upheaval.
Atul concludes that volatility will dominate the months forward, with protests and authorities crises multiplying throughout continents. Glenn agrees, emphasizing that these should not remoted shocks however systemic pressures reshaping international politics. From Tokyo to Paris, London to Kathmandu, instability has develop into the brand new regular.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed on this article/video are the writer’s personal and don’t essentially replicate Fair Observer’s editorial coverage.
” post-content-short=” Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and retired CIA Officer Glenn Carle analyze financial ache and political turmoil throughout the globe. The US is just not distinctive in going through division and stagnation; a long time of sluggish development and rising inequality have left residents pissed off, and in latest months, protests and…” post_summery=”In this section of the September 2025 episode of FO° Exclusive, Atul Singh and Glenn Carle discuss how decades of inequality have fueled political turmoil worldwide. Crises in Japan, France and the United Kingdom show how debt and leadership churn destabilize governments. The unrest has spread to South Asia, with Nepal’s “Nepo kid” protests raising fears even in India.” post-date=”Oct 06, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Exclusive: Economic Pain and Political Turmoil Around the World” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-economic-pain-and-political-turmoil-around-the-world”>Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and retired CIA Officer Glenn Carle focus on how the US greenback will proceed to drop in worth. They analyze the financial and political elements driving this decline, mixing onerous information with subjective judgments. Both spotlight how fiscal irresponsibility, flawed coverage and shifting geopolitics are placing stress on the world’s dominant foreign money.
Atul argues that the mix of commerce coverage, financial coverage and a rising debt disaster will power devaluation. He stresses that the Trump administration’s religion within the greenback’s unassailability is just not supported by information, including to doubts concerning the greenback’s standing as a secure haven.
US Treasury insiders, Atul stories, admit the US will finally be unable to service authorities debt in its present kind. Political management has stopped taking debt significantly: Republicans give tax breaks, democrats develop social applications, and each ignore structural issues. Glenn reinforces the purpose, noting that Republicans additionally spend closely, simply on totally different objects like protection. Economists throughout the spectrum agree that America has proven each an incapability and unwillingness to handle debt, which is an existential situation for the worldwide financial system.
What Atul finds most worrying is policymakers’ indifference. Trump, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and democratic figures corresponding to New York State Representative Zohran Mandani present little concern. This complacency, he predicts, will encourage traders to shift away from the greenback.
Atul factors to the recognition of the Dollar Milkshake Theory, coined by economist Brent Johnson. It claims the greenback acts like a straw, sucking up liquidity from the worldwide “milkshake” into dollar-denominated property and debt. The greenback’s power, in accordance with this view, comes from financial distortions and monetary arbitrage, not innovation or productiveness. Geopolitical turbulence supposedly boosts demand for {dollars} as a result of no different asset gives the identical liquidity.
Atul warns that the true world tells a distinct story. The greenback has depreciated in opposition to almost all main currencies in 2025, sliding from 109.39 to 97.61 on an ordinary basket. Against gold, the autumn has been steeper, from 376 to 270, whereas gold itself surged previous $3,500 per troy ounce. Atul suggests the Dollar Milkshake Theory might quickly collapse below proof, likening it to the geocentric mannequin earlier than Renaissance astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus.
The freeze of $300 billion in Russian property after the 2022 invasion of Ukraine continues to echo. Atul stresses that blocking sovereign reserves has made international locations like China, India and Brazil cautious of preserving cash in {dollars}. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, already tense with Washington, is a working example.
The administration of US President Donald Trump has exacerbated the issue by imposing tariffs on allies just like the United Kingdom, additional undermining confidence. Central banks are diversifying into gold and silver. The German funding firm Deutsche Bank stories hedged positions in US property now outstrip unhedged ones for the primary time in 4 years. At the beginning of 2025, solely 20% of foreign-domiciled US fairness exchange-traded funds have been hedged; within the final three months, 80% of $7 billion invested has been hedged.
Major monetary hubs from New York to Singapore have reached a consensus: “The hedge dollar moment has arrived.”
The FOI Geopolitical Risk Monitor signifies that Trump and Bessent are pressuring the Federal Reserve (or Fed) to chop rates of interest. The latest appointment of US Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers Stephen Miran to the Fed’s Board of Governors underscored this shift — he dissented on the final assembly, pushing for a bigger lower. These strikes, Atul says, will stoke inflation and additional erode the greenback. Indian exporters, he provides, danger alternate losses until they hedge fastidiously.
Glenn presents another view. He dismisses the notion of a malign plot implied by the Dollar Milkshake Theory, framing the greenback’s decline in classical financial phrases. The downside, he says, is sheer incompetence.
Despite America’s strengths — superior productiveness, unmatched analysis and the most important market — the administration has undermined them. Glenn lists the steps: assaults on Fed independence, increased tariffs, extra spending and diminished revenues. Each erodes confidence, drives inflation and weakens the greenback. He judges that “almost literally every step has eroded or challenged or undermined” US financial power. Trump’s United Nations declare that international warming is a hoax, Glenn provides, is so disconnected from actuality that it threatens the coherence of governance itself.
China, in the meantime, is steadily encouraging international commerce in non-dollar denominations. Glenn concludes that the greenback will hold weakening and inflation will rise at an accelerating tempo.
Atul and Glenn converge on the view that the greenback’s decline is just not short-term however structural. The debt disaster, complacency, tariffs and Fed stress all level the identical manner. Investors are hedging, central banks are diversifying and rivals like China are constructing alternate options.
The US greenback has lengthy appeared untouchable, however its fortress is cracking. Whether the autumn comes instantly or by regular erosion, Atul and Glenn each warn that it now appears inevitable.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed on this article/video are the writer’s personal and don’t essentially replicate Fair Observer’s editorial coverage.
” post-content-short=” Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and retired CIA Officer Glenn Carle focus on how the US greenback will proceed to drop in worth. They analyze the financial and political elements driving this decline, mixing onerous information with subjective judgments. Both spotlight how fiscal irresponsibility, flawed coverage and…” post_summery=”In this September 2025 episode of FO° Exclusive, Atul Singh and Glenn Carle examine why the US dollar continues depreciating despite America’s economic strengths. Atul highlights the American debt crisis, the limitations of Dollar Milkshake Theory and global shifts toward hedging against dollar depreciation. Both point out that US President Donald Trump’s attacks on the Federal Reserve and reckless tariffs are eroding confidence in the dollar.” post-date=”Oct 05, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Exclusive: US Dollar Will Continue to Lose Value” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-us-dollar-will-continue-to-lose-value”>Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and retired CIA Officer Glenn Carle discover the crumbling democratic norms within the United States. They stress that division is simply the floor; the deeper disaster is the collapse of democratic consensus and the regular rise of authoritarianism on the American proper. Glenn traces this pattern again a long time, arguing that it has been rising because the Fifties — it accelerated after 1964 and took sharper kind by 1980. What emerges in the present day is not only polarization however the ascendance of a fascist essence throughout the Republican Party and the non secular proper.
Glenn frames the disaster with a literary analogy. He calls writer Milan Kundera’s novel, The Unbearable Lightness of Being, “one of the great works of literature,” noting the way it depicted life in Czechoslovakia after the Prague Spring was crushed in 1968. Citizens, stripped of company, withdrew into gardening, music or intercourse, as a result of reality itself had been destroyed.
Glenn says he senses an identical retreat within the US: A minority fervently helps US President Donald Trump whereas a bigger share is “appalled.” This opposition is powerless on the nationwide degree, because the Republican Party controls the levers of presidency and defines reality for itself. The result’s disaffection and withdrawal into personal life.
The assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University dominates the dialogue. Glenn calls the nationwide response “astounding.” The Trump administration and the Republican Party shortly turned Kirk right into a martyr, with repeated non secular comparisons. Within days, greater than 100,000 individuals stuffed a stadium in Glendale, Arizona, for a five-hour service that blended non secular revival and a Make America Great Again rally. Atul compares the scene to televangelist occasions, saying the group gave the impression to be in a state of non secular frenzy.
Erika Kirk, Charlie’s widow, publicly forgave her husband’s accused killer, whereas Trump consoled her earlier than the viewers. Political blogger Meghan McCain commented on X, “Today is the day democrats lost 2028.” Days later, Vice President JD Vance hosted Kirk’s program from the White House, displaying how tragedy was immediately weaponized for politics.
The fallout prolonged into leisure. Comedian Jimmy Kimmel expressed sympathy for the Kirk household however prompt Republicans have been exploiting the loss of life. The Walt Disney Company’s ABC tv station suspended him after Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr threatened the community. Though later reinstated, many conservative-owned stations refused to air his present, branding him a blasphemer.
Glenn calls Kimmel’s feedback “slightly tasteless” however not inflammatory, but they triggered a firestorm. Atul and Glenn argue that this reveals how discourse is now outlined by the far proper. Free speech, assured by the First Amendment, is shrinking below political intimidation. For Glenn, suppressing speech is a attribute of totalitarian fascism.
Glenn highlights that many on the left barely knew who Kirk was, whereas on the best he had hundreds of thousands of younger followers. Atul interprets this as proof of alienation amongst college students who really feel they can not converse freely on campus. He calls universities “politically correct Soviet-style Omertà” environments — “Omertà” being a Southern Italian code of silence — even describing them as trendy Bolshevism.
Glenn agrees the stakes are dire: Free speech has develop into a “mortal threat” each to people and to democracy itself. He recollects being labeled Islamophobic by college students merely for criticizing radical Islam. Historically, free speech protected even offensive speech until it incited imminent violence. Glenn laments that this normal has fallen, leaving careers ruined by offending sensibilities.
The cultural battlefield between the “woke” and the “anti-woke” is equally harmful. The former calls for ideological conformity within the title of inclusion, whereas the latter weaponizes resentment to silence opponents. This binary conflict leaves little room for real dialogue and as a substitute corrodes the democratic basis that will depend on pluralism and tolerance of dissent.
Glenn then explains why conservative Christians help an authoritarian chief. Evangelicals argue that sin is inevitable and forgivable, so it doesn’t disqualify a frontrunner. They see leaders as autos, not embodiments, very like the biblical King Cyrus, who served God regardless of his corruption. The motion is about energy: gaining the means to impose values, even when it requires loyalty over reality.
Glenn lists 5 elements: forgiveness of sin, strategic pursuit of energy, tribal loyalty, a way of existential menace and the willingness to make use of any means. He concludes that is fascism, citing the dictionary definition: a populist ideology exalting the nation and sometimes race above people, led by an autocrat, imposing regimentation and suppressing opposition. To underline the purpose, he quotes German theorist Carl Schmitt, who outlined politics by friend-enemy distinctions, and Nazi philologist Joseph Goebbels, who stated the press must not ever confuse the individuals with reality.
Glenn condemns how swiftly Kirk’s loss of life was seized upon to demonize the “radical left.” He calls the exploitation unprecedented, evaluating it to the Reichstag hearth of 1933, which the Nazi Party used to cement management.
He stresses that Kirk himself opposed particular person rights, sought state management over sexuality and denied girls’s company, but is now elevated as a champion. This, Glenn argues, illustrates the existential cut up tearing the nation aside. He fears this disaster is worse than any in American historical past after the top of the Civil War in 1865 and questions whether or not democracy may be restored. Atul concurs that the stakes are nothing lower than survival: The foundations of freedom are eroding, and what rises as a substitute bears the hallmarks of a fascist order.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed on this article/video are the writer’s personal and don’t essentially replicate Fair Observer’s editorial coverage.
” post-content-short=” Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and retired CIA Officer Glenn Carle discover the crumbling democratic norms within the United States. They stress that division is simply the floor; the deeper disaster is the collapse of democratic consensus and the regular rise of authoritarianism on the American proper. Glenn…” post_summery=”In this September 2025 episode of FO° Exclusive, Atul Singh and Glenn Carle discuss the collapse of American democratic consensus, warning that polarization has turned dangerous. They examine the assassination of Charlie Kirk and the Jimmy Kimmel controversy. America may face its gravest existential crisis since 1865.” post-date=”Oct 04, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Exclusive: The Divided, Not United, States of America” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-the-divided-not-united-states-of-america”>Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and retired CIA Officer Glenn Carle undergo key developments in September. They start by US President Donald Trump’s look on the UN. In his speech, Trump boasted of ending seven wars, quipped concerning the escalator stopping abruptly and a teleprompter that was not functioning. He dismissed local weather change as “a con job” and in addition criticized the UN as ineffective, claiming it neither helped him nor reached its potential. Atul factors out the irony of Trump downplaying local weather change exactly when the Arctic transport route is gaining momentum.
This segues right into a dialogue on transport routes and international commerce. The audio system define the target details: Attacks by Yemen’s Houthi militant group have made the Red Sea hall by the Suez Canal and Bab el-Mandeb Strait more and more harmful. Many ships are actually rerouting across the Cape of Good Hope and Cape Agulhas, the southern suggestions of Africa, which considerably will increase prices and journey occasions.
Against this backdrop, the Northern Sea Route (NSR) alongside Russia’s Arctic coast is gaining significance. In 2016, solely 19 ships made the journey by way of the NSR. By 2024, that quantity had risen to 92. This development is spectacular.
Much of this site visitors entails Russian commodity exports, particularly pure fuel, however container transport is starting to take off. A voyage from Ningbo, China, to Felixstowe, United Kingdom, by way of the NSR takes 18 days — lower than half the time required to sail round Africa. Once the dream of British explorers, this Polar Silk Road is now a really actual Chinese ambition.
The dialog shifts to China, the place on September 3, Chinese President Xi Jinping presided over an eightieth anniversary Victory Day Parade commemorating the top of the Second Sino-Japanese War. China views this triumph because the true conclusion of World War II. Xi hosted two outstanding allies: Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean chief Kim Jong Un. The parade was “very impressive” — way more so than Trump’s navy parade this June.
In the lead-up, Xi convened a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). Atul highlights the optics of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi clasping Putin’s hand and strolling towards Xi, remarking jokingly, “Talk about love — one hopes it’s brotherly.” The imagery of Xi, Putin and Modi collectively generated worldwide headlines, reflecting the shifting steadiness of energy in Eurasia.
Back dwelling, the Trump administration stirred controversy when Health Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. joined Trump in linking Tylenol and vaccines to autism. Trump introduced a sweeping initiative to review the causes of mind issues. Atul muses that his personal “brain fog” and lapses in intelligence may now probably be blamed on Tylenol.
Immigration coverage has additionally undergone dramatic change. The administration imposed a $100,000 charge per H-1B visa software. Note that this charge doesn’t assure visa approval. With the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services granting 85,000 such visas yearly, this Trump administration measure successfully ends the H1-B program, notably hurting Indians who’ve availed of the lion’s share of such a visa. Importantly. FOI had predicted tighter immigration controls as early as April 2024.
Briefly concerning European occasions, Atul cites Russian drones getting into Polish and Romanian airspace, Russian MiG-31 fighter jets buzzing Estonia for 12 minutes earlier than interception by NATO’s Italian F-35 plane and short-term closures of airports in Oslo, Norway, and Copenhagen, Denmark as a consequence of drone sightings. The EU and NATO are going through many protection and strategic challenges.
The unsure geopolitical state of affairs has triggered gold costs to hit a historic excessive of $3,500 per troy ounce. In the company world, Google survived the best antitrust case since tech big Microsoft’s battles within the 2000s. Also, Nvidia poured sources into OpenAI, signaling the deepening hyperlinks between high tech firms..
Atul and Glenn segue into this episode’s foremost topics by figuring out three overarching points that outlined September 2025:
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed on this article/video are the writer’s personal and don’t essentially replicate Fair Observer’s editorial coverage.
” post-content-short=” Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and retired CIA Officer Glenn Carle undergo key developments in September. They start by US President Donald Trump’s look on the UN. In his speech, Trump boasted of ending seven wars, quipped concerning the escalator stopping abruptly and a teleprompter…” post_summery=”In this September 2025 episode of FO° Exclusive, Atul Singh and Glenn Carle analyze US President Donald Trump’s UN address, where he dismissed climate change and criticized the UN. In an earlier speech in Washington, DC, Trump promised to investigate a proposed link between Tylenol and autism. Atul and Glenn look at other issues, such as the importance of Arctic shipping and the significance of summits in China.” post-date=”Oct 03, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Exclusive: A Round-up of What Mattered Most in September 2025″ slug-data=”fo-exclusive-a-round-up-of-what-mattered-most-in-september-2025″>Peter Isackson, Fair Observer’s Chief Strategy Officer, speaks with Yves Zieba, CEO of Syntezia Sàrl. They focus on how synthetic intelligence is reshaping journalism, media ethics and the very enterprise fashions that underpin the trade. Isackson brings his personal curiosity to the dialogue, noting he’s at present writing about AI and media. Zieba responds with a wide-ranging evaluation of alternatives, dangers and moral imperatives.
Zieba begins by stressing that AI is just not a marginal growth however a disruptive transformation in media. He argues that ignoring it’s perilous: Companies that select to not undertake AI danger speedy collapse in viewers attain, promoting income and subscriptions. By distinction, those who embrace AI have an opportunity to reimagine their fashions.
Hyper-personalization stands out as probably the most promising improvements. Zieba factors to Netflix for instance of how tailoring content material to particular person preferences can revolutionize a complete trade. Applied to journalism, AI-driven personalization may assist information organizations interact audiences extra deeply, lower by the litter of “infobesity” and foster stronger ties between readers and their most popular journalists.
AI, Zieba explains, can take over repetitive “robot tasks” corresponding to information formatting or drafting routine stories. This automation frees journalists to give attention to investigations, evaluation and high-value reporting. With AI accelerating manufacturing, a single journalist would possibly publish 200 articles monthly in comparison with 20 up to now.
Isackson raises issues that tailoring content material should resemble a one-way monologue quite than a dialogue. Zieba counters that AI permits new types of dialogue by creating middleman roles in public relations and public affairs. Moreover, smartphones and citizen journalism present “eyes and ears everywhere,” extending journalists’ capability whereas reinforcing the significance {of professional} requirements.
One of the foremost dangers Zieba highlights is “hallucination” — AI producing believable however false info. He requires the rise of “hallucination checkers,” akin to fact-checkers, as editorial groups now carry the added burden of making certain accuracy in AI-assisted work.
Transparency, Zieba insists, is crucial. Just as journalists disclose their sources, they need to disclose the AI instruments utilized in producing content material. Trust, he argues, finally rests with the one who indicators an article and the establishment that ensures editorial oversight. Smartphones, crowdsourcing and citizen reporting might broaden info flows, however Zieba nonetheless locations better belief in professionals who can uphold requirements.
Isackson provides a cultural dimension, suggesting hallucination is just not distinctive to machines — human tradition itself thrives on interpretation and fabrication. For him, the deeper situation is whether or not AI can contribute constructively to social dialogue quite than merely offering streams of knowledge.
Zieba emphasizes that AI is altering each the quantity and the character of journalism. Some reporters embrace AI for its artistic benefits, whereas others worry job losses. Local sports activities writers or area of interest reporters are notably weak. The stress, he says, is between dangers and alternatives: Ignoring AI is harmful, however uncritical adoption additionally brings hazards.
For Zieba, the steadiness lies in recognizing AI as a instrument, not a worth proposition. It accelerates reporting and evaluation, however people should proceed to offer judgment, perception and ethics. He believes that the media has a broader social function as a public good, contributing to civic schooling, citizen journalism and collective belief.
Management and regulation typically lag behind the truth of newsroom practices. Zieba notes that many editors formally sanction solely a restricted set of AI instruments, even whereas reporters secretly use extra highly effective ones. This creates stress: executives and regulators are “three steps behind,” not sure the right way to deal with possession, duty or moral requirements.
The result’s a creeping sense that journalists could also be compelled to depend on AI instruments — each as a result of opponents are doing so and since administration will finally demand it. For Zieba, the true hazard is just not utilizing AI in any respect, or ready too lengthy, which he calls probably “lethal” for any media group.
This organizational problem has given rise to a brand new place: the Chief AI Officer (CAIO). Zieba describes the CAIO as a board-level function, reflecting AI’s disruptive energy that cuts throughout finance, authorized, human sources and editorial capabilities. Unlike a Chief Technology Officer, who may even see AI as simply one other instrument, the CAIO should take a strategic view of AI’s potential to reshape the whole firm.
This is just not merely a technical job. A CAIO should present management, coordination and imaginative and prescient, making certain that AI technique aligns with broader organizational objectives. Without such oversight, Zieba argues, firms will stumble within the face of speedy technological change.
Asked concerning the future, Zieba is candid: “There are more unknowns than knowns.” He cites the speedy obsolescence of once-hyped practices like immediate engineering as proof that AI evolves at breathtaking velocity. Rather than pretending to foretell, he favors a practical framework he calls “flux,” designed to assist organizations stay with uncertainty.
The dialogue ends on a observe of shared appreciation. Isackson and Zieba agree that the controversy over AI in journalism is way from completed. What stays clear is that the stakes — belief, ethics and the survival of media organizations — couldn’t be increased.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed on this article/video are the writer’s personal and don’t essentially replicate Fair Observer’s editorial coverage.
” post-content-short=” Peter Isackson, Fair Observer’s Chief Strategy Officer, speaks with Yves Zieba, CEO of Syntezia Sàrl. They focus on how synthetic intelligence is reshaping journalism, media ethics and the very enterprise fashions that underpin the trade. Isackson brings his personal curiosity to the dialogue,…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Peter Isackson and Yves Zieba explore how AI is transforming journalism, from newsroom automation to ethical concerns about hallucinations. Ignoring AI is fatal for media companies, while embracing it requires stronger editorial safeguards. Journalism’s survival depends on balancing AI’s risks and opportunities while maintaining trust and dialogue.” post-date=”Oct 02, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Is AI Now More Reliable and Trustworthy Than Today’s Journalists?” slug-data=”fo-talks-is-ai-now-more-reliable-and-trustworthy-than-todays-journalists”>Rohan Khattar Singh, Fair Observer’s Video Producer & Social Media Manager, speaks with Cherish Mathson, a retired Lieutenant General of the Indian Army, concerning the aftermath of the May 2025 clashes between India and Pakistan. They give attention to India’s navy posture, Pakistan’s international coverage maneuvers and the potential flashpoints that might escalate into broader battle. Mathson presents each factual clarifications and subjective assessments, whereas Khattar Singh presses on the strategic implications.
Mathson begins by clarifying the distinction between a ceasefire and the Indian Prime Minister’s declared “pause” in hostilities after May’s clashes. A ceasefire entails formal phrases, however a pause implies that combating might resume at any time. India’s Operation Sindoor displays a warlike posture maintained always, with readiness, functionality growth and mobilization procedures in place. Although depart cancellations and full deployments haven’t been enforced, Mathson emphasizes that India can go to struggle at very brief discover.
Khattar Singh highlights that this posture indicators deliberate preparation. Mathson agrees, stressing that whereas full-scale struggle is just not inevitable, tensions can escalate unpredictably. India’s readiness continues uninterrupted.
On whether or not one other struggle is imminent, Mathson says a full-fledged struggle is unlikely within the close to time period. Yet he cautions that terrorism or miscalculation may set off uncontrollable escalation. He additionally notes climate’s significance — main campaigns, like in 1971 below Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw, have been timed for honest situations. For India in the present day, September onward could be the interval to “tune in our antenna.” Mathson’s level is much less about certainty and extra about preparedness.
Attention turns to Pakistan’s Field Marshal, Asim Munir. Mathson criticizes the conferral of the rank of area marshal after a four-day air alternate, saying such honors traditionally required commanding massive campaigns. He stresses that the United States engages Munir not only for ceremony however for strategic causes: Pakistan facilitated US–China rapprochement within the Seventies and retains geographic leverage.
The US is within the Balochistan area’s uncommon earths and oil, in addition to entry to bases like Jacobabad close to Iran. Pakistan’s geography additionally permits positioning in opposition to each Russia and China. Mathson portrays Munir as simpler for the US to take care of than a democracy: “He is for all practical purposes a dictator.”
Khattar Singh notes that in a go to to Florida, Munir threatened to fireside ten missiles at any Indian river development in India’s Kashmir area, and to “nuke half the world” if Pakistan’s existence have been threatened. Mathson judges these as reckless statements that Washington tolerates solely to extract advantages.
Mathson recollects US intervention throughout the 2019 Balakot disaster as proof of American concern over escalation. Yet he speculates these newest threats might have merely “escape[d] notice at the highest level” amid international distractions.
The dialog shifts to Balochistan, wealthy in sources and central to the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). US President Donald Trump’s “newfound love for Pakistan,” Mathson notes, is tied to mineral and oil offers. The US designation of the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA) as a terrorist group permits Washington to justify strikes on its property, clearing the best way for useful resource exploitation. Mathson assesses that the US is extra doubtless than China to intervene instantly in Balochistan.
The Pakistani metropolis of Gwadar, CPEC’s crown jewel, is poised to be a flashpoint. Khattar Singh factors out the US shift of drone operations from Taliban-controlled areas within the north to Balochistan within the south. Mathson predicts Gwadar may develop into China’s subsequent abroad base after Africa’s Djibouti as soon as its service aviation limitations are overcome. He stresses India’s unavoidable involvement, given its unique financial zone and its function as a internet safety supplier within the Indian Ocean below US partnership.
Mathson believes the confrontation over Gwadar is extra instant and geographically related to India than Taiwan.
India faces a dilemma: It should steadiness a state of everlasting readiness with the unpredictability of Pakistan’s threats and China’s growth. India can’t ignore developments in Gwadar and Balochistan as a result of they intersect with their safety pursuits. Khattar Singh highlights that these eventualities danger drawing India right into a wider battle, whether or not it chooses or not. Mathson underscores that India is already a stakeholder by geography and strategic duty.
Historically, Pakistan performed either side — serving to the US–China détente whereas aligning with US-led alliances. Today, it enjoys “almost a strategic fusion” with China whereas courting Washington. Mathson says China presents robust loans and infrastructure whereas the US dispenses cash extra flexibly, interesting to Pakistan’s generals.
He predicts Pakistan’s twin technique can’t final if Gwadar turns into a flashpoint. He foresees Pakistan selecting China, the rising energy with a $60 billion dedication to CPEC, over the US, which he calls an “empire in decline.” In his view, Trump could also be “a short-term phenomenon,” however China’s technique is long-term and constant.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed on this article/video are the writer’s personal and don’t essentially replicate Fair Observer’s editorial coverage.
” post-content-short=” Rohan Khattar Singh, Fair Observer’s Video Producer & Social Media Manager, speaks with Cherish Mathson, a retired Lieutenant General of the Indian Army, concerning the aftermath of the May 2025 clashes between India and Pakistan. They give attention to India’s navy posture, Pakistan’s international…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and retired Lieutenant General Cherish Mathson analyze India’s military posture after May’s clashes with Pakistan. They examine Pakistan Army Chief Asim Munir’s nuclear threats, international interests in Balochistan and Gwadar’s strategic importance.” post-date=”Oct 01, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Pakistan Develops Closer Ties with US and China After May’s Clashes with India” slug-data=”fo-talks-pakistan-develops-closer-ties-with-us-and-china-after-mays-clashes-with-india”>Rohan Khattar Singh, Fair Observer’s Video Producer, speaks with Aidan Grogan, a Liberty University historical past PhD scholar and Young Voices contributor, and Kaitlyn Diana, an Associate Editor at Fair Observer. Together, they discover the causes and penalties of America’s declining fertility charge throughout the broader international inhabitants disaster that figures like Tesla CEO Elon Musk have highlighted.
Grogan units the stage with stark information: America’s fertility charge stands at 1.6, properly beneath the alternative degree of two.1. This shortfall mirrors a world pattern — two-thirds of the world already lives in international locations with below-replacement fertility and 95% of countries are projected to succeed in this level by the top of the century. UN estimates predict international inhabitants decline by the 2080s, although some forecasts transfer that date earlier.
Singh highlights the “fertility gap” — the discrepancy between what number of kids Americans need (2.5 on common) versus what number of they really have. Grogan attributes the hole to infertility, financial pressure and difficulties in forming long-term partnerships, worsened by a rising “mating and dating crisis” that sees women and men drifting aside politically and culturally.
Modern girls face ample pressures. Grogan observes that whereas girls have gained the power to pursue careers, males stay certain by expectations to work full-time as suppliers. He cites economist Catherine Pakaluk’s analysis displaying that giant households amongst educated girls are likely to stem from non secular motivations. For Grogan, the crux of the controversy is whether or not kids are seen as blessings or burdens.
Diana counters that financial necessity forces most ladies into the workforce. She argues that the supposed 50/50 cut up in marriage is skewed, as girls typically carry each profession and home hundreds, struggling extreme burnout. In her view, true feminism lies within the freedom to decide on motherhood or a profession with out stigma.
The audio system discover the financial dimensions of fertility decline. Grogan frames the problem by way of alternative prices: Children require monumental sources, whereas shopper leisure seems extra attainable and rewarding. A Pew Research Center ballot exhibits that fewer than half of childless girls below 30 wish to develop into moms. For Grogan, this displays a rising, “pervasive anti-natalism” mindset.
He argues that Americans stay in an period of abundance unmatched in historical past, but a “keeping up with the Joneses” mentality makes many really feel kids are unaffordable until they’ll present an idealized life-style. Diana pushes again with private testimony: Childbirth within the United States prices $60,000–70,000, forcing many into debt earlier than a baby is even born. For her, the monetary barrier is just not holidays or school financial savings, however fundamental medical care, housing and meals.
Singh asks whether or not America’s cultural emphasis on private freedom and self-actualization undermines child-rearing. Grogan agrees, figuring out a flip towards autonomy with out duty, fueled by secularization and the fading notion that household measurement is “up to God.”
Diana emphasizes that psychological well being challenges and independence additionally form choices. She cites South Korea’s 4B motion, the place girls reject marriage and motherhood as a type of protest in opposition to inequality and insecurity.
Grogan and Diana each spotlight the rising gender and political divide. Young girls are trending left whereas younger males lean proper, making worth alignment tough. Diana notes that many ladies really feel they can not date males who’ve “voted against their rights.”
Grogan expands the argument to the political left itself, warning that beneficiant welfare applications will collapse with no sturdy tax base. Immigration alone, he says, can’t maintain demographic stability. He requires a revival of pro-natalist norms on the left, recalling its historic roots earlier than Malthusian thought — the concepts of economist Thomas Robert Malthus, who believed inhabitants development was exponential in comparison with useful resource development, which was linear — took maintain.
Singh presses the query of whether or not Americans can overcome divisions to revive household life. Grogan argues that solely a cultural revival — maybe a spontaneous non secular awakening — may reverse the pattern. Diana disagrees, mentioning that faith itself alienates many, particularly when entangled with authorities coverage. For her, there may be no center floor if politics threatens basic rights.
Grogan closes with three proposals. First, a cultural renewal of pro-natalist values that can’t come from a authorities decree. Second, structural reforms to scale back housing prices by constructing extra properties and easing zoning legal guidelines. Third, modifications to entitlement applications and taxes. Yet even with these, he doubts fertility will rebound past “marginal increases.”
Diana stresses that any future answer should handle each monetary pressure and gender inequality, making certain girls can freely select motherhood with out financial punishment or cultural judgment.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed on this article/video are the writer’s personal and don’t essentially replicate Fair Observer’s editorial coverage.
” post-content-short=” Rohan Khattar Singh, Fair Observer’s Video Producer, speaks with Aidan Grogan, a Liberty University historical past PhD scholar and Young Voices contributor, and Kaitlyn Diana, an Associate Editor at Fair Observer. Together, they discover the causes and penalties of America’s declining fertility…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Live, Rohan Khattar Singh, Aidan Grogan and Kaitlyn Diana reflect on the statistic that America’s fertility rate has dropped to 1.6, well below replacement level. They debate whether career demands, high costs, political divides and cultural attitudes drive this decline. They determine that only cultural renewal and structural reforms may slow the trend.” post-date=”Sep 30, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Live: Is America Headed for a Population Collapse? Elon Musk Was Right!” slug-data=”fo-live-is-america-headed-for-a-population-collapse-elon-musk-was-right”>Fair Observer Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and famous scholar Srinivas Reddy discover how the legacy of classical India survives in the present day. They hint the historic boundaries of the classical period, replicate on the invasions that disrupted studying and study how schooling, caste and elitism formed entry to Sanskrit. The dialogue additionally considers Indian Emperor Ashoka the Great’s ethical instance, contrasts the Indian system with the Western one, and highlights the necessity for reform and patronage if India’s heritage is to thrive once more.
Singh and Reddy begin by deciding how they need to outline “classical India.” Reddy locations it as much as Emperor Harshavardhana; after him, Singh argues, India grew to become “medieval” and entered “a slippery slope.” This interval produced a flowering of Sanskrit literature, philosophy, structure and non secular traditions.
A turning level got here with the Islamic invasions of the late twelfth century. In 1192, Muhammad of Ghor established the Muslim empire generally known as the Delhi Sultanate in India, and nice universities corresponding to Nalanda have been destroyed. Farsi and Arabic grew to become the languages of administration within the North, and Sanskrit receded. Reddy stresses that whereas this destruction was immense, many manuscripts survive in libraries but lie uncared for. He laments that Indians categorical a need to attach with the classical previous, however “there’s no real transference of that desire into some action” to coach college students to protect texts.
Education in classical India was rooted within the Guru–shishya parampara (instructor–scholar legacy), the place college students lived with academics. Singh emphasizes that it was holistic: pupils memorized scriptures but in addition practiced self-discipline, handbook labor and non secular workout routines. Oral custom ensured continuity in an age earlier than printing.
By distinction, Singh criticizes in the present day’s schooling system, dominated by the Central Board of Secondary Education. He calls it “diabolically bad,” designed to check rote memorization and run by “exam monkeys” within the paperwork. Instead of cultivating curiosity, he argues, it produces graduates skilled solely to “remember and regurgitate.”
Singh asks who research Sanskrit in the present day. Reddy replies that a lot philological analysis occurs outdoors India, particularly in Europe and the United States. Within India, it survives in universities and rituals, however largely attracts college students from modest backgrounds. He notes that Brahmans, who as soon as monopolized Sanskrit, have deserted it for careers in expertise and enterprise. “They want to be CEOs of Google … and Pepsi,” he remarks, which leaves Sanskrit weak. Singh provides that yoga and philosophy have spurred renewed international curiosity, whilst India itself neglects the sphere.
The dialog turns to Ashoka. Reddy recollects that English scholar James Prinsep’s deciphering of the traditional Brahmi script in 1837 revealed the rock edicts and restored Ashoka’s story. Ashoka emerged as a conqueror turned ethical ruler, spreading messages of tolerance and compassion. Singh even calls Prinsep the “father of modern India” for reviving this legacy. Both agree that Ashoka’s instance exhibits how classical beliefs can re-enter public life by scholarship.
Singh notes that his friends within the United Kingdom grew up with an “extraordinary connection” to their classical previous, one thing he by no means felt in India. Reddy attributes this partly to colonialism, but in addition to India’s personal elitism: Classical studying was confined to slender teams, not like the broader civic custom within the West. Western classics emphasised politics, regulation and establishments, whereas India’s leaned towards philosophy and metaphysics. Singh suggests this helps clarify why trendy science developed in Europe, whereas India excelled in summary thought and linguistics.
Reddy emphasizes that caste was central to this exclusion. Sanskrit studying was monopolized by Brahmins, and even in the present day, he hears arguments that solely Brahmins ought to examine it. Exclusivity preserved traditions but in addition bred “atrophying” and “incestuousness.” Singh means that inflexible caste constructions made India insular and ill-prepared to withstand invasions. Reddy provides that whereas historic texts just like the Upanishads questioned hierarchy, in follow, caste severely restricted entry to studying. For each, caste stays one in all classical India’s deepest contradictions.
What would revival appear to be in the present day? Singh argues it should start with schooling, with figures like mathematician Aryabhatta featured in textbooks to foster mental satisfaction. Reddy agrees that such reform is “really, really important.”
Both criticize universities: Singh dismisses Indian Institutes of Technology and Indian Institutes of Management as commerce faculties, whereas Reddy calls academia “conservative” and “ideological,” failing to embrace a plurality of views. Singh additionally mocks each nationalist exaggerators within the Indian information programs motion and “pretentious” doctrinaire leftists. Revival, each Reddy and Singh conclude, means critical scholarship free from mythmaking and beliefs.
The preservation of Sanskrit is important to India’s cultural historical past. Reddy notes that numerous manuscripts sit in personal or uncared for collections. Singh criticizes the Archaeological Survey of India as corrupt and uninterested, whereas Reddy stresses that the better downside is the dearth of skilled readers.
Preservation requires experience in addition to storage. Singh argues that, simply because the Renaissance wanted patrons just like the Italian Medici household, India requires “new Medici” in the present day — enlightened backers who see cultural quite than business returns. Reddy concludes that classical India will endure provided that its information is preserved, taught and lived.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed on this article/video are the writer’s personal and don’t essentially replicate Fair Observer’s editorial coverage.
” post-content-short=” Fair Observer Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and famous scholar Srinivas Reddy discover how the legacy of classical India survives in the present day. They hint the historic boundaries of the classical period, replicate on the invasions that disrupted studying and study how schooling, caste and elitism formed entry…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Atul Singh and Srinivas Reddy posit that classical India was defined by flourishing literature, philosophy, culture and education, but declined after invasions and caste-based exclusion. They highlight the survival of traditions through oral teaching while noting modern India’s institutional failures. Reviving classical India requires securing enlightened patronage to preserve and reinterpret ancient texts.” post-date=”Sep 29, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Indians Today Are Learning English and Ignoring Classical Languages Like Sanskrit” slug-data=”fo-talks-indians-today-are-learning-english-and-ignoring-classical-languages-like-sanskrit”>Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and eminent scholar Ishtiaq Ahmed discover the latest Saudi Arabia–Pakistan mutual protection pact. The dialogue traces the origins of Pakistan, the historic trajectory of Saudi–Pakistani relations and the dramatic shifts the 1979 Islamic Revolution of Iran triggered. They then study the timing and rationale of the most recent protection pact earlier than analyzing its potential penalties, particularly for India.
Ahmed begins by recalling the unease that surrounded Pakistan’s creation in 1947. Many Arab leaders hesitated to endorse the brand new state as a result of its founding precept of non secular nationalism resembled Zionism. Like Israel, Pakistan outlined itself not by territorial nationalism however by non secular identification. Ahmed explains that the Muslim League claimed areas of India the place Muslims fashioned a majority, resulting in the displacement of Hindus and Sikhs, very like the displacement of Palestinians.
The House of Saud specifically regarded non secular nationalism with suspicion. In their view, Pakistan’s partition of India seemed just like Zionist efforts to carve out a homeland within the Middle East. Yet geopolitical realities quickly compelled nearer ties.
During the Cold War, Saudi Arabia aligned with the US and UK in opposition to radical Arab nationalism, whereas Pakistan joined Western-led safety alliances. Their parallel paths created house for collaboration. From the Fifties onward, Pakistani staff migrated to Saudi Arabia in droves, initially filling municipal jobs earlier than increasing into skilled and navy roles.
By the Seventies, Pakistani navy personnel have been defending Gulf royals, and Pakistan had develop into a dependable safety supplier. Singh frames this as a part of Pakistan’s identification as a “garrison state.” Ahmed believes that Pakistani President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto embraced Islamism not out of conviction however as a political instrument to counter his right-wing opponents.
Several occasions deepened the bilateral relationship: the 1974 Islamic Summit in Lahore, Saudi and Libyan backing for Pakistan’s nuclear program and the symbolic development of the Faisal Mosque within the Pakistani capital of Islamabad. Singh even cites intelligence stories that Pakistani nuclear property have been implicitly assured for Saudi Arabia in alternate for important oil revenues.
A watershed second arrived in 1979 with the Iranian Revolution, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the siege of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. Pakistani commandos performed a key function in retaking the mosque, additional cementing the Saudi-Pakistan partnership. Meanwhile, Saudi volunteers, together with mujahideen fighter Osama bin Laden, traveled to Afghanistan to wage jihad in opposition to the Soviets.
Ahmed stresses that these developments entrenched sectarian polarization throughout the area. Iran supported Shia militias whereas Saudi Arabia and its allies armed Sunni radicals. Proxy conflicts spilled over into Pakistan throughout the Nineties, creating cycles of instability that persist to today.
The new mutual protection pact makes express what had lengthy been casual. Singh explains that Gulf rulers have misplaced confidence within the US safety umbrella, notably after Israel struck Hamas leaders in Qatar, a rustic carefully tied to Washington and the most important American base within the area. The assault confirmed that Gulf allies may now not depend on American safety.
Ahmed says regional capitals realized the US couldn’t be trusted. Pakistan, with its nuclear arsenal and Sunni identification, emerged because the logical safety associate. Singh relays that Arab diplomats privately acknowledge their technological inferiority to Israel and the US however imagine Pakistan’s financial dependence ensures reliability.
For Pakistan, the deal can also be a monetary lifeline. Ahmed calls it maybe a once-in-a-lifetime likelihood to flee crippling debt. Singh agrees, describing the pact as a “terrific diplomatic coup” that strengthens each Islamabad and the Saudi capital of Riyadh whereas unsettling their adversaries.
The implications for India are profound. Singh notes unease in Delhi as Saudi Arabia’s superior Eurofighters and F-15 plane may very well be deployed alongside Pakistan’s forces. This undermines India’s deterrence technique in opposition to terrorism. Earlier this yr, India launched Operation Sindoor to focus on terrorist camps in Pakistan after terrorists massacred unarmed civilians in Kashmir. Now, India won’t be able to launch such an operation. In any case, India has already been weakened by Pakistan’s backing from China and Turkey.
Ahmed factors out, nevertheless, that Saudi Arabia has in depth investments in India and employs 9 million Indian staff. He voices the subjective hope that Riyadh may mediate quite than inflame Indo-Pakistani tensions.
Singh, in contrast, emphasizes India’s rising isolation. He cites New Delhi’s failure to safe diplomatic backing throughout clashes with Pakistan, strained ties with neighbors corresponding to Nepal and Bangladesh and distrust from Russia and China as a consequence of India’s shut ties to the US. His subjective evaluation is that India’s Gulf coverage has “failed.”
The pact additionally carries symbolic weight. Singh highlights that the 2 international locations introduced the pact on Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s birthday, which he interprets as a deliberate message undermining Modi’s image-making. He thinks that India below Modi has develop into a “pumpkin village,” a state that appears spectacular on the surface however lacks credibility as a functioning democracy.
Ahmed closes the dialogue by critiquing India’s international coverage extra broadly. He argues that India’s bark has confirmed worse than its chunk, and its unwillingness to hitch navy pacts has left it sidelined. His hope is that the brand new Saudi–Pakistan partnership will foster stability quite than extremism, since Gulf rulers themselves don’t wish to encourage terrorism.
The Saudi-Pakistan pact indicators a turning level in regional politics. For the Gulf, it displays declining belief in US safety. For Pakistan, it presents each monetary salvation and enhanced worldwide standing. For India, it represents a brand new set of strategic complications.
The pact may both escalate rivalries or function a platform for mediation. Both Singh and Ahmed agree that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have shifted their decades-old partnership right into a binding alliance with far-reaching penalties.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed on this article/video are the writer’s personal and don’t essentially replicate Fair Observer’s editorial coverage.
” post-content-short=” Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and eminent scholar Ishtiaq Ahmed discover the latest Saudi Arabia–Pakistan mutual protection pact. The dialogue traces the origins of Pakistan, the historic trajectory of Saudi–Pakistani relations and the dramatic shifts the 1979 Islamic Revolution of Iran triggered….” post_summery=”Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and eminent scholar Ishtiaq Ahmed discuss the Saudi Arabia–Pakistan mutual defense pact. They trace the relationship between the two countries from Pakistan’s founding in 1947 to the present. They explain the significance of this new pact and its implications for the future.” post-date=”Sep 28, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Saudi Arabia–Pakistan Defense Pact: What Are the Regional and Global Implications?” slug-data=”fo-talks-saudi-arabia-pakistan-defense-pact-what-are-the-regional-and-global-implications”>Rohan Khattar Singh, Fair Observer’s Video Producer & Social Media Manager, speaks with Kaitlyn Diana, an Associate Editor at Fair Observer, about US President Donald Trump’s immigration insurance policies and the Florida detention heart Alligator Alcatraz. They discover the power’s origins, the tales rising from inside and its authorized, political and international penalties. While they spotlight details, a lot of the dialogue activates how symbolism and spectacle form Trump’s method to migration and America’s picture overseas.
Kaitlyn explains that Alligator Alcatraz is a detention facility for undocumented migrants, situated deep within the Florida Everglades. It’s a placing selection of location: The wetlands are dwelling to alligators and invasive Burmese pythons, alongside stifling warmth and humidity. Construction was astonishingly quick, accomplished in simply eight days. The heart can maintain as much as 3,000 individuals.
The title itself carries symbolic weight. “Alligator” highlights the literal risks of the Everglades waters, whereas “Alcatraz” invokes the notorious former jail in San Francisco, California, which was thought of inescapable. Kaitlyn emphasizes that the title is supposed to sign menace — “the name in itself is a threat.” For her, the very siting of the power, 50 miles west of Trump’s Doral resort in Miami, seems like a becoming, if coincidental, element.
Rohan connects this contemporary spectacle with historical past, recalling moats and defensive palaces in India constructed centuries in the past, the place topics have been saved out by prejudice. To him, Alligator Alcatraz resurrects practices thought long-buried, making a disturbing echo of the previous within the current.
Reports concerning the variety of detainees fluctuate, however Kaitlyn estimates 700 to 900 are at present confined. Testimonies from those that have left trace at harsh realities inside. Lawsuits and investigations are already underway on the grounds of each environmental and civil rights.
Environmental teams, together with Friends of the Everglades and the Center for Biological Diversity, argue that officers circumvented laws throughout their rush to assemble the power. They have filed fits naming Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, performing Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Todd Lyons and Miami-Dade County as defendants. At the identical time, the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida and Americans for Immigrant Justice have launched a category motion lawsuit. Their declare is that detainees’ First and Fifth Amendment rights are being violated, whereas authorized service suppliers are additionally denied correct entry.
Kaitlyn acknowledges that Florida and federal officers insist the venture adopted correct channels. Yet, in her view and within the eyes of many, its legality stays uncertain — not simply due to paperwork, however due to the situations and context of its creation. Ultimately, the courts will resolve, however for now, the power’s legitimacy is in critical query.
The broader politics round Alligator Alcatraz come sharply into focus. Homeland Security officers have signaled satisfaction with the mannequin, and White House “border czar” Tom Homan is overtly calling for extra such facilities. Nebraska is reportedly contemplating following Florida’s lead.
Rohan asks if that is real coverage or primarily political theater geared toward energizing the bottom. Kaitlyn says it’s each. While the rhetoric claims to give attention to unlawful immigration, she factors out that individuals with legitimate IDs, even US residents, have been detained. For her, this makes it much less about immigration enforcement and extra about race and ethnicity disguised as border management.
She stresses that spectacle is a trademark of Trump’s politics: “Everything that Trump does, it has to be big, it has to be showy.” In her view, the power is designed not simply to restrict however to display energy — proof of Trump’s management and dedication to hardline guarantees. Rohan concurs, calling it “a lot about show” and “making a statement,” even when legality and humane therapy are sacrificed.
Kaitlyn believes the middle’s deterrent impact is proscribed. For individuals fleeing excessive hazard, the gamble of risking detention within the US should really feel safer than staying at dwelling. Yet she argues that the power’s symbolic function is simple. It is “meant to scare people,” she says, and it contributes to the already declining international fame of the United States.
Earlier this yr, the US was positioned on a human rights watchlist. Kaitlyn describes Alligator Alcatraz as “another tick in the box.” America, lengthy recognized with liberty, is now seen as hypocritical. She contends that the detention heart cements international disillusionment: The US “doesn’t actually value human rights the way that it claims it does.”
The home affect isn’t any much less necessary. Kaitlyn notes that youthful Americans are alarmed. While some approve of Trump’s insurance policies, many really feel worry, believing that “you could be next.” Even discuss of deporting Native Americans heightens this unease. At the identical time, she sees hope within the anger, with this example “revitalizing” Generation Z to struggle again.
Rohan ends on a observe of cautious optimism, suggesting that Generation Z could also be “the voice of change” as a result of they’re actually “bold and fierce.” For him, the controversy over Alligator Alcatraz is not only about one facility in Florida — it’s a check of how far America will go, and the way strongly its youthful residents will push again.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed on this article/video are the writer’s personal and don’t essentially replicate Fair Observer’s editorial coverage.
” post-content-short=” Rohan Khattar Singh, Fair Observer’s Video Producer & Social Media Manager, speaks with Kaitlyn Diana, an Associate Editor at Fair Observer, about US President Donald Trump’s immigration insurance policies and the Florida detention heart Alligator Alcatraz. They discover the power’s origins,…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talk, Rohan Khattar Singh and Kaitlyn Diana discuss US President Donald Trump’s controversial detention center in the Florida Everglades, nicknamed Alligator Alcatraz. Kaitlyn highlights its questionable legality and role as a political spectacle designed to showcase Trump’s power. The facility undermines America’s global image while fueling fear and resistance among young Americans.” post-date=”Sep 27, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Life Inside Donald Trump’s Notorious Alligator Alcatraz Detention Center in Florida” slug-data=”fo-talks-life-inside-donald-trumps-notorious-alligator-alcatraz-detention-center-in-florida”>Fair Observer Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and former Swiss Ambassador to Israel Jean-Daniel Ruch study the rising momentum in Europe towards recognizing Palestinian statehood, Israel’s inside and exterior reactions and the broader implications of the Gaza battle. They discover symbolism, technique, ideology and the deep fractures driving either side of the battle.
Ruch notes that whereas many international locations have lengthy acknowledged Palestine, new momentum emerged in 2024 when six European states joined the record. France, Portugal, Malta and San Marino plan recognition in September, whereas the United Kingdom and Canada situation theirs on a ceasefire and humanitarian entry.
[Since Singh and Ruch spoke, the UK, Australia, Canada and France have recognized Palestine.]
Ruch stresses that recognition is basically symbolic. He believes Western governments spotlight recognition to keep away from substantive measures that might actually stress Israel, corresponding to halting commerce with settlements or proscribing arms and intelligence flows. He calls recognition a “tree which is hiding the forest,” performative quite than transformative. Singh agrees, saying it disguises Western reluctance to confront Israel.
The two-state answer, as soon as the worldwide consensus, Ruch dismisses as a “fairy tale.” He factors out that the Israeli parliament declared there would “never be any Palestinian states.” Furthermore, he says, continued settlement growth makes contiguity inconceivable. Efforts corresponding to pushing Gaza residents out of Gaza City or advancing E1 settlements, which might cut up the West Bank, sign irreversibility.
US coverage has enabled this trajectory. Ruch recollects that even former US President Barack Obama, regardless of clashing with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, authorized the largest-ever navy help package deal — $38 billion. He contrasts this with former US President George W. Bush, the final US chief he believes exerted real stress.
Singh and Ruch spotlight the interior composition of Israeli society: 20% Arab residents and a quickly rising ultra-Orthodox inhabitants that largely avoids navy service. Singh argues these divisions put Israel “on the verge of a civil war.” Ruch acknowledges deep tensions however insists that existential worry of annihilation binds Jewish communities collectively. This survival intuition explains widespread help for the struggle effort after the notorious October 7 assaults.
Singh compares Israel to a “modern-day crusader state,” dwelling below fixed siege. Ruch agrees that Israel’s survival intuition shapes its disproportionate navy responses and underpins its rejection of Palestinian statehood.
European international locations, Ruch argues, are eager to look proactive. Their recognition bulletins masks a refusal to pursue significant insurance policies that will disrupt relations with Israel. Symbolism has psychological and political weight, however with out measures that chunk — financial or diplomatic — Ruch insists it won’t change Israeli conduct in Gaza or the West Bank.
Singh underscores that Europe’s worry of sanctions or political backlash ensures recognition stays rhetorical quite than consequential.
Ruch recollects a Likud political get together insider telling him after October 7: “Now is the moment we will finally do what we always wanted — empty Gaza.” Singh recounts a non secular Israeli who expressed an identical view: Palestinians would finally be pushed out by power.
Ruch believes this intent qualifies as ethnic cleaning and should legally represent genocide. He cites each proof of intent — ministerial statements — and overwhelming details on the bottom: 62,000 killed, together with 17,000 kids, alongside hunger attributable to blocked help. He concludes there may be “really a case to make for genocide, unfortunately, in Gaza today.”
Singh notes that whereas some Israelis declare restraint, even defenders admit leaders’ statements are irresponsible.
Ruch sees Israel’s choices in Gaza as designed to make return inconceivable, from the destruction of Gaza City to the prospect of resettling cleared areas. These ways, mixed with West Bank settlement growth, cement everlasting management.
Singh emphasizes that such actions are justified domestically by existential worry, however internationally, they’re seen as collective punishment.
The October 7 assaults are traced to a few dynamics:
Singh recollects former US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan’s declaration that the Middle East had “never been more peaceful.” He dismisses it as proof of shallow evaluation. Ruch agrees it was silly to assume the battle was dormant.
Ruch underscores that Israel and Iran virtually stand alone in overtly rejecting a Palestinian state. For him, Israel’s ideology — rooted in growth and survivalism — explains each settlement coverage and navy extra. Palestinians, in the meantime, radicalize below oppression, humiliation and lack of land.
Ruch attracts a controversial comparability: Palestinian dedication to withstand is pushed by the identical ethical weight he as soon as encountered amongst Jewish Holocaust survivors who regretted not resisting extra fiercely.
Ruch concludes grimly: A Palestinian state is now “an impossibility.” Israel, certain by existential worry, continues to behave disproportionately. Palestinians stay fragmented and below siege. Singh echoes that the battle exhibits no signal of decision, with recognition campaigns in Europe little greater than symbolic gestures in opposition to entrenched realities.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed on this article/video are the writer’s personal and don’t essentially replicate Fair Observer’s editorial coverage.
” post-content-short=” Fair Observer Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and former Swiss Ambassador to Israel Jean-Daniel Ruch study the rising momentum in Europe towards recognizing Palestinian statehood, Israel’s inside and exterior reactions and the broader implications of the Gaza battle. They discover symbolism,…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Atul Singh and Jean-Daniel Ruch discuss Europe’s symbolic recognition of Palestine, which Ruch argues avoids real pressure on Israel. They explore Israel’s ideology of survival and settlement expansion, alongside charges of genocide in Gaza. Ruch highlights how international neglect, Hamas radicalization and Israel’s existential fear lock both sides into a viciously violent cycle.” post-date=”Sep 26, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Israel Escalates Deadly Assault in Gaza, IDF Now Controls Over 40% of the Gaza Strip” slug-data=”fo-talks-israel-escalates-deadly-assault-in-gaza-idf-now-controls-over-40-of-the-gaza-strip”>Rohan Khattar Singh, Fair Observer’s Video Producer & Social Media Manager, speaks with Alejandro J. Ramos, Founder and Executive Director of the Ramos Research Institute. Their dialog begins with the surprising occasion of September 10, when American conservative activist Charlie Kirk was shot and killed at Utah Valley University. From there, they study political polarization, free speech on campuses and Ramos’s Citizenship Empowerment Framework (CEF), which he believes may restore civic discourse.
Khattar Singh introduces Charlie Kirk as a controversial conservative and outstanding supporter of US President Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” motion. Kirk was well-known for organizing dialogues on campuses, typically establishing indicators inviting college students to debate him. Supporters noticed braveness in his willingness to face hostile crowds, whereas critics accused him of provocation.
Ramos stresses that whereas Kirk was polarizing, he was personable and genuinely invested in dialog, not like conservative commentators corresponding to Ben Shapiro. Though Ramos typically disagreed along with his views, he insists Kirk believed in dialogue. His homicide, then, was each a private tragedy and a symbolic blow to free expression. It additionally uncovered how fragile American democracy has develop into when voices, nevertheless contentious, are silenced by violence quite than countered with concepts.
Students throughout ideological divides typically approached Kirk to not shout him down, however to check their very own arguments. This revealed a starvation for real alternate that’s typically lacking in in the present day’s political local weather.
For Ramos, the best hazard lies within the response to Kirk’s loss of life. He was appalled to see individuals on social media celebrating, saying Kirk “had it coming.” Normalizing political violence, he warns, marks a terrifying shift.
Ramos cites earlier assaults on politicians and judges’ households to argue that violence in opposition to any political determine is unacceptable. He insists he could be simply as outraged if a progressive like New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have been focused. The true enemy, he argues, is just not exterior foes however Americans’ personal hatred of each other. If unchecked, this division may trigger the United States to “die from within.”
In Ramos’s view, Americans should keep in mind they’re one individuals earlier than partisanship consumes the nation. History exhibits republics not often collapse from international conquest; as a substitute, they disintegrate when residents cease trusting one another and lose religion in shared establishments.
Khattar Singh asks whether or not Kirk’s loss of life will cool debate on campuses. Ramos insists universities should stay bastions of democracy. Yet analysis from the Ramos Research Institute exhibits college students throughout the spectrum worry being “canceled” in the event that they converse overtly, and school members typically inject ideology into lecture rooms.
Dialogue, Ramos argues, ought to be about understanding quite than scoring factors. He cites Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s philosophy of attacking concepts, not individuals. Kirk’s capability to attract enormous, various crowds proved that college students nonetheless crave such exchanges, even when they’re contentious. Ramos recollects how Kirk’s “PROVE ME WRONG” indicators sparked lengthy conversations the place individuals listened, challenged and generally modified their minds. Losing that presence dangers leaving a vacuum that extra excessive figures may fill.
From these issues, Ramos created the CEF. He factors to alarming statistics: Only 22% of highschool college students can cross a fundamental civics examination. Without civic information, significant participation in democracy is inconceivable.
The CEF has 4 pillars. Foundational Knowledge ensures college students grasp core ideas. Media Literacy equips them to assume critically about information and sources. Courageous Dialogue requires open, respectful conversations throughout divides. Finally, Engagement urges residents to use these abilities of their communities.
Ramos is making ready to pilot this system at universities and vows to not be silenced. He believes it should be institutionalized so dialogue turns into a everlasting a part of scholar life. For him, the framework is not only an academic reform however a survival technique for democracy, giving younger individuals the instruments to withstand polarization and reclaim civic belief. If college students graduate with the talents to disagree with out hatred, the well being of the republic itself might be strengthened.
Looking forward, Khattar Singh notes that the best portrays Kirk as a martyr, whereas some on the left are detached, pointing to different tragedies the identical day. He presses Ramos on whether or not the homicide will deepen division or encourage unity.
Ramos calls this the “million-dollar question.” Polling exhibits that whereas most Republicans reject celebrating opponents’ deaths, fewer Democrats really feel the identical. He fears that pleasure at Kirk’s loss of life may radicalize moderates and empower extremists like far-right activist Nick Fuentes.
Yet he additionally sees this as a possible wake-up name for Americans. Ramos argues that the American public should select between deepening chaos or recommitting to dialogue. If he have been president, Ramos says, he would lock Congress in a chamber with out telephones till they discovered a manner ahead.
Khattar Singh closes by endorsing the CEF as one step towards unity. Whether Americans seize that chance or retreat additional into polarization will form the way forward for democracy itself.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed on this article/video are the writer’s personal and don’t essentially replicate Fair Observer’s editorial coverage.
” post-content-short=” Rohan Khattar Singh, Fair Observer’s Video Producer & Social Media Manager, speaks with Alejandro J. Ramos, Founder and Executive Director of the Ramos Research Institute. Their dialog begins with the surprising occasion of September 10, when American conservative activist Charlie Kirk was…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Alejandro J. Ramos discuss the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk and its implications on American democracy. Ramos condemns both the violence and celebratory reactions, arguing that hatred within society poses the greatest threat. He presents his Citizenship Empowerment Framework as a path toward dialogue, civic education and unity.” post-date=”Sep 25, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Following Charlie Kirk’s Shooting, Right-Wing Anger Surges as Political Divide Grows in America” slug-data=”fo-talks-following-charlie-kirks-shooting-right-wing-anger-surges-as-political-divide-grows-in-america”>Rohan Khattar Singh, Fair Observer’s Video Producer & Social Media Manager, speaks with Lorenzo Tugnoli, an Italian photojournalist whose work spans greater than a decade within the Middle East. Tugnoli’s newest book, It Can Never Be the Same, focuses on Afghanistan, compiling images from 2019 to 2023 that seize the nation’s turbulence earlier than and after the Taliban’s return to the capital, Kabul. Khattar Singh guides the dialog by themes of visible illustration, ambiguity and the failures of America’s longest struggle, whereas Tugnoli displays on each his private experiences and the broader classes Afghanistan presents the world.
Tugnoli explains that the title of his guide carries two meanings. First, foreigners proceed to view and painting Afghanistan in repetitive, static ways in which fail to seize its evolving realities. Second, no {photograph} can ever replicate the lived expertise of being in a spot. Looking at a picture and dwelling by an occasion are basically totally different, and that hole in expertise is central to his venture.
Tugnoli emphasizes that pictures may be seductive in its obvious readability, but deceptive when it erases the gap between illustration and actuality. His guide tries to remind readers that what they see is just one model of an infinitely extra complicated world.
Khattar Singh notes that Afghanistan is without doubt one of the most photographed areas on earth, but most photographs comply with clichés — armed males and veiled girls. His personal 2019 go to to Kabul revealed a much more various actuality. Tugnoli acknowledges that photographers, himself included, typically begin with such clichés. But with time, they transfer past them, discovering layers of contradiction and complexity. His guide intentionally preserves ambiguity, pushing in opposition to journalism’s tendency to impose a transparent narrative.
He argues that magnificence and ache coexist in Afghanistan: the great thing about mountains, traditions and artwork, and the ache of struggle, poverty and limitless political interference. To ignore both aspect could be dishonest, and Tugnoli’s images search to carry each in stress.
Between 2009 and 2015, Tugnoli lived in Afghanistan, returning regularly afterward. This lengthy engagement helped him look previous floor photographs to seize on a regular basis life. He recollects Afghan troopers dancing throughout a ceasefire — males who, with out context, may simply be mistaken for Taliban fighters. Khattar Singh notes that “Taliban” means “students” in Arabic and Pashto, underscoring how either side have been largely younger males. For Tugnoli, this sort of ambiguity is the power of pictures: It permits a number of interpretations as a substitute of forcing a single reality.
He notes that Afghans typically lived in ways in which defied outdoors classes altogether, with markets bustling, weddings being celebrated and youngsters attending college whilst bombs went off only some miles away. Such juxtapositions, he insists, present the resilience of abnormal Afghans and spotlight how little of their every day existence suits into international reporting.
Some of Tugnoli’s most telling photographs emerged from assignments for The Washington Post. He describes {a photograph} of the pre-September 11 New York skyline hanging contained in the US Army’s base in Jalalabad, Afghanistan. Initially unremarkable, it later struck him as symbolic of America’s “twisted mission” within the nation. The paradox was stark: the United States invaded to kill al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden, succeeded after ten years, stayed one other decade and departed with the Taliban as soon as once more in energy. For Tugnoli, the {photograph} embodied that round futility.
He describes the bottom itself as an odd hybrid house: part-fortress, part-small American city. Soldiers watched American soccer, ate quick meals and lived behind concertina wire, disconnected from the nation they claimed to be securing. The {photograph} of New York encapsulated that distance, displaying how American recollections of September 11 overshadowed Afghan realities.
Asked whether or not misunderstanding led to the Taliban’s return, Tugnoli solutions with out hesitation: sure. The downside was not simply language or tradition, however a scarcity of real curiosity in understanding Afghanistan. Decisions have been typically made in Washington or behind the fortified partitions of UN compounds — enclaves that resembled international homelands greater than Afghanistan. With overwhelming firepower, occupying forces had no incentive to be taught or pay attention. Their mission, Tugnoli argues, served Western political agendas, not Afghan wants.
Khattar Singh contrasts this insularity with the murals painted on blast partitions by Afghan artists like Omaid Sharifi — messages of affection and peace that stand as a poignant counterpoint to the struggle’s brutality. These artworks, Khattar Singh observes, reveal that Afghans didn’t passively settle for international domination. They responded with creativity, utilizing colour and phrases to reclaim public house from worry. This stress between navy energy and human resilience is without doubt one of the strongest themes in Tugnoli’s reflections.
Tugnoli believes the central lesson of Afghanistan is that ambiguity can’t be erased. His guide avoids easy explanations, preferring to immerse readers within the environment of uncertainty that outlined Afghan life. By presenting photographs stripped of captions and reinterpreted in black and white, he asks viewers to confront instability and contradiction instantly.
Rather than delivering “the truth,” It Can Never Be the Same invitations reflection on magnificence, ache and paradox. Khattar Singh concludes by praising this method as a profound strategy to perceive Afghanistan — not by solutions, however by questions that stay open.
For Tugnoli, pictures is strongest not when it explains however when it unsettles. His hope is that audiences depart the guide with questions on struggle, energy and humanity that proceed to resonate lengthy after the final web page is turned.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed on this article/video are the writer’s personal and don’t essentially replicate Fair Observer’s editorial coverage.
” post-content-short=” Rohan Khattar Singh, Fair Observer’s Video Producer & Social Media Manager, speaks with Lorenzo Tugnoli, an Italian photojournalist whose work spans greater than a decade within the Middle East. Tugnoli’s newest guide, It Can Never Be the Same, focuses on Afghanistan, compiling images from…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh interviews Italian photojournalist Lorenzo Tugnoli about his book, It Can Never Be the Same. Tugnoli reflects on Afghanistan’s complexity, the limits of photojournalism and the failures of America’s war. His images highlight ambiguity, beauty and pain, resisting clichés while questioning the very meaning of representation.” post-date=”Sep 24, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: America Is to Blame for Taliban’s Returning to Power” slug-data=”fo-talks-america-is-to-blame-for-talibans-returning-to-power”>Video Producer & Social Media Manager Rohan Khattar Singh interviews political commentator Kyle Moran about US President Donald Trump’s tariff insurance policies and their far-reaching penalties. Their dialog probes the uncertainty of Trump’s method, the reactions from BRICS nations and the way these financial measures might ripple into international alliances, protection technique and technological competitors.
Khattar Singh begins by asking whether or not Trump’s tariffs mark the beginning of an financial chilly struggle. Moran doubts this, mentioning that the coverage is riddled with uncertainty. Some tariffs face authorized challenges, and Trump himself has a historical past of strolling again duties after they danger fueling inflation. While Trump generally frames tariffs as inherently good, Moran insists he’s pragmatic sufficient to keep away from market chaos or shopper backlash.
Moran highlights three questions to observe: which international locations will get exemptions, which can strike free commerce agreements and the way courts will finally rule. For now, nobody, together with Trump, can say precisely the place tariff coverage is headed. This unpredictability makes life tough for companies, as seen with the failed 500% tariffs on Chinese imports that raised prices however produced no concessions from Beijing.
On tariffs as a negotiating instrument, Moran stresses the volatility of Trump’s method. Duties may fall if events attain agreements or rise if talks collapse. But Trump’s frequent public reversals imply even his advisors lack readability. Moran recollects that the acute tariffs on China harm the US financial system and customers greater than they pressured Beijing, underscoring the bounds of this technique.
Khattar Singh presses Moran on whether or not tariffs may backfire by pushing BRICS nations nearer collectively. Moran concedes there may be some danger: Resentment may convey members “slightly closer.” However, he doubts a ten% tariff would overcome deep divisions. India and China stay at odds, whereas Iran and the United Arab Emirates additionally conflict. He predicts that as BRICS grows in affect, its geopolitical fractures will develop into extra obvious.
The BRICS plan to arrange their very own fee system outdoors the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication has develop into particularly controversial. Initially framed as a sovereignty instrument, it now permits Russia to dodge sanctions. Moran warns that with out guardrails, the system may facilitate harmful exercise. Washington, he argues, will develop more and more alarmed, and Trump might attempt to use tariffs to dam its growth.
Moran singles out India as a significant associate. He sees potential for a bilateral commerce take care of New Delhi and hopes for a deeper US–India alliance, particularly given shared issues about China. Defense is central right here. Moran criticizes India’s reliance on Russian programs, citing Iran’s failure to cease Israeli assaults with its S-300 missile programs. He argues it is a “wake-up call” for India and urges the nation to buy US-designed programs as a substitute.
Khattar Singh counters that US MIM-104 Patriot programs have struggled in Ukraine and that India’s Russian-made S-400s carried out successfully in opposition to Pakistan. Still, he notes India’s rising belief within the United States, pointing to its buy of Boeing AH-64 Apache helicopters.
Turning to economics, Moran distinguishes between what a Trump–India deal would possibly appear to be and what it ought to. Trump’s fixation on the Harley-Davidson bike firm complicates negotiations, whereas points corresponding to manufacturing and IT companies stay delicate. Yet Moran insists that bilateral engagement with India is way extra sensible than making an attempt to juggle tons of of simultaneous agreements.
He permits that multilateralism with BRICS may serve US pursuits in some instances, however stresses that inside divisions make bilateral offers the safer path. For India, alignment with Washington on commerce and protection may strengthen each nations’ positions within the international order.
Khattar Singh and Moran agree that AI will outline the subsequent financial period. Moran factors to the UAE’s aggressive push to develop into an AI hub and warns in opposition to leaving the sphere to China, whose advances he identifies as probably disastrous. He argues the US shouldn’t attempt to deal with AI challenges alone.
Khattar Singh notes India’s vibrant AI ecosystem, from widespread use of ChatGPT to nationwide funding in analysis. Together with the US and the UAE, India may anchor an AI partnership. By distinction, the European Union’s regulatory setting discourages innovation. As Moran bluntly notes, “None of these AI companies are European. Zero.”
In closing, Khattar Singh asks whether or not tariffs finally harm Americans. Moran’s reply is a convincing sure. Economists are proper, he says, that tariffs elevate home prices. The impact will depend on scale — focused tariffs like these on Chinese aluminum in 2018 have been manageable, however sweeping 500% tariffs would devastate customers and trade.
Trump himself is inconsistent, generally framing tariffs as leverage, different occasions as income. That inconsistency suggests tariffs won’t disappear shortly. Moran ends by stressing that the US wants aggressive companions. While not excluding Europe, he doubts the outdated transatlantic alliance can ship innovation. For him, the longer term lies in nearer ties with India — on protection, commerce and particularly AI.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed on this article/video are the writer’s personal and don’t essentially replicate Fair Observer’s editorial coverage.
” post-content-short=” Video Producer & Social Media Manager Rohan Khattar Singh interviews political commentator Kyle Moran about US President Donald Trump’s tariff insurance policies and their far-reaching penalties. Their dialog probes the uncertainty of Trump’s method, the reactions from BRICS nations and…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Kyle Moran discuss US President Donald Trump’s tariff policies, arguing they create uncertainty and risk harming American consumers. Moran warns that tariffs could inadvertently strengthen BRICS, despite the bloc’s internal divisions. He highlights India as Washington’s most important partner for trade, defense and especially AI cooperation.” post-date=”Sep 23, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Donald Trump’s Tariffs Could Boomerang and Unite the BRICS Nations” slug-data=”fo-talks-donald-trumps-tariffs-could-boomerang-and-unite-the-brics-nations”>Fair Observer’s Chief Strategy Officer, Peter Isackson, speaks with CODEPINK journalist Nicholas J. S. Davies about Iran’s nuclear program, the function of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Israel’s latest assaults on Iran. Their dialog is framed by the Twelve-Day War, however its roots stretch again twenty years. Isackson and Davies revisit the legacy of US President George W. Bush’s administration, the “axis of evil” and the best way narratives of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) have been used to justify battle.
Davies begins with historical past. He recollects that Iran itself was the sufferer of chemical weapons assaults by Iraq throughout the Nineteen Eighties, carried out with the assistance of the United States and European allies. He argues that Iran by no means developed nuclear weapons and views them as “religiously forbidden.” Despite this, each the US and Israel have sustained an “endless […] propaganda war” portraying Iran as a nuclear menace.
Isackson asks how this narrative gained traction. Davies factors to Israeli claims since 2018 of getting obtained secret Iranian nuclear paperwork. These paperwork, he says, have been offered to the IAEA and cited as proof of nuclear exercise. Davies coauthored an article with CODEPINK Cofounder Medea Benjamin titled “The Plot Against Iran,” which argued that the IAEA had develop into a automobile for legitimizing US–Israeli stress and creating the pretext for struggle.
Isackson expresses his bewilderment: Israel, which possesses nuclear weapons, is just not a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but it feeds intelligence to the IAEA. The company takes this info significantly whereas ignoring Israel’s personal arsenal.
Davies responds that that is “contradictory” and “absurd.” He explains that Israel’s safeguards settlement with the IAEA is successfully meaningless. Unlike North Korea, which overtly left the IAEA, Israel has maintained a hole settlement relationship again to the Seventies. This, Davies claims, allowed Israel to develop nuclear weapons with out scrutiny, with tacit US help.
Davies then turns to Israel’s navy marketing campaign. Over the previous yr and a half, he argues, Israel attacked almost all its neighbors — Syria, Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank — earlier than turning to Iran. He describes the latest operations as a mixture of sabotage, assassinations, drone strikes and missile assaults, typically performed with assist from the Iranian political group Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK). Davies characterizes the MEK as a harmful sect with terrorist roots. He claims that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu exaggerated the success of those operations, calling them “misdirection.”
The dialogue shifts to the historical past of nuclear negotiations. Davies reminds Isackson that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015 resolved many issues by inserting Iran below intrusive inspections. He stresses that the IAEA itself had concluded that pre-2003 analysis in Iran didn’t quantity to a weapons program. Under the JCPOA, these points have been thought of closed.
Still, IAEA Director Rafael Grossi’s May 2024 report famous Iran’s enrichment of uranium to 60% — beneath weapons-grade 90% however increased than civilian gas ranges. Davies emphasizes that specialists imagine it could take years for Iran to construct a bomb, even when it determined to. No proof suggests such a choice has been made.
For Davies, Israel’s technique is evident: push the IAEA to sentence Iran, then use the decision as justification for struggle. On June 12, the IAEA board handed a decision criticizing Iran for non-cooperation. Davies stresses that Israel had planes loaded with bombs earlier than the vote even ended. He argues that the US and its allies — the United Kingdom, France and Germany — enabled this escalation by drafting the decision, although they could not have anticipated instant struggle. Still, Davies believes there may be “a lot of complicity to go around in all of this.”
Isackson presses Davies on whether or not Grossi knowingly allowed his report back to function cowl for Israeli aggression. Davies notes that Iran now accuses Grossi of failing to sentence the assaults, contrasting him with former IAEA General Director Mohamed ElBaradei, who defied US claims about WMDs in Iraq. ElBaradei gained the Nobel Peace Prize in 2005 for his stance, later chronicling his struggles in his book, The Age of Deception: Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times.
Davies contends that Grossi selected the alternative path, permitting Israel and the US to make use of the IAEA for political functions.
The dialog ends with a stark warning. Isackson asks how harmful this second actually is. Davies cites the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ Doomsday Clock, now nearer to midnight than ever. He argues that dismantled arms-control agreements, mixed with Israeli brinkmanship, make the world extra harmful than throughout the Cold War.
Davies fears that if Israel have been dropping a full-scale struggle with Iran, it would resort to nuclear weapons. Pakistan has already threatened to retaliate with nuclear arms on Iran’s behalf. In such a situation, he warns, the US, Russia or NATO may simply be drawn in.
Davies concludes that we stay in a “dangerous, deceptive world” the place propaganda and manipulation information worldwide establishments. Isackson closes by reflecting on how this episode could also be “the most dangerous thing that has happened in recent months” — not just for Iran, however for international safety.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed on this article/video are the writer’s personal and don’t essentially replicate Fair Observer’s editorial coverage.
” post-content-short=” Fair Observer’s Chief Strategy Officer, Peter Isackson, speaks with CODEPINK journalist Nicholas J. S. Davies about Iran’s nuclear program, the function of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Israel’s latest assaults on Iran. Their dialog is framed by the Twelve-Day War, however…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Peter Isackson and Nicolas J. S. Davies examine Israel’s latest strikes on Iran. Davies argues that Iran is misrepresented as a nuclear threat while Israel manipulates the International Atomic Energy Agency to legitimize its actions. Both speakers highlight the hypocrisy of Western powers and the risk of nuclear escalation if global powers enter the conflict.” post-date=”Sep 22, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Did the US and Israel Lie About Iran Building Nuclear Weapons?” slug-data=”fo-talks-did-the-us-and-israel-lie-about-iran-building-nuclear-weapons”>Rohan Khattar Singh, Fair Observer’s Video Producer & Social Media Manager, speaks with unbiased Middle East analyst Abdullah O Hayek concerning the sudden derailment of Israel–Syria peace talks and the broader penalties for the area. The dialog traces the delicate optimism of early negotiations, the eruption of sectarian violence in southern Syria and Israel’s overwhelming navy response that poisoned the environment of belief. Hayek examines the secrecy surrounding the talks, Israel’s twin technique of negotiation and consolidation, Turkey’s rising affect and the existential query of whether or not Syria can maintain collectively as a unified state.
Khattar Singh begins with the extraordinary occasions of late May and early June, when Israel and Syria quietly entered negotiations. Hayek calls this “nothing short of a geopolitical earthquake” after a long time of hostility. Reports prompt a breakthrough was inside attain, with Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa — previously Abu Mohammad al-Julani, who toppled Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in December 2024 — in search of rapprochement by way of Emirati and American channels.
US President Donald Trump personally embraced this momentum, assembly Sharaa in Riyadh and lifting sanctions on June 30 as a gesture of goodwill. Israel signaled guarded openness as long as safety ensures and management over the Golan Heights have been preserved. Hayek recollects the diplomatic momentum as “unstoppable,” with either side considering normalization by the top of the yr.
That optimism collapsed in mid-July. Sectarian clashes between Druze militias and Bedouin tribes erupted within the Suwayda province, close to the Golan Heights and Jordan. The violence escalated quickly, displacing almost 200,000 civilians and eroding Sharaa’s authority. Accusations that Syrian forces aided atrocities in opposition to Druze civilians deepened the disaster, opening the door for Israeli intervention.
Khattar Singh presses Hayek on how shut the 2 sides have been to an settlement. Hayek explains that insiders spoke of interim preparations, even imaginative concepts like a joint “peace park” within the Golan Heights. For Sharaa, peace promised reconstruction, legitimacy and an finish to isolation. For Israel, it provided a secure northern frontier and a diplomatic success below the Abraham Accords framework.
Yet sectarian bloodshed and Israel’s huge response destroyed the delicate belief. Hayek insists that either side share blame, however Israel’s airstrikes — together with in opposition to Damascus’s Ministry of Defense and the presidential palace — “irreparably poisoned the atmosphere.” From Syria’s perspective, the strikes have been a betrayal. From Israel’s, Damascus had failed to manage its forces and forestall sectarian killings. The consequence was the collapse of talks that solely weeks earlier appeared inside grasp.
The dialogue turns to Israel’s intervention. On July 14, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared Israel the “protector of the Druze brethren” and ordered airstrikes in opposition to Syrian models. By July 16, Israel had launched greater than 160 strikes, extending to central Damascus.
Hayek explains that Israel framed the motion as a humanitarian protection and a strategy to implement a buffer zone. In actuality, it shattered the nascent belief. Russia and Iran echoed Syrian accusations of sovereignty violations, whereas even Washington urged restraint. Hayek underlines the dimensions: This was the primary direct Israeli assault on Syria’s new authorities since Assad’s fall. Hayek says that “ultimately, it was Israel that pulled the trigger … it prioritized military force over further dialogue.”
Khattar Singh asks why the peace talks have been performed in secrecy. Hayek explains that for Syria, negotiations with Israel have been politically explosive. Sharaa confronted opposition from Islamist factions, Assad loyalists and Iran-backed militias. For Israel, insisting that its sovereignty over the Golan Heights was “non-negotiable” risked fracturing Netanyahu’s coalition.
Both sides used again channels by the United States and the United Arab Emirates to keep away from public backlash and spoilers from Iran or Hezbollah. Netanyahu additionally averted overtly negotiating with a frontrunner as soon as linked to jihadist teams. Hayek stresses that secrecy was supposed to offer talks “a chance to succeed,” however in follow, it left them brittle and weak to break down as soon as violence escalated.
Khattar Singh asks whether or not Israel actually desired peace. Hayek argues that Israel had a twin place: It had actual incentives for stability and diplomatic progress, however by itself phrases. Israel demanded recognition of sovereignty over the Golan Heights and safety ensures above all.
Meanwhile, Israeli forces had already expanded their footprint. Within days of Assad’s ousting, Israel pushed previous the United Nations buffer zone, constructed outposts and declared the 1974 disengagement line void. Combined with the regular growth of Golan settlements, these strikes prompt Israel was consolidating management whereas speaking peace. Hayek calls Israel’s need “real but extremely conditional,” a method of shopping for time whereas strengthening its place.
Khattar Singh raises Turkey’s function. Hayek explains that Turkey, below Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, has been each mediator and disruptor. It supported Syrian rebels in opposition to Assad, partnered with Russia and Iran in ceasefire talks, and have become a detailed ally of the Sharaa authorities after Assad’s fall.
Turkey now gives reconstruction help, safety coaching and intelligence help, even thwarting assassination makes an attempt in opposition to Sharaa. Ankara, the Turkish capital, additionally brokered a deal forcing the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces into integration with the brand new state. Hayek calls this “mediation by leverage:” Turkey knits Syria again collectively however at all times consistent with its personal pursuits.
Finally, Khattar Singh asks whether or not Syria can maintain collectively. Hayek warns of alarming indicators: sectarian massacres, militia warlordism and drug trafficking. Minorities corresponding to Alawites and Druze worry for his or her survival. He foresees the chance of fragmentation into enclaves — Druze, Alawite, Kurdish and Sunni — akin to Yugoslavia or Libya.
Still, Hayek doesn’t imagine collapse is inevitable. Sharaa should unify the nation by inclusive governance, self-discipline his navy and pursue reconciliation. Disarming militias and integrating fighters by a reputable disarmament, demobilization and reintegration program is crucial. With insurance policies targeted on equality and safety for all communities, Hayek argues, Syria can nonetheless keep away from disintegration.
Khattar Singh and Hayek’s dialogue captures each the promise and peril of the Israel–Syria peace effort. From unprecedented negotiations to devastating violence, the method illustrates how shortly belief can unravel within the Middle East. For Israel, safety and territorial management stay paramount. For Syria, survival and unity take priority. Turkey performs mediator and energy dealer, whereas the specter of collapse hangs over the Syrian state.
As Hayek notes, the talks might not have “immediately fizzled out,” however after the occasions of July, prospects for peace look far-fetched.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed on this article/video are the writer’s personal and don’t essentially replicate Fair Observer’s editorial coverage.
” post-content-short=” Rohan Khattar Singh, Fair Observer’s Video Producer & Social Media Manager, speaks with unbiased Middle East analyst Abdullah O Hayek concerning the sudden derailment of Israel–Syria peace talks and the broader penalties for the area. The dialog traces the delicate optimism of early…” post_summery=”Rohan Khattar Singh and Abdullah O Hayek trace the rise and collapse of Israel–Syria peace talks in mid-2025. Hayek emphasizes that both sides bore responsibility, but Israel’s overwhelming military response destroyed fragile trust and froze negotiations. The discussion widens to Israel’s dual strategy, Turkey’s power plays and the looming risk of Syria’s fragmentation, leaving peace a distant prospect.” post-date=”Sep 21, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Israel–Syria Peace Talks Derailed After Israeli Airstrikes, Turkey Makes Its Moves” slug-data=”fo-talks-israel-syria-peace-talks-derailed-after-israeli-airstrikes-turkey-makes-its-moves”>[Though this video is not recent, the authors’ discussion remains relevant today.]
Josef Olmert, an Israeli tutorial and political commentator, dives into US President Donald Trump’s newest proposals for Gaza and the broader Middle East. Olmert lays out his sharp critiques and his different imaginative and prescient. The dialog ranges from the feasibility of mass resettlement of Gazans, to the crucial of destroying Hamas, to the overriding problem posed by Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Olmert begins by admitting his confusion. For years, Trump positioned himself as an isolationist, pulling America out of worldwide organizations and pushing to withdraw troops from battle zones. Yet, on this occasion, he known as for US navy involvement within the border area between Israel and Gaza, an space Olmert describes as “one of the most problematic, dangerous and volatile regions of the world.” To him, the contradiction is placing.
Olmert concedes that Trump possesses a sure originality and “out-of-the-box” imaginative and prescient for fixing regional issues. Still, he sees basic flaws. Trump assumes a single occasion or plan can present a sweeping answer to the Middle East’s issues. Olmert pushes again firmly: “It doesn’t work like that.” Countless grand plans, from peace conferences to worldwide accords, have failed as a result of the Middle East is just too various, fractured and traditionally laden with battle.
Olmert additionally highlights Trump’s reliance on financial logic. As a businessman, the president tends to see business fixes as the trail to stability. Olmert acknowledges that elevating dwelling requirements is fascinating, however he stresses that financial development can’t erase deep-rooted political and ideological struggles. In his phrases, “The entire foundation, therefore, of the approach is wrong.”
Olmert then addresses Trump’s give attention to Gaza’s demographic problem. With over two million individuals packed right into a small territory missing adequate infrastructure, the humanitarian pressure is simple. Olmert agrees that the Gaza Strip “cannot cater for a population of over two million people.” Trump prompt emigration as a treatment, with different international locations absorbing Gazans.
While Olmert admits some Gazans would possibly wish to depart voluntarily, he dismisses the thought. No nation can realistically resettle such numbers, actually not in a brief timeframe. Even if partially profitable, the area would destabilize within the transition. He attracts on historical past, recalling how the Oslo Accords shortly unraveled below stress from opponents. Any drawn-out evacuation, he insists, would invite chaos.
Despite his skepticism, Olmert identifies actionable factors in Trump’s rhetoric. Chief amongst them is the decision to dismantle the Palestinian Sunni militant group Hamas, which governs Gaza. Olmert stresses his long-held conviction that “if you want to achieve peace along the border between Israel and Gaza, Hamas has to be totally destroyed.” He rejects the notion that peace is feasible with actors who categorically oppose coexistence.
He additionally aligns with Trump on liberating Israeli hostages however asks the essential query: how? Once once more, the elimination of two million Gazans is just not the reply. Instead, the main focus should stay squarely on neutralizing Hamas.
Turning to neighboring states, Olmert briefly considers the potential roles of Egypt and Jordan. Egypt, he suggests, would possibly soak up a restricted variety of individuals. Jordan, nevertheless, already has a fragile demographic steadiness, with as much as 70% of its inhabitants being of Palestinian origin. Bringing extra Gazans would, in his view, danger destabilizing the Hashemite Kingdom.
While critics of Jordan typically spotlight corruption or weak establishments, Olmert counters that the monarchy has endured for a century — dismantling it may open doorways to even better instability. “The devil you know sometimes is better than the devils you don’t know,” he says.
Olmert additionally raises value issues. Any plan would require huge monetary incentives. Ultimately, he argues, the burden would fall on the US taxpayer.
Saudi Arabia enters the dialog as properly. Trump publicly claimed that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman had expressed opposition to a Palestinian state. Olmert considers this disclosure a blunder. Statements that could be tolerated in personal, he warns, develop into problematic when voiced overtly, forcing Saudi leaders to disclaim them.
For Olmert, the true strategic focus ought to stay on the Islamic Republic of Iran. He criticizes Trump’s obscure feedback about sanctions and his willingness to satisfy the Iranian president. What disturbed him most was the absence of even the boilerplate assertion of “all the options on the table.”
He argues that Iran’s nuclear ambitions and regional affect are “the key.” Destroying Iran’s nuclear program, he asserts, would have a far better stabilizing affect than resettling Gazans. Gulf Arab states, particularly Saudi Arabia, stay below fixed worry of Iran’s expansionist ambitions. Curtailing the nation, he says, would additionally shift Palestinian attitudes.
Even so, Olmert doesn’t current this as a cure-all. He admits that eradicating Iran’s nuclear capability won’t resolve the whole lot, nevertheless it has the next likelihood of selling stability than Trump’s Gaza proposals. Delays in coping with Tehran, he warns, would permit Iran to speed up its nuclear program, creating an existential menace for Israel that “Israel should not accept.”
Olmert additionally examines reactions inside Israel. Right-wing politicians within the ruling Likud get together and ultranationalist ministers, corresponding to Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, celebrated Trump’s phrases. Yet they missed one important assertion: Trump’s rejection of recent settlements in Gaza. This may sign broader reservations about settlement coverage, together with within the West Bank.
Trump even promised an announcement concerning sovereignty within the West Bank, which Olmert interprets as an try to reconcile annexation of sure areas with a two-state framework. In his evaluation, the Israeli proper wing “doesn’t understand” that Trump operates inside worldwide constraints. Aligning too carefully along with his proposals, Olmert warns, dangers international backlash and will isolate Israel.
In closing, Olmert emphasizes what he sees as Israel’s true precedence. While Trump shifts focus to Gaza, Olmert insists that “the main thing is still the Iranian problem.” For Israel, he says, the Gaza situation is secondary. Ensuring that the world’s consideration stays on Iran — not on Trump’s impractical resettlement concepts — is the technique Israel should pursue.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed on this article/video are the writer’s personal and don’t essentially replicate Fair Observer’s editorial coverage.
” post-content-short=” Josef Olmert, an Israeli tutorial and political commentator, dives into US President Donald Trump’s newest proposals for Gaza and the broader Middle East. Olmert lays out his sharp critiques and his different…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Josef Olmert weighs in on US President Donald Trump’s controversial Middle East proposals, focusing on Gaza and beyond. He argues that Trump’s business-minded, simplistic approach cannot address the region’s deep-rooted political and ideological conflicts. The real strategic threat remains Iran’s nuclear ambitions; Israel must not be distracted by Trump’s impractical plans.” post-date=”Sep 20, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Josef Olmert on Trump’s Gaza Plan” slug-data=”fo-talks-josef-olmert-on-trumps-gaza-plan”>This web page was created programmatically, to learn the article in its unique location you’ll be able to go to the hyperlink bellow:
https://www.fairobserver.com/video/fo-talks-gen-zs-anti-left-shift-women-turn-to-conservative-and-religious-lifestyle/
and if you wish to take away this text from our web site please contact us
This web page was created programmatically, to learn the article in its authentic location you…
This web page was created programmatically, to learn the article in its unique location you…
This web page was created programmatically, to learn the article in its unique location you…
This web page was created programmatically, to learn the article in its authentic location you…
This web page was created programmatically, to learn the article in its unique location you…
This web page was created programmatically, to learn the article in its authentic location you'll…