Education
AI, Education and “How to Raise Successful People”
Fair Observer Board Member Heather (Heldman) Neeman and renowned educator Esther Wojcicki discuss how artificial intelligence is transforming education. Wojcicki’s TRICK method — Trust, Respect, Independence, Collaboration and Kindness — can empower parents and students alike. The discussion addresses both the micro level of parenting and the macro challenges facing US education.
The TRICK method in 2025
Drawing from her book, How to Raise Successful People, Wojcicki emphasizes that the simple TRICK principles often run counter to today’s parenting habits. She offers a detailed set of actions parents can take to foster independence: letting children set up their own playdates instead of acting as the go-between, involving them in scheduling after-school activities and assigning meaningful household responsibilities. She believes these steps signal trust and help children “be in control of their world,” countering the modern trend of over-accommodation.
Examples range from letting children plan weekend outings to giving them full responsibility for a pet’s care — without stepping in if they fail. She also points to research showing that children who do regular chores grow into more capable and happier adults. She notes that in immigrant families, where children often “pull their weight,” self-sufficiency tends to be higher.
AI’s place in the classroom
Wojcicki draws a direct parallel between the current fear of AI in schools and past overreactions to calculators in the 1980s. She criticizes outright bans, such as those in New York City and Los Angeles, as short-sighted and rooted in fear. Instead, she calls for structured AI literacy programs, likening them to driver’s education: “You wouldn’t give someone a car without teaching them to drive.”
Her classroom philosophy — used successfully when integrating computers decades ago — is to position students as co-learners and teachers, allowing them to share AI discoveries with peers. She argues that this not only demystifies technology but also builds speaking skills, confidence and collaboration. Projects such as AI-assisted video storytelling about personal heroes allow students to engage creatively while learning about the responsible use of powerful tools.
The trust gap in public education
Neeman highlights a broader erosion of trust in American public schools, citing political tensions, rising homeschooling and safety concerns. Wojcicki agrees, attributing much of the problem to a “one-size-fits-all” instructional model. She argues that expecting a single teacher to meet the needs of students who may be years ahead or behind is “almost impossible” in a standard class period. Gifted students, struggling students and those in the middle all require different forms of engagement. The current push for identical treatment in the name of equality, she says, “runs against common sense and human nature,” leaving many parents frustrated and disillusioned.
Rethinking the model
The conversation turns to innovative alternatives. The program 2 Hour Learning, co-founded by MacKenzie Price, offers a concise model that combines individualized AI-driven instruction in the morning with afternoons dedicated to passion projects and collaborative work. Wojcicki sees this as “100% aligned” with her TRICK philosophy, arguing that it avoids the boredom and disengagement common in traditional classrooms where students “sit quietly memorizing material they don’t care about.” She believes public schools could adapt such models, especially with AI’s ability to tailor lessons to each student’s pace and needs.
Wojcicki’s nonprofit, Global Moonshots for Education, founded in 2019, works to spread such approaches worldwide. It recognizes schools that empower students as independent thinkers and collaborative problem-solvers.
Democracy, misinformation and AI risks
Neeman raises concerns about algorithm-driven “information silos” that feed different facts to different political groups, further polarizing the country. Wojcicki links this directly to low literacy levels — she cites data showing that most American adults read at only a sixth-grade level, with many minorities at a fourth-grade level — and the lack of critical thinking instruction.
Wojcicki warns that misinformation, once believed, is stubbornly resistant to correction. A false story about Pope Francis endorsing US President Donald Trump illustrates this. The rise of deepfakes compounds the problem, making it difficult for the public to discern truth from fabrication.
Teaching history, she argues, must go beyond rote memorization and instead connect past events to present realities — for instance, studying ancient Egypt alongside modern Egyptian politics or linking author George Orwell’s famous novel, 1984, to current examples of authoritarian behavior.
Looking ahead with hope
Despite these challenges, Wojcicki ends on an optimistic note. She is developing an AI-supported parenting app called Parenting TRICK to guide parents toward fostering independence rather than hovering over their children. She is also co-authoring a book with 25 of her former students to showcase how her educational style has shaped their lives and careers.
Her hope is that such tools and stories will inspire districts and policymakers to adopt more personalized, flexible models like 2 Hour Learning’s — models she believes can prepare young people to think critically, work collaboratively and contribute meaningfully to a healthy democracy.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” Fair Observer Board Member Heather (Heldman) Neeman and renowned educator Esther Wojcicki discuss how artificial intelligence is transforming education. Wojcicki’s TRICK method — Trust, Respect, Independence, Collaboration and Kindness — can empower parents and students alike. The discussion…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Heather (Heldman) Neeman interviews Esther Wojcicki about her TRICK method (Trust, Respect, Independence, Collaboration and Kindness) and how AI can transform education. Wojcicki critiques one-size-fits-all schooling and advocates for independence-building parenting. She also tackles mistrust in public education, misinformation and AI’s potential to affect democracy.” post-date=”Aug 26, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: AI, Education and “How to Raise Successful People”” slug-data=”fo-talks-ai-education-and-how-to-raise-successful-people”>FO° Talks: AI, Education and “How to Raise Successful People”
Fair Observer Founder, CEO & Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh hosts a live chat with retired US Ambassador Gary Grappo and retired CIA Officer Glenn Carle. They dissect US President Donald Trump’s two summits of uncertainty. The conversation moves through three themes: the summit in Anchorage, Alaska, with Russian President Vladimir Putin; the follow-up summit in Washington, DC; and the broader implications for Ukraine, Europe and global security.
The Anchorage summit: a triumph for Putin
Glenn opens with a stark assessment of Trump’s relationship with Russia. He calls it “bizarre” and suggests that Trump is, at the very least, manipulated by Russian intelligence. He argues that Trump often echoes Russian foreign policy talking points verbatim, making him one of the easiest political figures for Moscow to influence. For Glenn, the Anchorage summit is nothing less than a symbolic and practical victory for Putin. By meeting with the world’s leading sanctioning power, Putin breaks out of the containment imposed since the Ukraine invasion.
Glenn dismisses Trump’s pre-summit tough rhetoric as little more than tactical posturing, perhaps designed to create leverage or even burnish his credentials for a Nobel Prize. From Glenn’s perspective, the meeting yields nothing for Washington while granting Russia international legitimacy. He concludes that Trump achieves his personal goal — being the center of attention and restoring Putin’s prominence — while Europe is sidelined and Ukraine left in a vulnerable position.
Gary echoes this view, calling Trump’s treatment of Putin “bizarre, uncanny and solicitous,” almost as if Trump is a subordinate. He highlights Putin’s deliberate tactic of keeping the US president waiting — a classic power play in diplomacy designed to show dominance. For Gary, Trump’s behavior upon greeting Putin is shocking for a US president and signals weakness rather than resolve.
Gary goes further by analyzing Putin’s body language, which he interprets as a display of dominance shaped by the Russian leader’s background in judo. Putin’s habit of speaking at length, he argues, is a strategic move to frame his vision as the superior approach. Trump seems to accept this by abandoning demands for a ceasefire.
Instead, Trump moves toward Putin’s preferred path of a swift “peace plan.” Gary warns that genuine peace agreements are complex and time-consuming, and Trump’s negotiating team lacks the experience to manage such intricacies. In his view, Trump essentially concedes on the ceasefire while Putin flatters Trump with dubious claims, such as saying Trump won the 2020 election and that Russia would not have invaded Ukraine under his presidency. Gary dismisses these as manipulative falsehoods.
A Russian journalist describes the event as a “total victory for Russia and for Putin.” Both Gary and Glenn find this judgment accurate. Glenn reiterates that Trump has no coherent strategy, only the desire to appear successful in the moment. Trump’s foreign policy, he argues, is not guided by principles or philosophy but by self-interest and personal image.
Atul sums up the consensus: The United States gains nothing, Putin emerges as a clear winner and Trump, in his own mind, wins by being the center of attention.
The Washington summit: damage control or crisis?
The Washington follow-up summit was meant to address the fallout from Anchorage, but brought mixed results. Gary notes that Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy prompts the latter to seek a meeting in Washington. This is significant, given Zelenskyy’s bruising experience in February when US Vice President JD Vance publicly told him to capitulate, straining US–Ukraine relations.
Gary believes the presence of European leaders at the Washington summit helped prevent a repeat of that debacle. Trump’s talk of territorial concessions, however, unsettled Zelenskyy and European allies, raising fears of a US pivot toward Russian terms. While some US officials floated the possibility of peacekeeping missions, Gary warns such assurances could vanish quickly if not endorsed directly by Trump.
Atul asks whether the Washington summit amounts to damage control. Gary agrees, though he doubts that is the official intention. Glenn, in typically blunt terms, describes the event as moving from “the jaws of a definitive catastrophe” — namely the collapse of Ukraine, NATO’s unraveling and Russia’s absorption of Central Europe — to a severe crisis. He likens this to shifting from certain death to “fourth-stage cancer.” His advice to Europe is clear: Stay close to the US but prepare to defend yourselves independently. Europe, he argues, has shown more capability and resilience than expected, but reliance on Trump’s America is risky.
Style, strategy and strain: reactions to Zelenskyy and Europe
At this point, Atul introduces three journalistic observations:
Zelenskyy’s appearance: Some European journalists criticize his all-black attire and angled chair as brash. Glenn dismisses such concerns, praising Zelenskyy for presenting himself as a wartime leader rather than a supplicant.
European leaders’ weakness: Most, apart from Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, face domestic political fragility due to economic hardship and low approval ratings. Glenn attributes these vulnerabilities to broader social strains such as modernization and immigration, but insists their support for Ukraine is rational and necessary. Gary acknowledges the fragility but emphasizes that the public understands the importance of standing behind Ukraine and NATO.
Zelenskyy as a “dead man walking:” Some commentators suggest his thin-skinned behavior, corruption scandals and dwindling US support undermine his leadership. Glenn admits he is starting to see troubling signs, citing polls showing Ukrainians’ desire for peace. Gary, however, strongly rejects such polls as misleading. He stresses that large majorities of Ukrainians oppose territorial concessions, comparing pro-peace responses to vague platitudes like “motherhood and apple pie.”
The two experts diverge on polling but agree that European unity on defending Ukraine remains strong. Leaders may overstate praise for Trump to keep him engaged, but Gary worries about the lack of substantive detail in Washington. Both warn that Trump’s negotiating team lacks the expertise for serious diplomacy.
Patterns of aggression and fragile diplomacy
Glenn broadens the lens, pointing to Russia’s record of unchecked aggressions — in Montenegro, Nagorno-Karabakh, Georgia, Moldova, Estonia, Crimea and Ukraine. He argues that the West has consistently ignored these actions, responding only with vague calls for peace. For him, Trump represents a continuation of this failure, offering little interest in complex policy and even less capacity for nuanced statecraft.
Gary, only “microscopically” more optimistic after Washington than Anchorage, hopes Zelenskyy and European leaders can persuade Trump of Ukraine’s security importance. He underscores the brutality of Putin’s policy, particularly the kidnapping of thousands of Ukrainian children, who are placed in Russian families — a tactic with long-term consequences.
Looking ahead: pressure, politics and possibilities
The final portion of the discussion looks ahead. Atul raises two questions: the influence of domestic pressures in Europe, particularly among Muslim populations who see Western support for Ukraine as biased compared to Gaza, and the Republican narrative in Washington portraying Europe as weak and dependent.
Gary believes Trump remains fixated on staging a trilateral summit with Putin and Zelenskyy, though he doubts Putin’s willingness to participate. Without major US financial commitments — perhaps $50–80 billion — Russia has little incentive to engage. NATO’s future, he warns, is tied directly to the Ukraine question. Keeping Trump involved, possibly with the prospect of a Nobel Prize, might help, but Gary doubts Trump will take substantive steps.
Glenn, however, sees a potential path forward. He notes that the US could provide arms to NATO countries, which could then transfer them to Ukraine, allowing Trump to maintain his pro-Putin image without entirely abandoning Kyiv. This arrangement, he argues, might be the most plausible near-term strategy. Ultimately, he lays out two possible outcomes: Either Ukraine collapses or it is sustained by European and American support until Putin is forced to halt or accept defeat.
The future hangs in the balance
The discussion paints a sobering picture of Trump’s foreign policy approach. For Glenn, Trump is a leader driven solely by self-image, easily manipulated yet impossible to control. For Gary, Trump’s diplomatic style is reckless and devoid of substance, leaving NATO allies anxious and Ukraine imperiled. Both agree that Putin emerges strengthened from Anchorage and that Washington offers only a slight reprieve from disaster.
In their eyes, the uncertainty of Trump’s summits reflects a deeper crisis in transatlantic relations, where Europe must prepare to defend itself while still relying on an unpredictable US. The stakes, they conclude, are nothing less than Ukraine’s survival and NATO’s future.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” Fair Observer Founder, CEO & Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh hosts a live chat with retired US Ambassador Gary Grappo and retired CIA Officer Glenn Carle. They dissect US President Donald Trump’s two summits of uncertainty. The conversation moves through three themes: the summit in Anchorage,…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Live, Atul Singh, Gary Grappo and Glenn Carle present US President Donald Trump’s recent summits as deeply destabilizing for Ukraine and NATO. Anchorage, they argue, was a clear win for Putin, while Washington was mere damage control. Gary and Glenn see Trump as driven by ego, leaving Europe to brace for uncertain security.” post-date=”Aug 25, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Live: Trump Hands Putin a Win in Alaska as Zelenskyy and EU Leaders Huddle in the White House” slug-data=”fo-live-trump-hands-putin-a-win-in-alaska-as-zelenskyy-and-eu-leaders-huddle-in-the-white-house”>
FO° Live: Trump Hands Putin a Win in Alaska as Zelenskyy and EU Leaders Huddle in the White House
[Though this video is not recent, the authors’ discussion remains relevant today.]
Fair Observer Founder, CEO & Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and retired CIA Officer Glenn Carle debate whether the US federal debt is truly an economic threat or an overblown worry. The discussion contrasts conventional alarmist views with a more nuanced economic perspective, touching on deficit projections, the role of the dollar, immigration and long-term growth trends.
The conventional alarm
Atul outlines the prevailing Republican view that US debt poses, in Glenn’s words, “almost an existential crisis” to the economy and society. He cites the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)’s Budget and Economic Outlook 2024–2034, which projects the deficit rising from $1.6 trillion in 2024 to $2.6 trillion by 2034 — over 6% of the GDP, a level exceeded only during major crises. The CBO warns of unsustainable trends and calls for fiscal adjustments through spending cuts, tax increases or both.
Atul notes, however, that Republicans often campaign on deficit concerns yet fail to reduce it in practice. The deficit remains “high,” “structural” and “perpetual.”
Glenn’s rebuttal: context and currency power
Glenn agrees with the numbers but calls them “misleading.” He argues that the United States differs from countries that have faced debt crises because it issues debt in its own currency — the world’s reserve currency, the US dollar — and owes much of it to itself. This, he says, makes the threat far less severe. The much-discussed 2039 crisis point would require only a 2.1% GDP adjustment in revenues and spending, hardly existential.
Growth, immigration and the deficit
Glenn believes steady economic growth can resolve the debt issue, with immigration as a critical driver. Immigrants boost tax revenues and GDP, making them, in his view, an “overwhelmingly positive” economic force.
Atul acknowledges their dynamism but warns of pressures on social services and cultural adjustment challenges. Glenn counters that immigrants historically assimilate over three generations and contribute more in taxes than they consume in services, making them essential to sustaining long-term US growth.
Econ0mic performance: optimism vs. caution
Glenn highlights strong post-2022 results: five million new jobs, record-low unemployment, narrowing racial income gaps, rising real wages and a boom in infrastructure and industrial investment. Inflation has fallen sharply, though food costs remain a burden.
Atul praises the achievements but reminds Glenn of the side effects from the Inflation Reduction Act, including protectionism and an ongoing cost-of-living crisis. Glenn maintains that the “broad sunlit uplands” of US growth outweigh the storm clouds, so to speak; he argues that debt fears are more about political agendas than economics.
The dollar and seigniorage
The discussion closes on the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency, attracting capital during global instability. Atul explains seigniorage — the economic benefit from issuing the world’s primary currency — but highlights that it is not permanent. A structurally sound economy, not overreliance on currency status, is essential to maintaining long-term stability.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” Fair Observer Founder, CEO & Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and retired CIA Officer Glenn Carle debate whether the US federal debt is truly an economic threat or an overblown worry. The discussion contrasts…” post_summery=”In this section of the August 2024 episode of FO° Exclusive, Atul and Glenn debate whether US debt poses a true economic danger. CBO data suggests structural deficits demand urgent fiscal action, but America’s currency power and immigration advantages temper the threat. The dollar’s dominance is a unique asset, but caution is needed because long-term stability depends on a solid economic foundation.” post-date=”Aug 24, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Exclusive: Is the US Debt a Big Problem?” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-is-the-us-debt-a-big-problem”>
FO° Exclusive: Is the US Debt a Big Problem?
[Though this video is not recent, the authors’ discussion remains relevant today.]
Fair Observer Founder, CEO & Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and retired CIA Officer Glenn Carle dissect the question: “Donald Trump 2.0: Are lunatics now running the asylum?” Speaking from his experience in intelligence and analysis, Glenn delivers a sobering assessment of US President Donald Trump’s movement, the myth of the “deep state,” and the dangers of Project 2025.
The Trump phenomenon and the sincerity of supporters
Glenn begins by questioning the phrase “lunatics running the asylum.” Calling Trump’s allies lunatics, he says, is too generous, since lunatics are not necessarily duplicitous. The real danger, Glenn insists, is the sincerity of Trump’s supporters.
Polls show that around 40% of Americans are indifferent to democracy and the rule of law. Many openly prefer a strongman who can “get things done” regardless of constitutional limits. For these Americans, politics feels distant, even irrelevant, compared to everyday issues like potholes, taxes or classroom sizes.
Glenn argues that ordinary people, even those who consider themselves honorable, fall in line with authority. He recalls colleagues at the CIA rationalizing torture because “our boss said it’s okay.”
Atul extends the point to history: Countless “good people” served Joseph Stalin, Indira Gandhi or Adolf Hitler not out of villainy, but because they went along with inherited systems. Human nature explains the willingness to comply.
Human nature and historical blind spots
Glenn pushes back against the American belief in exceptionalism. After World War II, many assumed Germans must have been “intrinsically different” to have committed atrocities, while Americans told themselves, “We would never do that.” Glenn rejects this as a blind assumption. Faced with the choice to kill or be killed, he argues, ordinary citizens anywhere can become executioners.
This perspective shapes how he evaluates Trump and his allies. US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, FBI Director Kash Patel, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Trump himself, he says, combine true belief, ambition, opportunism and lack of principle. He highlights something especially troubling: Trump’s statements often repeat Kremlin talking points verbatim.
Glenn poses a rhetorical question: “Have you ever met someone who agrees with you on every single political issue?” Since the answer is no, perfect alignment with Russia’s messaging should alarm Americans.
The CIA, independence and the deep state
Glenn then turns to the intelligence community. The CIA’s mission, he stresses, is to deliver independent, objective analysis — often inconvenient for presidents. The agency warned against escalation in Vietnam, questioned false claims about weapons of mass destruction and provided fact-based views that cut against political narratives.
Glenn recalls one moment vividly: A secretary of defense staffer once glared at him and told him, “You [the CIA] are the enemy.” That hostility, he says, now fuels Trump’s push to “clean house,” eliminating intelligence officials not loyal to him. While all presidents try to steer the CIA, Glenn views Trump’s vendetta as part of a much darker campaign.
Project 2025: a blueprint for authoritarianism
Glenn warns most urgently about Project 2025, a conservative blueprint for the second Trump administration. He calls it “frankly lunatic” and “profoundly dangerous.” Its pages describe civil servants as “cultural Marxists,” depict bureaucracies as proof of totalitarianism and demand loyalty over expertise.
The CIA, Glenn argues, reflects America’s political diversity. Analysts skew toward evidence-based centrism, not ideology. Yet when fact-driven analysis contradicts right-wing preferences — such as skepticism toward Israeli hardline policies — Republicans brand it “biased” or “Marxist.”
For Glenn, the very idea of a deep state is a fascist myth. He traces it back not only to Turkey but to Italian dictator Benito Mussolini and German Führer Adolf Hitler. In this view, the government was cast as oppressive, bureaucrats as conspirators, and only a single strong leader could defend the people. This narrative, Glenn says, resurfaces in modern America through the far-right QAnon movement and the Trump administration.
Bureaucracy, regulation and social frustration
Glenn concedes there is a grain of truth: Bureaucracies can be slow, cautious and resistant to change. Yet this is far from sabotage. Instead, he sees tension in the complexity of modern societies. Democracies need regulation to balance competing interests, but rules often feel burdensome. Citizens lash out at the bureaucrat enforcing them, blaming individuals for systemic problems.
The real challenge is balance. Too much regulation stifles freedom, but unregulated capitalism produces monopoly, exploitation and oligarchy. Glenn believes the United States achieved its best balance between 1933 and 1980, with a regulated market economy under democratic oversight. Since 1980, he says, deregulation has gone too far.
Demographic change and the politics of belonging
Glenn also links Trump’s rise to demographic shifts. In 1956, the US was 89% white. By 2030, the figure will drop below half. Diversity brings enormous benefits, he notes, but it also stresses social cohesion. Sociologists show that when minorities exceed 10% of a population, unrest tends to rise. Integration typically takes three generations. Today’s backlash, Glenn suggests, comes from Americans overwhelmed by change and searching for scapegoats.
DOGE and the erosion of accountability
The proposed Department of Governmental Efficiency (DOGE) becomes Glenn’s case study in authoritarian governance. Marketed as an anti-waste reform, it actually dismantles oversight offices and suspends anti-corruption measures like the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Having spent his career in government, Glenn insists fraud is rare. DOGE, he warns, creates more corruption, not less.
He argues that while reducing government size is not inherently harmful, DOGE’s cuts are “extra-legal,” meaning illegal. The true purpose is not efficiency but to impose orthodoxy, silence dissent and centralize power. Such moves, Glenn concludes, lead to cronyism, corruption and “the loss of democracy and individual rights.”
Rejecting the strongman narrative
Atul asks if Trump could be a Julius Caesar-like figure rescuing America from dysfunction. Glenn strongly disagrees. Caesar destroyed the Roman Republic, while French General Napoleon Bonaparte left tens of millions dead. America’s crisis, he says, is different. The nation has always harbored authoritarian, isolationist and racist currents, but never before have they dominated the entire system.
Still, Glenn emphasizes the progress of the American experiment. Over centuries, the definition of who counts as fully human has expanded — a triumph of US history. Today’s effort to roll back these rights, he argues, contradicts American ideals and undermines the possibility of a pluralistic society.
Facts, lies and the corrosion of truth
Glenn closes with a blunt message: “There are objective facts.” Policy debates are legitimate, but persisting in falsehoods is not disagreement — it is lying. He accuses Trump allies, including Patel and Gabbard, of spreading claims proven false. He concludes that Project 2025 rests on lies, and repeating untruths is willful corruption — corrosive, dangerous and profoundly authoritarian.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” Fair Observer Founder, CEO & Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and retired CIA Officer Glenn Carle dissect the question: “Donald Trump 2.0: Are lunatics now running the asylum?” Speaking from his experience in…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Atul Singh and Glenn Carle discuss US President Donald Trump’s administration and DOGE. Glenn warns that Trumpism rests not on lunacy but on sincere belief, opportunism and authoritarian instinct. He rejects myths of the deep state, denounces Project 2025 as fascist and sees DOGE as a tool for silencing dissent.” post-date=”Aug 23, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Donald Trump 2.0: Are Lunatics Now Running the Asylum?” slug-data=”fo-talks-donald-trump-2-0-are-lunatics-now-running-the-asylum”>
FO° Talks: Donald Trump 2.0: Are Lunatics Now Running the Asylum?
[As of the filming of this episode, Iran has not mined the Strait of Hormuz, nor does anyone know for certain that they will.]
Fair Observer’s Video Producer & Social Media Manager, Rohan Khattar Singh, talks with Abdullah O Hayek, an independent Middle East analyst and peace fellow at Young Voices. Hayek assesses Iran’s potential deployment of sea mines in the Strait of Hormuz. He covers the immediate consequences for global shipping and energy markets. He also examines the nation’s capital, Tehran’s, strategic aims, the credibility of the regime’s threat, and the economic, diplomatic and military costs Iran faces.
Disrupting a critical energy chokepoint
Hayek stresses that mining the Strait of Hormuz would instantly threaten one of the world’s most vital energy arteries. The waterway is extremely narrow — less than two miles wide in certain areas — and carries 18 to 20 million barrels of oil and over a billion cubic feet of liquefied natural gas (LNG) each day. This amounts to about 20% of global seaborne petroleum and roughly a quarter of all LNG traded internationally.
Even without detonations, the detection of mines triggers a freeze in tanker traffic as maritime insurers withdraw coverage. Hayek estimates that a small mining campaign halts flows within a week and that clearing a safe corridor takes a month or longer. This causes an immediate and severe energy crisis.
Oil prices spike from $70 to $150 per barrel, hitting Asia’s major importers — China, India, Japan and South Korea — with rationing, higher fuel costs and industrial slowdowns. Gulf producers like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates can offset only about half the lost supply. Beyond energy, freight rates surge, supply chains from electronics to agriculture suffer and vulnerable economies face recessionary pressure.
Asymmetrical maritime deterrence
Hayek frames Iran’s approach as part of a broader asymmetrical deterrence strategy that already includes proxies, drones and missiles. Sea mines extend this into maritime warfare. US intelligence recently observed Iranian vessels loaded with mines after US strikes in June, though none were deployed. Hayek sees this as deliberate signaling — a show of capability intended to raise the global costs of escalation.
Historical precedent reinforces the threat: During the Iran–Iraq War of the 1980s, mining the Gulf sharply drove up oil prices. Domestically, Iran’s parliament passes a near-unanimous, symbolic resolution to close the Strait, underscoring internal unity behind this maritime narrative. Regionally, such a move warns Gulf states and US bases of Tehran’s ability to disrupt their energy lifelines at will. Globally, it aims to strengthen Iran’s position in nuclear or sanctions talks.
A credible and diverse arsenal
Iran’s mines need to be taken seriously. Hayek cites estimates of 5,000 to 6,000 mines in the country’s arsenal, including bottom, contact, acoustic, pressure-sensor, drifting, limpet and rocket-assisted types. This variety, he argues, makes the Gulf “a living hell” for shipping. Even partial mining can be nearly as effective as a full closure, as the threat alone deters operations.
Iran’s naval capabilities, including midget submarines, fast attack boats, drone swarms and missiles, complicate clearance operations and heighten risks for countermine forces. Hayek’s conclusion is unequivocal: Iran has the means, geography and intent to create serious disruption.
The costs of escalation
Hayek also outlines why Iran may hesitate:
- Economic costs: Mining the Strait effectively cuts off its own oil exports — 1.5 to two million barrels per day — much of which goes to China. For an already-sanctioned economy, losing this revenue is “economic suicide.” Short-term price spikes do not compensate for lost volume.
- Diplomatic costs: Major customers like China, India, Japan and South Korea condemn the move. Even Russia may caution against it as short-sighted. Gulf states could accelerate alternative pipelines and LNG routes, permanently eroding Iran’s leverage.
- Military costs: A closure attempt justifies a broad US-led military response, potentially resembling the 1991 coalition against Iraq. Such action could inflict civilian casualties, damaging Iran’s domestic legitimacy and fueling regime-change sentiment.
Washington’s calculus
Turning to US politics, Hayek notes US President Donald Trump’s longstanding opposition to new wars and emphasis on ending existing conflicts. Within the Make America Great Again movement, there is strong resistance to direct intervention, even in the face of Iranian provocations. Hayek argues that deploying US troops to Iran would be “Iraq 2.0” — a decade-long conflict with global and domestic consequences.
Instead, Hayek recommends that Washington equip regional allies to manage the crisis, resorting to military measures only if diplomacy fails. Iran, he warns, is “the most difficult hardened adversary” the United States has faced. It has a tricky blend of population size, missile capability, drones and asymmetrical naval tactics that complicates any conventional campaign.
Regional power and the question of regime change
Hayek states his personal support for regime change in Tehran but insists it should come from within, led by Iranians themselves. Iran continues to wield regional influence through asymmetrical tools while remaining an international pariah, isolated economically and diplomatically. Total collapse appears unlikely in the near term, though economic crisis, severe inflation, mass protests, elite divisions and major military losses could open a path to change.
Hayek cautions that foreign intervention only strengthens the regime’s image and rallies nationalist support, as seen during the June conflict. The most plausible path to change, he argues, is sustained domestic protest and strategic patience from global powers.
To conclude, Khattar Singh notes that Iran still sees itself in an ongoing struggle with regional and global powers. The Strait of Hormuz, the Red Sea and the broader Middle East remain volatile despite pauses in open fighting. Hayek’s analysis underscores that while mining the Strait could give Iran short-term leverage, the long-term costs — economic, diplomatic and military — risk being devastating for both Tehran and the global economy.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” Fair Observer’s Video Producer & Social Media Manager, Rohan Khattar Singh, talks with Abdullah O Hayek, an independent Middle East analyst and peace fellow at…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Abdullah O Hayek discuss the possibility of sea mines in the Strait of Hormuz, which US intelligence suspects Iran will deploy. Hayek highlights the severe risks they’ll pose for global energy supplies and trade. He explains how mining the Strait fits into Iran’s asymmetrical deterrence strategy and weighs the costs Tehran could face.” post-date=”Aug 22, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Will Iran Deploy Thousands of Sea Mines in the Strait of Hormuz?” slug-data=”fo-talks-will-iran-deploy-thousands-of-sea-mines-in-the-strait-of-hormuz”>
FO° Talks: Will Iran Deploy Thousands of Sea Mines in the Strait of Hormuz?
Fair Observer Chief Strategy Officer Peter Isackson and former Swiss Ambassador Jean-Daniel Ruch discuss the Twelve-Day War between Israel and Iran, its deeper historical roots and the shifting global power dynamics around it. Drawing on his previous experience as ambassador to Serbia, Montenegro, Israel and Turkey, Ruch places the conflict in the long continuum of Persian and Middle Eastern geopolitics. Iran’s strategic position has been central to global power calculations since British geographer Halford Mackinder’s Heartland Theory — that he who rules Eastern Europe ultimately commands the world.
The Twelve-Day War: a managed clash with lasting risks
Ruch describes the recent conflict as an “acute phase” in an ongoing geopolitical struggle — one that may see similar flare-ups in the coming months. Both sides declared victory, but the outcome is ambiguous, with limited public evidence of damage. He argues the confrontation was “choreographed” to avoid mass casualties, with prior signaling and removal of sensitive materials from targeted facilities. While US President Donald Trump had promised to avoid new wars, Ruch views this as a calculated one-off strike, not an opening salvo. Still, he warns that a return to snapback sanctions under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action could push Iran toward leaving the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, escalating the risk of wider conflict.
Ruch is skeptical of claims that Israel’s nuclear-related bombing raids dealt decisive blows. In his view, much of the official Israeli narrative exaggerates successes and downplays the degree of Iranian resilience. He notes that Iran’s retaliatory strike on an “empty base” signaled an intent to save face without triggering uncontrolled escalation. The pause following the war serves both sides’ logistical needs — to resupply, regroup and plan for what could be a renewed confrontation within three to five months.
Netanyahu’s strategy and Israeli objectives
For Ruch, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s political survival hinges on prolonging two “forever wars” — one in Gaza and one with Iran. He argues that Netanyahu has long sought direct strikes on Iran and that current policy leaves little room for compromise, especially on ceasefires that might satisfy the Hamas terror group’s demands. Accepting such terms would fracture Netanyahu’s coalition as extremist ministers abandon the government. Ruch is sharply critical of reported Israeli plans for mass displacement of Gaza’s population, calling them war crimes and possibly evidence of genocidal intent.
Strategically, Ruch sees Israel aiming to weaken Iran to the point of state failure, breaking it into several parts as occurred with Syria. But the Twelve-Day War, he contends, achieved the opposite — strengthening Iranian nationalism, uniting the population behind the regime and boosting hardliners opposed to any US-brokered nuclear agreement. He also points to covert operations inside Iran, allegedly involving the Mojahedin-e-Khalq, but considers them rare, high-preparation events unlikely to be repeated soon.
Europe’s role and strategic blind spots
Ruch warns that European moves toward snapback sanctions would mark a dangerous “first step [on] the escalation ladder,” providing hardliners in Tehran, Iran, justification to pursue nuclear weapons. He questions why Europe would join a US–Israeli confrontation with Iran while simultaneously managing the war in Ukraine. In his view, Europe’s genuine strategic interests lie in ending conflict with Russia, restoring affordable energy and reopening trade corridors to Asia. Yet leadership in Brussels, Paris, London and Berlin appears aligned with US and Israeli policy goals, often without robust parliamentary debate.
He notes that despite high energy costs and inflation, European publics have not mounted large-scale protests to shift foreign policy. Current political elites remain entrenched even when their popularity is low, as seen in European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s easy reelection despite her “less than optimal” record.
Former French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin emerges in his account as a rare establishment figure advocating true European strategic autonomy based on international law. However, Ruch doubts de Villepin’s chances, citing weak political machinery and a media environment that largely reinforces pro-NATO, pro-US positions.
Geopolitical corridors and competing agendas
The conversation broadens to the global contest over trade and transit routes. Ruch links Western pressure on Iran to efforts to block BRICS-aligned projects like the North–South corridor and China’s Belt and Road routes. Shifting freight from Western-controlled sea lanes to land corridors threatens US maritime dominance. Western powers are promoting alternatives via Israel, Syria and Turkey under the Abraham Accords framework. In the Caucasus, projects like the Zangezur corridor could bypass Iran entirely, connecting energy-rich Azerbaijan directly to European markets.
Ruch sees Turkey, Iran and Israel as the region’s most influential actors, often rivals but occasionally aligned — especially in containing Iranian influence in Syria. He also laments missed diplomatic opportunities, such as a Saudi–Egyptian plan for Gaza’s reconstruction that was ignored by Israel and overlooked by Western powers.
Decline of diplomacy and rise of security networks
Ruch laments that diplomacy has been sidelined in favor of intelligence networks and the military–industrial complex. He argues the latter now shapes Western foreign policy more than elected leaders do. He warns that this entrenched “warmongering machinery” channels funding and political will toward militarization while marginalizing arms control or peace initiatives. Unlike the Cold War era, he sees little appetite for negotiated security frameworks.
A call for an independent strategic culture
Ruch concludes by urging citizens to cultivate independence, impartiality and mutual respect while holding all violators of international law accountable. Only by rejecting permanent confrontation can the world address shared existential challenges, from climate change to artificial intelligence, and build a truly cooperative global order.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” Fair Observer Chief Strategy Officer Peter Isackson and former Swiss Ambassador Jean-Daniel Ruch discuss the Twelve-Day War between Israel and Iran, its deeper historical roots and the shifting global power dynamics around it. Drawing on his previous experience as ambassador to Serbia, Montenegro,…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Isackson and Ruch analyze the 12-day Israel–Iran war, framing it as part of a long-standing geopolitical struggle. He examines Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s political strategy, the risks of European alignment with US and Israeli policies and the potential consequences of renewed sanctions. Escalating tensions could push Iran toward nuclear weapons.” post-date=”Aug 21, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Europe Watches Silently as Israel Continues to Bomb Gaza” slug-data=”fo-talks-europe-watches-silently-as-israel-continues-to-bomb-gaza”>
FO° Talks: Europe Watches Silently as Israel Continues to Bomb Gaza
Fair Observer Founder’s Video Producer & Social Media Manager, Rohan Khattar Singh, talks with Steven Zunes, director of Middle Eastern Studies and professor of politics at the University of San Francisco. They analyze the US–Israel–Iran relationship and its broader implications. Zunes traces Washington’s hostility toward Tehran, Iran, to the 1979 Iranian Revolution that overthrew the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. He was a US ally installed with CIA support in 1953.
For decades, US policy debates have been split between Democrats favoring diplomacy and sanctions, and Republicans or hawkish Democrats backing direct military measures. Although US President Donald Trump campaigns against “never-ending wars,” Zunes argues his administration shows readiness to back action against Iran, either directly or via Israel, calling recent US-supported airstrikes on Iranian territory a “dangerous escalation” that risks destabilizing the wider region and provoking further retaliatory cycles.
He stresses that such strikes violate the United Nations Charter, which permits force only in self-defense or with Security Council approval. Customary international law allows for preemptive military action, but it is narrowly defined. Zunes maintains that Iran is “years away” from a bomb.
He also criticizes Trump’s disregard for US constitutional requirements, noting that offensive operations require Congressional approval under the Constitution and the War Powers Act of 1973. On Trump’s push for a new Iran deal, Zunes says abandoning the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) undermines credibility. This agreement from the era of US President Barack Obama makes it “physically impossible for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon.” In Zunes’s view, Trump’s claim that he can negotiate better terms is “naive or disingenuous,” reflecting a strategy to weaken Iran rather than resolve the nuclear dispute.
Iran’s foreign ties and nuclear ambitions
Zunes describes Iran’s growing links with Russia and China, including arms sales to Russia and oil exports to China, as an “alliance of convenience” rather than an ideological partnership. He doubts these relationships will significantly alter the regional balance, noting that both powers see Iran as a problematic partner with its own agenda and internal contradictions.
On the nuclear question, Zunes says there is “no indication” Iran has decided to build a warhead, though it began enriching uranium beyond JCPOA limits after the US withdrawal. He recalls Iran’s earlier weapons research in the late 1990s and early 2000s, largely driven by fears of Iraq, but says there is no evidence of such work since.
Zunes warns that bombings could convince Iranian leaders they need a deterrent, citing Iraq’s invasion after disarmament versus North Korea’s survival with nuclear arms. He calls Iran’s civilian nuclear program “unnecessarily provocative” given its energy resources and ability to import nuclear materials for peaceful purposes. While Western responses are aggressive, he says Iran could take steps to ease tensions and signal a genuine interest in reducing hostilities.
National pride, regional role and Gulf state positions
Even Iranians who oppose the regime, Zunes says, resent being singled out when other regional states possess nuclear weapons. He believes recent conflicts strengthen hardliners and weaken opposition movements that struggle to organize under restrictive conditions.
In the Gulf, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar oppose Iran’s nuclear ambitions but remain wary of military escalation, recognizing that war could destabilize the region and threaten vital shipping routes. These monarchies, Zunes argues, take a more pragmatic approach than Washington, accepting Iran’s influence and acknowledging the need for negotiation.
Israel–Iran tensions and strategic calculations
Zunes notes Israel’s recent strikes across the Middle East and the damage caused by Iranian missile attacks — a rare experience for Israeli cities. While some Israeli leaders may prefer caution, he identifies hardliners who benefit from prolonging the Iran crisis, as it shifts international focus from Gaza and alleged Israeli war crimes. These hawks often frame the confrontation as existential in order to consolidate domestic political support and deter compromise.
Zunes predicts an ongoing pattern of low-level confrontation rather than a large-scale war.
The Palestinian question and the shifting debate
The Israel–Iran conflict diverts attention from Gaza, where Zunes has long supported a two-state solution. He argues that settlement expansion and US backing make such a solution increasingly impossible, shifting the conversation toward an apartheid framework. Citing major human rights organizations, he says Israel’s system meets the legal definition of apartheid and warns that unconditional US support may face growing political resistance, particularly among younger Americans and within some progressive movements.
Zunes maintains that arguments should be rooted in universal human rights and international law rather than ideology. Continued settlement expansion, he warns, harms Palestinians, fuels extremism and undermines the global legal order.
This erosion of the rules-based order produces ripple effects far beyond the Israel–Palestine context, weakening the credibility of international institutions in conflicts from Ukraine to the Western Sahara. In the US, he sees a widening divide between the political establishment and grassroots activists, with the latter increasingly vocal in demanding conditional aid and sanctions.
European allies, while slower to shift their stances, face internal pressure from civil society and political opposition parties to align policy with human rights law rather than strategic expedience. These dynamics, Zunes suggests, could reshape the diplomatic landscape over the next decade.
While he fears it may be too late for a two-state solution, he insists that international law must guide all discussions.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” Fair Observer Founder’s Video Producer & Social Media Manager, Rohan Khattar Singh, talks with Steven Zunes, director of Middle Eastern Studies and professor of politics at the University of San Francisco. They analyze the US–Israel–Iran relationship and its broader implications. Zunes…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Stephen Zunes examine the US–Israel–Iran relationship. The latter argues that Trump’s Iran policy undermines international law, escalates tensions and abandons effective diplomacy. He warns that recent airstrikes may push Iran toward nuclear deterrence, critiques Israel’s use of the crisis to deflect from Gaza and highlights growing challenges to unconditional US support for Israel.” post-date=”Aug 20, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Iran Vows Stronger Response If Attacked Again By America, Israel” slug-data=”fo-talks-iran-vows-stronger-response-if-attacked-again-by-america-israel”>
FO° Talks: Iran Vows Stronger Response If Attacked Again By America, Israel
Fair Observer Founder, CEO & Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and the Executive Director of the Geneva Centre for Security Policy, Thomas Greminger, discuss the recent NATO summit and its implications for Europe. Greminger credits NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte with containing US President Donald Trump’s volatility and ensuring the alliance “survived that summit.” However, he warns its medium-term future remains unpredictable under Trump.
At the summit, Europe pledged to spend 3.5% of GDP on defense and 1.5% on areas like cybersecurity and infrastructure, totaling 5%. Greminger sees political resolve to invest more, but doubts all NATO members can or will reach the target. He believes it is largely a concession to please Washington.
Meeting the 5% target could undermine social stability
Singh presses on where Europe will get its funds, given its aging populations, high debt and fragile welfare systems. Greminger predicts significant “crowding out” of spending on health, education, diplomacy and other needs. Such trade-offs could fuel populism on both ends of the political spectrum. He agrees that the political backlash could be substantial if social safety nets erode in pursuit of military targets.
Europe faces a security threat mix that stretches resources thin
Greminger outlines Europe’s security environment as a mix of conventional military risks, primarily from Russia, and hybrid threats like cyberattacks and disinformation. Transnational dangers such as terrorism, violent extremism and trafficking persist, while climate change emerges as a new factor. Politicians face the challenge of stretching limited resources across defense, national resilience and social cohesion.
Globalization’s uneven rewards are weakening social cohesion
Addressing Singh’s intelligence concerns about marginalized youth — both disenfranchised Muslim communities and alienated working-class whites — Greminger says these trends have been building for over a decade. He links them to dissatisfaction with globalization, where perceptions of unequal benefit outweigh objective gains. Left unresolved, this discontent could undermine social cohesion across Europe, including in Switzerland.
Strategic autonomy is rising but Europe’s defense industry lags
Though the current trends are not a formal doctrine, Greminger sees growing determination to reduce dependence on Washington’s “moods” and unpredictability. Europeans have made efforts to unify major players, like the EU three — France, Germany and Italy — and strengthen independent capabilities. He suggests Trump may ironically be remembered as a promoter of European strategic autonomy.
Europe’s defense sector is not yet able to meet its demand, meaning militaries will continue buying US arms in the short to medium term. If the Ukraine war drags on, Europe may reindustrialize its defense base; if the conflict ends on acceptable terms, spending could decline as other priorities reassert themselves.
Trade tensions could erode the transatlantic alliance
Reconciling the US–Europe security partnership with growing trade disputes remains a challenge. Greminger warns that consistently hostile US trade policies will have political repercussions for NATO. Europeans may accept some unfriendly policies to preserve the alliance, but there are limits. Washington should act with care to avoid alienating its partners.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” Fair Observer Founder, CEO & Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and the Executive Director of the Geneva Centre for Security Policy, Thomas Greminger, discuss the recent NATO summit and its implications for Europe. Greminger credits NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte with containing US President Donald…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Atul Singh and Thomas Greminger examine NATO’s survival after a tense summit, Europe’s defense spending goals and the strain they place on domestic priorities. Shifting resources to meet military targets could strain European social cohesion. Europe’s push for strategic autonomy, while promising, faces obstacles from US dominance and rising trade tensions.” post-date=”Aug 18, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Trump Dominates NATO Summit as Europe Pledges 5% to Defense” slug-data=”fo-talks-trump-dominates-nato-summit-as-europe-pledges-5-to-defense”>
FO° Talks: Trump Dominates NATO Summit as Europe Pledges 5% to Defense
Fair Observer Founder, CEO & Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and retired CIA Officer Glenn Carle discuss the political fallout surrounding the late sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and the scandal’s implications for US President Donald Trump. The scandal has re-entered the spotlight not just for its disturbing details, but for the way it fuels conspiracy theories and deepens divisions in American politics. With Trump’s name resurfacing in connection to Epstein, and his base growing restless over broken promises, the conversation probes the uneasy intersection of scandal, loyalty and public perception.
The Epstein scandal resurfaces
Atul and Glenn open the conversation by acknowledging that while Trump has faced many scandals — indictments, convictions and connections to suspected Russian agents — the Epstein case is gaining unusual traction. Glenn calls the affair both “farce” and “sick,” noting that the pedophilia aspect hits a nerve but is also steeped in conspiracy theories.
Epstein was a wealthy financier who used his fortune and connections to sexually exploit adolescent girls, aided by his partner, Ghislaine Maxwell. Glenn emphasizes that both were involved in grooming young women under the guise of employment, including as masseuses or assistants, to serve Epstein and his associates.
Atul interjects with a comment on social status and naming conventions, briefly linking the prominence of Epstein’s and Maxwell’s families to elite networks. He and Glenn note Epstein’s properties in New York and Palm Beach, Florida, and his infamous private island in the Virgin Islands, which served as the backdrop for much of the alleged abuse.
Legal troubles and a suspicious death
Epstein was arrested in 2005, convicted and sentenced to just 13 months in prison — a lenient outcome criticized as protecting powerful figures. A non-prosecution agreement shielded others who may have been implicated, including Trump, former US President Bill Clinton and lawyer Alan Dershowitz.
The case faded until 2018, when the Miami Herald newspaper interviewed survivors and revived public interest, resulting in Epstein’s rearrest. But before his new trial could begin, he was found dead in his prison cell under circumstances that Glenn and many others find deeply suspicious. Crucial surveillance footage vanished, and the prison guard assigned to watch him inexplicably left his post. Glenn sarcastically compares the event to a “Godfather movie or a Mossad operation.”
Trump, the client list and political blowback
Trump’s name appears repeatedly in the context of Epstein’s social circle. Though no illegal conduct has been publicly linked to Trump, Glenn and Atul explain how the mere association has political consequences — especially since Trump once vowed to release Epstein’s client list to expose elites like the Clintons. Once in office, however, he reportedly backed off after being told his own name appears in the testimony, though not as a client. This U-turn has enraged the conspiracy-minded Make America Great Again (MAGA) base that had hoped Trump would “drain the swamp” and hold elites accountable.
Another political flashpoint is the viral meme, “Epstein didn’t kill himself,” which has become a symbol of deep distrust in American institutions. Glenn expresses his disbelief at the convenient disappearance of the prison video and suggests the scenario reeks of a cover-up. Trump’s base feels betrayed — the justice it was promised never materialized. Glenn quips that Trump has gone from crusading against conspiracies to dismissing them as a distraction.
Impact on the political landscape
Despite the scandal, Glenn notes Trump’s poll numbers remain resilient. While most Americans disapprove of him, many MAGA supporters see the renewed attention to Epstein as just another Democratic attack. Traditional Republicans are divided — some approve, others disapprove and many claim not to know enough. Atul speculates the issue could hurt Republicans in the upcoming midterms, though he acknowledges that such damage might be modest.
Conspiracies, psychology and social media
Atul and Glenn go on to examine how conspiracy theories shape political behavior. Atul compares the dynamic to Soviet-era communists who reversed their beliefs overnight after the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact of 1939, illustrating how tribal loyalty can override facts. Glenn adds that people often cling to the worldview of their “tribal leaders,” regardless of contradictory evidence.
While these psychological patterns aren’t new, social media has radically accelerated their spread.
Glenn shares a personal story about friends who fled the Soviet bloc and were lifelong anti-Russians — until they became fervent Trump supporters. These friends now see any criticism of Trump’s ties to Russia as betrayal, which Glenn finds both tragic and illustrative of the broader social phenomenon. In his view, the Epstein case may create political cracks for Trump, but not an existential collapse. Atul agrees that this scandal may leave a mark, just not a decisive one.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” Fair Observer Founder, CEO & Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and retired CIA Officer Glenn Carle discuss the political fallout surrounding the late sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and the scandal’s implications for US President Donald Trump. The scandal has re-entered the spotlight not just for…” post_summery=”In this section of the July 2025 episode of FO° Exclusive, Atul and Glenn discuss the political fallout from the Jeffrey Epstein scandal and its potential impact on Donald Trump. Trump’s association with Epstein and failure to release the promised client list have frustrated his MAGA base. This conversation also explores conspiracy theories and psychological loyalty to political figures.” post-date=”Aug 17, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Exclusive: Trump’s Epstein Files Fiasco Worsens as Democrats Take Aim at the President” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-trumps-epstein-files-fiasco-worsens-as-democrats-take-aim-at-the-president”>
FO° Exclusive: Trump’s Epstein Files Fiasco Worsens as Democrats Take Aim at the President
Fair Observer Founder, CEO & Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and retired CIA Officer Glenn Carle unpack the worsening crisis in Gaza, shifting global sentiment toward Palestinian statehood, and how internal Israeli politics continue to drive the conflict. The discussion also highlights US President Donald Trump’s surprising rhetorical pivot, questions the role of international institutions and reflects on the broader geopolitical fallout.
Humanitarian collapse and the politics behind it
Starvation intensifies in Gaza despite Israeli claims of humanitarian pauses in their operations. The UN warns of impending famine, while Israeli human rights groups like B’Tselem accuse Israel of genocidal conduct. Atul and Glenn agree that the Israeli government’s far-right coalition and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s political survival instincts fuel the war’s continuation, despite quiet dissent within Israeli military circles.
Trump’s rhetorical pivot and the decline of the UN
In a striking shift, Trump recently acknowledged “real starvation” in Gaza and suggested Israel — not the United Nations — should manage food aid. Atul views this as a symbolic sidelining of postwar international institutions. Critics call Jordan and the United Arab Emirates’s aid efforts ineffective, reflecting the broader failure of coordinated relief.
Europe’s response and the limits of diplomacy
France and the United Kingdom have signaled they may recognize a Palestinian state if Israel refuses a ceasefire. Atul attributes this to domestic political pressure. Glenn doubts the practical impact, asserting that only the United States and Israel hold real power. Still, he concedes these symbolic gestures could shift the political center of gravity over time.
Continuity in US policy and Netanyahu’s calculations
While Trump’s tone has changed, Glenn argues that both his and former US President Joe Biden’s policies have ultimately enabled Israel. Netanyahu has, in Glenn’s view, successfully manipulated US support, allowing him to pursue longstanding territorial goals. Atul agrees that US foreign policy has long protected Israeli impunity, regardless of who is in the White House.
Displacement, historical parallels and growing isolation
Glenn draws a controversial parallel between the displacement of Palestinians and the forced removal of Native Americans in US history. He argues that starvation and destruction in Gaza amount to de facto ethnic cleansing. Atul emphasizes that Israel’s international support is eroding, with the exception of Germany, which remains loyal due to Holocaust guilt.
Internal divides and unpredictable fallout
Atul points to Israel’s internal fractures, especially between secular and religious communities. He highlights early protests against Netanyahu and growing military dissatisfaction. He warns that the loss of support in culturally aligned regions like Europe could have lasting psychological and political consequences.
Atul closes by noting rising antisemitism, emboldened Muslim communities in Europe and the unpredictable “unknown unknowns” that may soon follow.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” Fair Observer Founder, CEO & Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and retired CIA Officer Glenn Carle unpack the worsening crisis in Gaza, shifting global sentiment toward Palestinian statehood, and how internal Israeli politics continue to drive the conflict. The discussion also highlights US President…” post_summery=”In this section of the July 2025 episode of FO° Exclusive, Atul and Glenn discuss the worsening humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Starvation is escalating despite Israeli claims of humanitarian pauses, and even US President Donald Trump now acknowledges the crisis. Internal divisions in Israeli society are deepening, and symbolic diplomatic moves may set the stage for unpredictable geopolitical shifts.” post-date=”Aug 16, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Exclusive: Trump Changes Tone on Gaza, Will He Ditch Netanyahu and Israel?” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-trump-changes-tone-on-gaza-will-he-ditch-netanyahu-and-israel”>
FO° Exclusive: Trump Changes Tone on Gaza, Will He Ditch Netanyahu and Israel?
Fair Observer Founder, CEO & Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and retired CIA Officer Glenn Carle unpack two major trade agreements recently concluded by the United States — one with the European Union and another with Japan. They analyze the terms of each deal and explore their deeper implications for global trade, economic stability and the evolving world order.
Atul identifies that both trade deals were finalized while US President Donald Trump was in Scotland, golfing and promoting his properties. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen visited him in what Atul describes as “homage to Emperor Trump,” resulting in a preliminary EU–US agreement.
US–EU trade agreement: strategic concessions and investments
Under the deal, the US imposed 15% tariffs on European exports — especially automobiles — while exempting aircraft, shipbuilding equipment, chemicals and raw materials. In exchange, the EU agreed to increase imports of American fuel and AI chips and committed to investing $600 billion in the US.
US–Japan trade agreement: lower tariffs, preferential treatment
The US–Japan deal mirrors the EU agreement in many ways but includes unique provisions. Tariffs on Japanese cars and other goods were also set at 15%, while Japan pledged $550 billion in US investments. Notably, Japan secured a guarantee that it will always receive the lowest tariff rates on chips and pharmaceuticals relative to other US trade partners. Unlike the EU deal, there was no joint statement issued with Japan.
Atul’s six takeaways
Atul outlines six key insights into the significance of these agreements:
- Avoiding trade wars: He believes these deals have prevented a full-blown trade war, avoiding a repeat of 1930s-style protectionism.
- US global dominance: He calls the US “the 800-pound gorilla in the room,” asserting its central role in shaping global trade.
- Assertion of US power: The US is clearly “throwing its weight around” in international negotiations.
- EU and Japan’s appeasement: Both partners appear to have yielded to US pressure.
- Death of the rules-based order: Atul argues that the World Trade Organization is now irrelevant, and the era of multilateralism in trade is effectively over.
- Rise of VUCA: He warns that these deals are short-lived and unstable, ushering in a future of volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity in global commerce.
Glenn’s expansive analysis
Glenn largely agrees with Atul but adds depth and concern to the discussion.
- Impact on Canada: Glenn highlights that Japanese cars will now face lower US tariffs than Canadian ones — despite Canada being a major ally and top trading partner. He warns that these bilateral deals distort trade flows, capital allocation and economic efficiency.
- Shift from norms to power: He reflects on global critiques of US hegemony, noting that while past accusations of imperialism were often overstated, today’s reality makes them ring true. The world is moving from a flawed normative system to a raw power-based model.
- Consequences for global order: According to Glenn, almost no country can afford to challenge the US, and while the deals may appear beneficial to Americans, they will erode global and even domestic economic efficiency. He calls this shift “historic and terrible,” driven by figures like Chinese President Xi Jinping, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump and his Republican backers.
- Rising economic instability: Glenn echoes Atul’s concerns about rising VUCA, forecasting inflation, higher interest rates, and supply chain disruptions.
Warning against economic complacency
Glenn critiques what he sees as misplaced economic optimism. He explains that macroeconomic effects take time: Short-term interest rate changes usually show results after six months, while long-term impacts take up to two years. Since the Trump administration’s trade measures are still in their early stages, Glenn warns that the economy hasn’t yet absorbed their consequences.
He points to the historical dangers of high tariffs, recalling the Great Depression and its root causes in trade and capital flow disruption. He finishes with a stark analogy: “The consequences are real… gravity exists, and if the motor stops, the plane will come down.” The implication is clear: Economic reality will catch up, and the outcome won’t be pleasant.
Closing note
Atul concludes this section by highlighting Fair Observer’s broader economic coverage, with insights from economists like Alex Gloy from Germany, Masaaki Yoshimori from Japan and Manu Sharma from India.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” Fair Observer Founder, CEO & Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and retired CIA Officer Glenn Carle unpack two major trade agreements recently concluded by the United States — one with the European Union and another with Japan. They analyze the terms of each deal and explore their deeper…” post_summery=”In this section of the July episode of FO° Exclusive, Atul and Glenn discuss US trade deals with the EU and Japan, highlighting their strategic terms and geopolitical implications. These agreements, they argue, reflect the rise of bilateralism, the waning influence of the World Trade Organization and an increase in global economic instability. They appear favorable for the US, but long-term consequences include diminished efficiency, distorted trade flows and mounting uncertainty.” post-date=”Aug 15, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Exclusive: Japan, EU Strike Trade Deals as Trump Slaps India With Tariffs” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-japan-eu-strike-trade-deals-as-trump-slaps-india-with-tariffs”>
FO° Exclusive: Japan, EU Strike Trade Deals as Trump Slaps India With Tariffs
Fair Observer Founder, CEO & Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh speaks with Sebastian Schäffer, the Managing Director at the Institute for the Danube Region and Central Europe, shortly after his return from Ukraine. Schäffer offers, in Singh’s words, a “calm and considered view” of the war with Russia, drawing from his on-the-ground experiences. This conversation explores daily life under conflict, Ukraine’s push for European integration, the future of NATO and European security, risks to European unity and Schäffer’s vision of a just peace.
Life under constant threat
Schäffer states that if his trip had been a travel blog, it would bear the headline, “Playing Russian Roulette and the Piano in the Parliament,” referencing the danger of drone and missile attacks and a memorable anecdote from Ukraine’s legislature. He describes multiple daily air raid alarms and the personal calculus of whether to seek shelter, which varies depending on proximity to the front. Tools like Telegram updates and the Kyiv Digital app help Ukrainians decide how to respond.
Attacks have surged in recent weeks. Schäffer attributes this to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s determination to subjugate Ukraine — something he believes will not succeed. Singh challenges his optimism, citing desertions, economic collapse and waning Western support. Schäffer, however, maintains his view, stressing the value of seeing the situation firsthand.
Ukraine’s path to the EU
Schäffer strongly supports Ukraine’s membership bid to the European Union, arguing that the will to join extends from leadership to the general population. His “piano” anecdote — about reforms to prevent proxy voting in parliament — illustrates Ukraine’s commitment to governance reforms. He notes Ukraine’s rapid adoption of EU regulations and insists the country is ready “on paper,” but warns that rejection by the EU would endanger the entire European integration project.
NATO, defense spending and security architecture
Schäffer is equally committed to Ukraine joining NATO, calling it the only way to secure its sovereignty. However, NATO could collapse if the United States refuses to act on a future Article 5 breach — that is, if the US does not respond to attacks on fellow NATO countries.
Singh brings up a critique from Washington: that Europeans are soft and taking advantage of American defense. In response, Schäffer clarifies that not all European countries underinvest in defense. The two speakers mention exceptions like Poland, Greece and the Baltic states, while acknowledging Germany, Spain and Italy’s reliance on US protection. Schäffer supports calls for greater European defense spending and coordination, envisioning a stronger security architecture even without a consolidated European army. His concern is whether Europe can act quickly enough to maintain unity and deter threats.
Risks to European unity
Schäffer identifies divisions over the Russian threat as a key vulnerability. Hungary, Slovakia and internal political splits in Poland exemplify differing threat perceptions. Russian provocations, such as drone surveillance of German bases, meet unprepared responses due to regulatory and equipment gaps.
Domestic politics — like Germany’s far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), former Parliament member Sahra Wagenknecht’s leftist party and instability in the Netherlands — further complicate consensus. Schäffer accuses the AfD of Kremlin ties, while describing Wagenknecht’s alignment as ideological. He frames defense spending as both an economic stimulus and a security necessity.
The “guns and butter” dilemma
Singh questions whether democracies can mobilize for war when significant portions of the population prefer, in analogous terms, “butter” over “guns.” Schäffer replies that opponents are far from forming a majority and insists Europe is already at war in all but name. If Ukraine falls, hostile forces could operate from its territory, bringing air raid alarms to major European cities. Supporting Ukraine now, he argues, is far cheaper than fighting a wider war later.
Conditions for a just peace
Schäffer lays out three non-negotiable conditions: restoring Ukraine’s 1991 borders, securing Russian compensation (possibly through frozen assets) and prosecuting war crimes. Singh deems these unrealistic, suggesting they amount to total war with Russia. Schäffer concedes they are aspirational but insists they represent justice. He envisions weakening Russia’s capacity and provoking internal change rather than direct all-out war.
Singh asks what cost he’d bear. Schäffer replies, “everything that it takes;” aid to Ukraine would go to prevent a larger, worse conflict.
Reconstruction and economic support
Singh raises the subject of Ukraine’s economic collapse and fears of corruption. Schäffer insists that democracy is alive in Ukraine and that reconstruction is feasible with political will. He points to integrating Ukraine into the EU, opening markets and leveraging its innovative potential. His core message remains: The cost of Ukraine’s defeat would far exceed the cost of its support.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” Fair Observer Founder, CEO & Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh speaks with Sebastian Schäffer, the Managing Director at the Institute for the Danube Region and Central Europe, shortly after his return from Ukraine. Schäffer offers, in Singh’s words, a “calm and considered view” of the war…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Sebastian Schäffer shares first-hand insights from Ukraine, underscoring the urgency of EU and NATO integration to secure its future. NATO and European unity face serious risks from political divisions, underinvestment in defense and Russian provocations. He advocates immediate, full-scale support for Ukraine, arguing it will prevent a far costlier European war.” post-date=”Aug 14, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Will France, Germany, Poland and UK Send Troops to Ukraine to Fight Russia?” slug-data=”fo-talks-will-france-germany-poland-and-uk-send-troops-to-ukraine-to-fight-russia”>
FO° Talks: Will France, Germany, Poland and UK Send Troops to Ukraine to Fight Russia?
Christopher Ford, the former Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, offers an insider’s view of efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. He defines nonproliferation as the “set of policies, institutions and practices” designed to prevent more countries from acquiring these destructive arms. The United States has made this a top foreign policy priority for decades, aiming to keep nuclear weapons from spreading beyond existing holders.
The success of nuclear nonproliferation
Ford highlights the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), signed by 191 nations, which commits nuclear states not to assist others in obtaining weapons and binds non-nuclear states not to pursue them. The UN-affiliated International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, Austria, enforces these commitments through inspections, ensuring nuclear technology remains for peaceful purposes.
Libya is a success story: In 2003, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi abandoned his nuclear program after deciding it carried “enormous risks” and chose diplomacy over the costly, dangerous path of building a warhead.
Iran and the power of deterrence
Iran’s nuclear ambitions remain a key test. Exposed in August 2002, its program has been the focus of years of diplomatic effort to prevent weaponization, even as Iran continues to advance its capabilities. Ford sees “cautious optimism” after recent Israeli and US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, calling such actions “the leading edge of nonproliferation policy.”
Ford concludes: “If the message of this current Iran thing is that if you try to pursue nuclear weapons in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, that you might well have American bunker buster bombs coming down on your underground tunnels. I mean, as a nonproliferation guy, I don’t mind that being the message.”
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” Christopher Ford, the former Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, offers an insider’s view of efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. He defines nonproliferation as the “set of policies, institutions and practices” designed to prevent more…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Christopher Ford, former US Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, explains the tools and challenges of stopping the spread of nuclear weapons. He highlights Libya’s disarmament as a success while assessing Iran’s contested program. Ford supports strong deterrence, including military action, against treaty violators.” post-date=”Aug 13, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: US, Western Allies Will Always Prevent Iran From Making the Nuclear Bomb” slug-data=”fo-talks-us-western-allies-will-always-prevent-iran-from-making-the-nuclear-bomb”>
FO° Talks: US, Western Allies Will Always Prevent Iran From Making the Nuclear Bomb
Fair Observer Founder, CEO & Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and retired CIA Officer Glenn Carle discuss a variety of pressing issues that took place in July 2025. From American and European political drama to successes on Wall Street, they address the month’s notable international happenings.
Legislative drama in Washington
US President Donald Trump secured a major legislative victory with the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). The bill cleared the House of Representatives before heading to the Senate, where it passed by the slimmest margin possible — 51 to 50 — after Vice President JD Vance cast the deciding vote on July 1. Atul quips that while the 24-hour Senate session showed “stamina,” he could not offer equal praise for senators’s intellect. The bill then returned to the House, passing 218 to 214 largely along party lines on July 3.
Trump signed it into law on July 5, aligning its enactment with the July 4 Independence Day holiday. Atul describes the timing as “all jolly good cause for celebration,” sarcastically adding that “Trump gets to be emperor.”
Despite celebratory rhetoric from the administration, economists projected that the act would inflate the US deficit by $3.4 trillion over the next decade.
Elon Musk responds: outrage and a new political vision
Former Special Government Employee Elon Musk, already estranged from Trump, publicly condemned the OBBBA. He expressed outrage over its fiscal implications and questioned the point of having a debt ceiling if lawmakers repeatedly raise it.
Musk proposed the creation of a new political party to disrupt the dominance of both Republicans and Democrats. He pledged to finance primary challenges against any Republican who voted for the OBBBA, signaling the deepening divide between himself and Trump.
Paramount’s settlement and the CBS shake-up
American mass media and entertainment conglomerate Paramount Global agreed to pay $16 million to Trump’s future presidential library as part of a legal settlement over a lawsuit involving CBS News. Atul dryly comments on the payout: “How wonderful.”
Simultaneously, CBS canceled The Late Show With Stephen Colbert. Known for his sharp critiques of Trump, comedian Stephen Colbert had become, in Atul’s words, “inconvenient” to keep employed.
Trump had previously approved Paramount’s $8 billion merger with American entertainment company Skydance Media, raising eyebrows. Atul questions whether the $16 million payment was “an act of goodwill for the great leader” or simply “protection money to capo dei capi [Italian: ‘boss of the bosses;’ mafia leader],” suggesting deeper transactional politics at play.
Wall Street booms amid budget woes
Despite deficit concerns and political turbulence, the US stock market soared. The S&P 500 hit a record high, appearing unfazed by trade tensions.
American technology company Nvidia became the world’s first $4 trillion company — its value has surpassed India’s $3.5 trillion GDP. American computer and apparel corporations Oracle and Nike, respectively, also saw major gains. Atul sums up the financial landscape by stating the market was “performing swimmingly well.”
Economic turbulence and policy shifts abroad
In Great Britain, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer refused to support Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves on controversial welfare reforms. Reeves broke down crying in Parliament, and the political drama caused British bonds to plummet.
Meanwhile, French Prime Minister François Bayrou declared France “addicted to public spending” and announced a spending freeze. Additionally, he unveiled sweeping cuts, including benefit reductions, a new solidarity tax on the wealthy and even proposals to eliminate public holidays like Easter Monday and Victory in Europe Day. Atul predicts major public protests against this move.
In South America, Jeannette Jara won the Chilean left’s presidential primary, becoming the first communist candidate since the 1973 CIA-backed coup against former President Salvador Allende. Atul sardonically comments, “For all the efforts of the CIA in 1973, you’re still left with the challenge of communism.” Glenn humorously responds, “It was part of the plan.”
Other headlines from around the world
Atul concludes this segment of FO° Exclusive by quickly running through other noteworthy events. Gang violence in Haiti claimed over 3,000 lives in a worsening humanitarian crisis. Australia banned teenagers from accessing the video-sharing platform, YouTube, marking a sharp move in digital regulation. Just as Atul and Glenn prepared to broadcast this episode, Trump announced 25% tariffs and additional import taxes on Indian goods. The administration linked the move to India’s continued purchase of Russian oil.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” Fair Observer Founder, CEO & Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and retired CIA Officer Glenn Carle discuss a variety of pressing issues that took place in July 2025. From American and European political drama to successes on Wall Street, they address the month’s notable international…” post_summery=”In FO° Exclusive’s July 2025 episode, US President Donald Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law, prompting concerns over its $3.4 trillion fiscal impact. Elon Musk opposed the bill, calling for a new political party. US markets soared, media dynamics shifted and global events — from UK welfare chaos to an Australian YouTube ban for teenagers — added to the drama.” post-date=”Aug 12, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Exclusive: Elon Musk Wants to Take On Republicans and Democrats With America Party, Can He?” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-elon-musk-wants-to-take-on-republicans-and-democrats-with-america-party-can-he”>
FO° Exclusive: Elon Musk Wants to Take On Republicans and Democrats With America Party, Can He?
June was an eventful month in 2025. Fair Observer Founder, CEO & Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and retired CIA Officer Glenn Carle look back at the key developments, from the US budget stalling in the Senate to a Boeing plane crashing in India. They then announce the two main topics of this episode of FO° Exclusive: the intensifying confrontation involving Iran, Israel and the United States, and the ongoing breakdown of US political and cultural norms.
US budget gridlock and domestic crisis
The US budget is at an impasse. While May brought economic uncertainty, the current situation has worsened. The federal budget remains stuck in the Senate, and a debt crisis now brews. This stalemate adds to the perception of dysfunction in Washington, DC, with fiscal paralysis threatening broader economic stability at home and abroad.
Ukraine’s deep strike into Russia
A dramatic escalation in the Ukraine conflict made global headlines. Ukrainian forces reportedly smuggled 117 drones deep into Russian territory — reaching as far as Eastern Siberia — and struck multiple airfields. According to the program, the operation damaged 41 Russian aircraft, including strategic bombers. Atul likens this unprecedented strike to the covert missions of the United Kingdom’s Special Air Service during World War II. Russia responded with retaliatory airstrikes on Ukrainian territory, further intensifying the war and underscoring Ukraine’s growing reach and resolve.
Poland’s presidential election and political clash
In a closely contested runoff, Karol Nawrocki of the right-wing Law and Justice Party defeated government-backed centrist Rafał Trzaskowski with 50.9% of the vote. The result introduces serious friction into Poland’s government, which operates under a parliamentary system with a separately elected president. Prime Minister Donald Tusk, a centrist, must now navigate governing alongside a hard-right president from a hostile political camp.
Atul explains that Poland is a very young democracy, having only shed communist rule in 1991. Political divisions within Poland mirror broader ideological splits across the West.
Europe’s spending crisis and NATO commitments
Across Europe, signs of economic and political strain mount. The UK reversed several policy commitments and announced new spending cuts, signaling deeper fiscal retrenchment. Meanwhile, NATO member states have reportedly agreed to increase their defense spending to 5% of GDP by 2035 — caving, as Atul puts it, to US President Donald Trump’s demands.
Atul questions the feasibility of this pledge, given the already high debt levels in many of these countries. He suggests that the resulting budget pressures could lead to reduced social services, diminished support for immigrants, and higher taxes, particularly for middle-income earners.
Colombian assassination attempt
A shocking incident occurred in Colombia, where an unseen attacker shot conservative senator and presidential candidate Miguel Uribe Turbay in the head. The senator survived, however. This assassination attempt underscored the country’s volatile political climate and ongoing security concerns. The hit on Urbe Turbe added to a growing list of violent political episodes in Latin America in recent years.
Deadly plane crash in India and regulatory failures
A tragic aviation disaster struck India when a Boeing plane crashed shortly after departing from Ahmedabad airport. The craft failed to properly take off, gradually descending and hitting several buildings. The crash killed not only the hundreds of passengers but also civilians in those buildings. Preliminary investigations pointed to an electrical failure as the cause.
Atul criticizes Boeing for the plane’s technical issues while Glenn blames the crew who maintained the craft. Public criticism quickly focused on the Indian Director General of Civil Aviation, Faiz Ahmed Kidwai, who was formerly in charge of farmer welfare.
The incident reignited broader concerns about the Indian Administrative Service, which routinely places generalist bureaucrats into technical leadership roles. This practice raises serious questions about domain expertise and regulatory competence.
Vietnam’s partial repeal of the death penalty
Amid the grim headlines, Vietnam made a notable reform by eliminating the death penalty for eight crimes, including embezzlement. Atul views this move as a step in the right direction for human rights, although Glenn opines that it might have been partially self-serving — intended to shield government officials from harsh legal consequences. Nevertheless, the decision was recognized as a progressive shift within Southeast Asia.
Trump and Musk’s public falling out
Trump and former Special Government Employee Elon Musk experienced what Atul describes as a “spectacular falling out,” attracting widespread public attention. The dispute reflects the fracturing alliances among powerful conservative and libertarian figures. It also reinforces the blending of politics and celebrity culture in contemporary media.
Nippon Steel’s takeover of US Steel
In a major economic development, Trump approved Japanese steelmaker Nippon Steel’s acquisition of American steel manufacturer US Steel. The move was framed as a diplomatic win for Japan and a sign of strengthening economic ties between the US and Japan. It also signaled a potential shift in Republican trade posture, showing a willingness to allow foreign takeovers under certain geopolitical circumstances.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” June was an eventful month in 2025. Fair Observer Founder, CEO & Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and retired CIA Officer Glenn Carle look back at the key developments, from the US budget stalling in the Senate to a Boeing plane crashing in India. They then announce the two main topics of this…” post_summery=”To begin the June 2025 episode of FO° Exclusive, Atul and Glenn cover a month marked by heightened geopolitical tension, domestic political dysfunction and terrible tragedies. Highlights include Ukraine’s deep drone strike into Russia, Poland’s hard-right presidential victory and Europe’s economic tightening amid NATO spending pledges. Meanwhile, a fatal plane crash in India and an assassination attempt in Colombia underscore systemic governance issues.” post-date=”Aug 11, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Exclusive: Poland: Nationalist Nawrocki Sworn-in as Russia–Ukraine War Rages On” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-poland-nationalist-nawrocki-sworn-in-as-russia-ukraine-war-rages-on”>
FO° Exclusive: Poland: Nationalist Nawrocki Sworn-in as Russia–Ukraine War Rages On
Fair Observer Founder, CEO & Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and Jason Ward, founder and principal analyst at the Center for International Corporate Tax Accountability and Research (CICTAR), discuss how multinational corporations shift profits to avoid taxes, and the resulting consequences for governments, markets and public services. Ward emphasizes that these avoidance schemes are not sophisticated — they’re “simple tricks” that deprive countries of revenue needed for infrastructure, health, education and legal systems. As a result, essential public goods are underfunded while inequality deepens. This hollowing out of national budgets affects not just developing countries but also wealthy ones, limiting their capacity to respond to crises, invest in the future or compete economically.
Microsoft and Ireland: windfall gains from past loopholes
Ward highlights the technology titan Microsoft as a central case study, pointing to a nearly $30 billion audit by the Internal Revenue Service — the largest of its kind. Historically, Microsoft routed massive revenues through Ireland while paying very little tax, exploiting a now-defunct loophole where companies could claim tax residency in jurisdictions like Bermuda while operating legally in Ireland. This practice was widespread among US tech giants and made Ireland a magnet for profit-shifting activity.
But recent global tax reforms have shifted this dynamic. Ireland’s closure of schemes like the “double Irish Dutch sandwich” and its increase of the corporate tax rate from 12.5% to 15% — in response to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)’s Pillar Two minimum tax agreement — now force companies like Microsoft to pay significantly more tax, even on revenue not generated in Ireland. These windfall revenues are helping Ireland establish a sovereign wealth fund, though Ward warns the gains may be short-lived; companies may adapt and reroute profits elsewhere once new workarounds are found.
Starbucks and Switzerland: fictional coffee trade
To illustrate another strategy, Ward discusses the coffee company Starbucks’s operations in Switzerland. Since 2011, every green coffee bean Starbucks purchases is, on paper, bought and resold through its Swiss subsidiary, Starbucks Coffee Trading Company SRL, with an 18% markup. This markup, taxed at low Swiss rates, shifted an estimated $1.3 billion in profit from consumer markets like the United States and China to Switzerland. The trade is “purely fictional” — the beans never physically enter Switzerland. The entire transaction is constructed on paper, allowing Starbucks to reap massive tax advantages while governments in actual sales markets lose out.
This “very clever accounting trick” is widespread in global commodities and results in the systematic extraction of tax revenues, even from some of the world’s poorest countries. Global commodity hubs like Switzerland are designed to provide such fiscal advantages to corporations, making them complicit in the erosion of global tax bases.
Uber and the Netherlands: IP and artificial debt
Ward turns to the transportation service Uber to demonstrate how companies use intellectual property and debt structures to shelter profits. Uber, which defines itself as a tech company, directs global customer payments to a Dutch entity, returning only the driver’s share. After shifting its intellectual property (IP) from Bermuda to the Netherlands through a fictional transaction, Uber created large volumes of internal debt, allowing it to minimize its tax obligations. The Dutch entity essentially “buys” the IP, creating debt on its books, which can then be used to write off future profits as interest payments.
Uber has processed more financial flows through the Netherlands than even JPMorgan Chase Bank. Similar tactics are used by other firms, namely the online streaming company Netflix and the fast food titan McDonald’s. Particularly, companies in IT and pharmaceuticals can easily manipulate the location and value of IP assets. These industries are ideal for profit shifting because their key value drivers — algorithms, branding or molecular formulas — are intangible and easy to relocate on paper.
Big Pharma: public subsidies, private gains
Ward scrutinizes pharmaceutical companies like Merck and Pfizer for benefiting heavily from public spending and subsidies while reporting minimal tax liability. By housing patents in low-tax jurisdictions like Ireland, Switzerland or Bermuda, these firms book profits in favorable locations while avoiding tax in the high-revenue US market. Despite massive public subsidies for research and development and government drug purchases, Merck, for instance, reported a global profit of $20 billion but a US loss of $1.8 billion — effectively paying no tax domestically. The Senate Finance Committee and even US President Donald Trump have scrutinized this practice.
Ward also cites biotech company CSL, which claimed its Swiss workforce generated ten times the profit of its Australian employees. This shocking statistic raised eyebrows during debates over new tax transparency laws.
The pattern across Big Pharma is clear: Governments fund the science and purchase the drugs, while the companies siphon profits offshore. This double-dipping — benefiting from public support while dodging tax — undermines both fiscal responsibility and public trust.
Transparency and reform: global efforts gain traction
Ward outlines reform efforts aimed at halting the global “race to the bottom.” Australia has passed groundbreaking tax transparency laws requiring multinationals to disclose key financial data — revenues, profits, taxes paid and employee numbers — in known tax havens. This initiative, though not exhaustive, sets a new global benchmark. It also builds on Australia’s ten-year push for public accountability, driven by citizen awareness campaigns and investigative journalism.
CICTAR has also filed shareholder resolutions demanding country-by-country reporting, including one at Merck that received 23% support despite opposition from management and proxy advisors. The European Union has implemented a similar framework, though with more loopholes and limited jurisdictional reach.
These reforms represent a growing consensus that transparency is essential for meaningful enforcement. Without it, governments remain blind to how much revenue is being lost and where.
Toward a fairer global system
Fortunately, tax laws are seeing several hopeful developments. The US Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) is pushing for greater corporate tax disclosure. China is also taking a harder stance on tax avoidance, including by multinationals. This change potentially positions the country as a constructive player in global reform.
The momentum for global tax coordination is shifting from the OECD — a body Ward criticizes as favoring wealthy nations — to the more democratic United Nations. Although UN processes are slower and messier, they offer more space for regional cooperation and developing-country influence. This shift could be transformative if emerging economies work together to demand fairer treatment and tighter standards. Ward acknowledges the institutional challenges within the UN but believes its legitimacy and broader participation make it a more just venue for negotiating rules that affect all nations, not just the most powerful.
He remains skeptical about the future of OECD’s Pillar One plan, which targets large tech firms like Google and Microsoft. He notes that unilateral digital services taxes initially created enough pressure for companies to seek multilateral solutions. But if Pillar One fails in the US Congress, those unilateral measures may return. He warns that Trump’s approach of defending the US corporations’ ability to dodge taxes is short-sighted and undermines US tax revenue. This stance weakens the global tax system and deprives Americans of the revenue needed to fund critical services and infrastructure.
The case for transparency and fairness
Ward insists that transparency is primarily about competitiveness and innovation. Companies should succeed by offering better products, services and ideas, not by exploiting tax loopholes. Dominant firms that avoid taxes distort competition and entrench monopoly power, while smaller businesses are left at a disadvantage.
For investors, unions and citizens alike, robust transparency is key to building smarter markets and healthier economies. A more accountable tax system is essential to creating a fairer global order. Tax justice is not a fringe concern — it’s a foundational issue for economic development, democratic governance and global equity.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” Fair Observer Founder, CEO & Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and Jason Ward, founder and principal analyst at the Center for International Corporate Tax Accountability and Research (CICTAR), discuss how multinational corporations shift profits to avoid taxes, and the resulting consequences for…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, CICTAR Founder Jason Ward explains how multinational corporations exploit legal loopholes to shift profits and avoid taxes, depriving countries of vital public revenue. He emphasizes the urgent need for transparency and reform. With growing global momentum, only robust disclosure and democratic coordination can restore fairness and competition in global markets.” post-date=”Aug 05, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Do Google, Microsoft, Starbucks Make Billions of Dollars by Avoiding Taxes?” slug-data=”fo-talks-do-google-microsoft-starbucks-make-billions-of-dollars-by-avoiding-taxes”>
FO° Talks: Do Google, Microsoft, Starbucks Make Billions of Dollars by Avoiding Taxes?
This conversation between Fair Observer Chief Strategy Officer Peter Isackson and retired General AK Singh, a seasoned Indian military commander with deep ties to Soviet, NATO and Russian commands, offers a wide-ranging strategic assessment of the Ukraine conflict. Singh’s insights explore not only the war’s military dimensions but also its geopolitical roots, global ripple effects and what it reveals about shifting power structures.
A war that “should not have been”
Singh opens with the assertion that the Ukraine war was avoidable. He blames “international centers of compellence” — namely, US neoconservatives and a compliant EU/NATO bloc on one side, and Russia on the other. Ukraine, he argues, is the real victim: a “means” caught in the middle and devastated. He criticizes Western media for shaping public perception and pressuring social media platforms to take sides. He questions the West’s moral consistency, citing the unequal outrage over civilian deaths in Ukraine versus Palestine, Afghanistan, Syria or Libya.
In terms of economic warfare, Singh calls sanctions a “double-edged” tool that is ineffective against Russia’s resilient “fortress economy.” He points out that India has drawn lessons from the conflict, bolstering its defense self-reliance and maintaining a pragmatic foreign policy. Isackson agrees that the war could have been avoided and faults Western media for ignoring the historical buildup.
Red lines and long-range risks
The discussion turns to a crucial question: Should the West authorize long-range strikes into Russian territory? Isackson asks what this would mean for the war. Singh calls it a “critical juncture.” European countries may support the move, but the US remains cautious due to Russia’s vast nuclear arsenal and doctrine that allows using “all means” if the state is threatened. He warns that such attacks could corner Russia, potentially triggering a drastic response. Still, he expresses hope that cooler heads will prevail.
Politics and the path to escalation
Isackson raises the role of US politics in shaping the war’s trajectory, especially in the face of the US’s 2024 elections. He suggests efforts may be underway to prolong the conflict until November. Singh agrees, calling the presidential election an “overbearing influence.” He notes internal US divisions, with the Pentagon and Department of Defense reportedly opposed to escalation, while the State Department and intelligence agencies push for it. He expresses concern over CIA Director William Burns’s support for risky decisions, despite his understanding of Russian red lines.
Singh emphasizes that Ukraine’s fate is tethered to US decisions, not Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s leadership, which he calls “delusion” in the eyes of the Global South. He doubts the strategic value of delivering F-16 fighter aircraft or launching operations like the Kursk incursion, asserting that “everybody understands that Russia cannot be defeated.” The key question is how much Russia will gain — especially securing Ukraine’s Donbas region and halting NATO expansion — before the war ends.
Propaganda, publics and power
Isackson challenges the disconnect between Singh’s assessment and official Western rhetoric that insists on Ukrainian victory. Singh points to internal Russian unity, comparing current public support for Putin to wartime solidarity in World War II. He urges the West to stop chasing illusions and instead pursue backchannel diplomacy — especially between the US and Russia. He criticizes Western narratives that paint negotiation as “appeasement,” stifling chances for real peace.
Singh stresses that basic trust between Russia and the US has eroded. Citing retired German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s remarks that the Minsk Accords merely “bought time,” he argues Russia will not fall for such tricks again. He anticipates a turning point within months, as Ukraine’s capacity to sustain the war continues to weaken.
Kursk: tactical gain, strategic mistake
Isackson and Singh sharply analyze the Kursk operation. Singh doubts Ukraine could have launched it without Western backing. Though Ukraine gained territory, he sees no strategic benefit. With no coherent defensive line and mounting casualties, Ukraine faces a dire choice: entrench and risk losing supply lines, fall back to a shallower position or try to rescue troops from Donbas. He highlights the importance of the Ukrainian city of Pokrovsk as a logistical hub.
Isackson mentions that Western officials justify Kursk as a “morale boost,” but Singh sees it as a mistake without a defined “end state.” He contrasts MI6’s more cautious tone with Burns’s more hawkish stance. While the US offers rhetorical support, he argues that Ukraine bears the actual costs — “half a million dead,” mass displacement and destruction — while the US risks little.
Regime change fantasies and geopolitical blindness
Talk of regime change in Russia is brushed aside. Singh sees strong support for Putin and no viable challengers. Isackson compares this to Vietnam, where the US prolonged an unwinnable war. Singh says the US elite isn’t being honest with the public and that sanctions have failed to hurt the average Russian. He laments a lost opportunity for post-Cold War reconciliation with Russia, which instead “was poked” into closer Chinese ties.
He argues that US foreign policy is captive to the military-industrial complex, which profits from prolonged conflict. He contrasts this with India’s emphasis on peace and diplomatic flexibility. Drawing on his experience with both Soviet and NATO forces, Singh finds it surprising that so few retired US military officials publicly challenge prevailing policy.
The rise of BRICS and a multipolar order
Isackson brings up BRICS and its growing appeal. Singh says the Global South no longer wants to be pulled into superpower rivalries. BRICS, representing a large share of the global population and GDP, offers an alternative where their interests are better safeguarded. He predicts that US unilateralism will recede and sanctions will push countries toward a new parallel economic system.
India’s decision to buy Russian oil is cited as pragmatic and in its national interest. Isackson notes BRICS’s challenge to the dominance of the US dollar. Singh adds that the outdated structure of institutions like the UN Security Council must change. It’s “scandalous,” he says, that India still lacks a permanent seat.
A final warning: eyes on the Middle East
In closing, Singh argues that Ukraine is unlikely to cause a global catastrophe, but the Middle East might. He warns that one incident involving Israel and surrounding powers could escalate uncontrollably. Isackson says that today’s youth seem desensitized to nuclear threats — unlike his generation, which was shaped by events like the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Singh praises Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán for bluntly acknowledging the risks and criticizes other European leaders for underestimating the dangers. Isackson agrees and sees leaders like Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as more volatile than Zelenskyy. He warns that both are trying to draw the US deeper into their wars.
Singh closes by noting Putin’s restraint — seen by some as fear, but which he views as a deliberate effort to avoid crossing a dangerous line. Isackson recalls that Putin once proposed a security framework to avoid war, which the West has largely ignored.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” This conversation between Fair Observer Chief Strategy Officer Peter Isackson and retired General AK Singh, a seasoned Indian military commander with deep ties to Soviet, NATO and Russian commands, offers a wide-ranging strategic assessment of the Ukraine conflict. Singh’s insights explore not…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Fair Observer Chief Strategy Officer Peter Isackson and retired Indian General AK Singh hold a critical assessment of the Ukraine war, arguing it was shaped by Western strategic missteps and media narratives. Singh warns that escalation risks provoking a Russian response, and questions the effectiveness of US policy and the credibility of Ukraine’s leadership. The speakers also explore shifting global power dynamics and emphasize the need for diplomacy to prevent wider catastrophe.” post-date=”Aug 04, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: An Indian Military Mind on Ukraine’s Remarkable Kursk Invasion” slug-data=”fo-talks-an-indian-military-mind-on-ukraines-remarkable-kursk-invasion”>
FO° Talks: An Indian Military Mind on Ukraine’s Remarkable Kursk Invasion
Fair Observer Founder, CEO & Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and retired CIA Officer Glenn Carle open this section of their discussion with signs of American institutional decline: a muted presidential parade, unrest in Los Angeles and a growing perception that the United States now mirrors unstable developing nations. Atul laments the collapse of the principles that once defined America — rule of law, stable institutions and merit-based leadership. He warns that ideological extremism has replaced civic norms, with “totalitarians on the left and authoritarians on the right” dominating discourse and weakening the national center.
A focal point of this erosion is Harvard University, long a symbol of American soft power. Atul states that a legal battle now prevents the university, with its $53 billion endowment and large population of elite foreign students, from admitting any more international students. He sees this as part of a broader crackdown, including a sweeping immigration campaign that Donald Trump has pushed. Under this campaign, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) carries out what is described as the largest mass deportation program in US history. It regularly ignores due process and answers protests with military deployments — a rare escalation in US domestic affairs.
Revolutionary shifts in governance and power
Glenn contextualizes these developments as more than political turbulence. They are, in his view, signs of a systemic revolution. He argues the US faces its most profound crisis since 1861, but unlike the American Civil War, today’s upheaval directly targets foundational institutions. At the heart of this shift are two radical ideological projects: Project 2025, which seeks to shrink the federal government to just border control and defense, and the theory of the unitary executive, which would grant the president unchecked authority, modeled after authoritarian regimes like China’s.
Glenn calls the theory “literally revolutionary in intent” and traces its intellectual roots to Carl Schmitt, a legal philosopher who served Adolf Hitler’s Nazi regime during World War II. These ideas, he warns, are not theoretical — they’re being translated into policy. The federal deployment of Marines and National Guard troops to California, despite no declared emergency, marks a dangerous centralization of military authority. These actions represent to Glenn a conscious attack on the current American order, aiming to reshape governance, dismantle the post-New Deal consensus and exclude multicultural voices from cultural and political power.
Cultural crisis, social fragmentation and the decline of discourse
Atul and Glenn identify cultural and economic undercurrents fueling this crisis. Atul acknowledges that elite institutions like Harvard are not above criticism — he condemns their chilling effect on speech and the regulatory capture that shields large corporations. But he insists that these problems stem from deeper societal fault lines: a gutted working class, a crisis of affordability in education and housing and a collapsing media ecosystem. The ratio of journalists to public relations professionals has gone from 1:2 in 1998 to 1:10 today, turning political debate into constant spin and leaving voters uninformed.
Glenn underscores the racial and cultural dimensions of this upheaval. He describes a white male elite unwilling to accept the demographic and cultural evolution of America, lashing out to preserve dominance. Harvard, in this context, becomes a symbolic enemy — a stand-in for everything multicultural, intellectual and global. The result, he warns, is a paradigm shift in what is considered normal or acceptable in American society. Glenn reflects on French political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville’s warning: When every voice carries equal weight but lacks authority or knowledge, democracy devolves into chaos and the tyranny of the majority takes hold.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” Fair Observer Founder, CEO & Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and retired CIA Officer Glenn Carle open this section of their discussion with signs of American institutional decline: a muted presidential parade, unrest in Los Angeles and a growing perception that the United States now mirrors…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Exclusive, Fair Observer Founder, CEO & Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and retired CIA Officer Glenn Carle examine the collapse of US political norms, focusing on legal and cultural assaults on immigration law and institutions like Harvard University. They trace these events to deeper ideological efforts to reshape American governance and society. The result, they argue, is a systemic crisis that challenges democracy itself.” post-date=”Aug 02, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Exclusive: Trump Attacks Harvard as ICE Raids Continue in Los Angeles” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-trump-attacks-harvard-as-ice-raids-continue-in-los-angeles”>
FO° Exclusive: Trump Attacks Harvard as ICE Raids Continue in Los Angeles
Founder, CEO and Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh interviews Professor Viral Acharya, the former Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), about why India’s economic growth has slowed recently.
Part of the slowdown stems from a correction following the post-COVID economic bounce. After the pandemic, pent-up demand surged, and monetary and fiscal stimulus fueled growth. Low interest rates lowered debt payments, and many state governments cut stamp duties. Equity and housing prices rose, making the wealthy feel very rich and boosting their consumption. Now, this demand has declined.
Reasons for the slowdown in growth
The post-COVID bounce rested on a narrow base. Both the informal and rural economies suffered. They were not as financially developed, and the wealth effect from monetary stimulus was weak. Furthermore, the rich did not spend what the poor in these sectors earned. This led to a K-shaped recovery, where different parts of the economy perform divergently, like the arms of the letter “K.”
Second, the savings glut among the wealthy is insufficient to drive the economy. Indian policymakers need to raise incomes for more people. The poor tend to, and want to, spend more. If they do not see higher incomes, the financial sector transfers money from the rich to the poor through unsecured consumer credit. This mirrors the growth of credit card debt in the US, which reached $1.17 trillion at the end of the third quarter in 2024, with an average interest rate of 23.37%.
The RBI has attempted to slow unsecured credit growth, but this alone cannot solve the core issue: how the government addresses the lack of real wage growth among the masses.
Over the last five years, agricultural job creation in India has been more than 50%, which is concerning because agriculture accounts for just over 15% of the country’s GDP and is a low-productivity sector. The states of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Bengal, in India’s hinterland, do not generate enough high-quality jobs. To improve this, the government must boost private investment by opening up the economy, creating demand for more productive labor and generating new jobs.
On the supply side, policymakers need to invest in education, health and vocational training so Indian workers can meet the increased demand from higher investment. India must shift away from low-quality, low-income jobs in agriculture that produce little demand, toward better opportunities that foster higher income and growth.
What should the Indian government do?
In policy terms, India needs to do two things. First, it must introduce another round of liberalization, which involves reducing protectionist barriers and lowering tariffs. Policy certainty for the next three to five years is crucial because businesses require predictability and confidence. India needs foreign businesses to establish operations in the country, as this facilitates technology transfers. These transfers, in turn, boost efficiency, increase productivity and enhance the economy’s competitiveness.
Today’s situation has improved since 1991, when the public sector was more dominant. Although the public sector remains inefficient, the industry’s concentration in a few hands is a concerning trend. While we are no longer in a pre-1991 world, reducing industry concentration remains a crucial priority.
Second, India should pursue growth that matches its high potential. Given the economy’s current low base, India should aim for higher growth rates.
What about the falling rupee and FIIs leaving the Indian market
The volatility of the rupee has been too low. While the RBI needs to maintain inflation credibility, it must also avoid excessive market interventions. Now, the RBI has loosened the strict management of the rupee’s volatility. As a result, the money that previously flowed in is now flowing out. Additionally, US markets are currently frothy, causing dollars to return to the US and exert downward pressure on both the rupee and Indian stock markets. In any case, Indian markets were also frothy and needed a sanity check.
[Kaitlyn Diana edited this piece]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” Founder, CEO and Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh interviews Professor Viral Acharya, the former Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), about why India’s economic growth has slowed recently. Part of the slowdown stems from a correction following the post-COVID economic bounce….” post_summery=”India’s economic growth is slowing down because the post-Covid bounce has run out of steam. The growth is based on a narrow economic base and the government needs another round of 1991-style liberalization to boost the economy.” post-date=”Jul 17, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Why Is India’s Economy Slowing Down?” slug-data=”fo-talks-why-is-indias-economy-slowing-down”>
FO° Talks: Why Is India’s Economy Slowing Down?
Retired CIA officer Glenn Carle offers a provocative and deeply unsettling analysis of US President Donald Trump. He claims that Trump is what intelligence professionals would classify as a Russian asset, not a traditional spy who takes orders, but someone who has been cultivated and influenced over decades. He traces the beginnings of Trump’s relationship with Russian intelligence back to 1986, when Trump Tower caught the attention of Natalia Dubinin, the daughter of Russian Ambassador Yuri Dubinin. This, he says, eventually led to Moscow’s long-standing efforts to entice Trump with the idea of building a Trump Tower in Red Square.
How intelligence recruitment works
Carle explains that this type of influence operation involves spotting, assessing, developing and ultimately recruiting targets, often through subtle psychological manipulation. He describes how even small gestures, such as offering a favor, can establish bonds of loyalty or create a sense of indebtedness.
Trump, in Carle’s view, is especially susceptible due to his vanity and his consistent loyalty to those who flatter him. While Trump does not align with Russia on every issue — notably diverging on Iran — Carle notes he has parroted Russian state messaging and advanced Kremlin-aligned policies across many domains.
Domestic ideology and institutional erosion
Whitaker and Carle shift the conversation from foreign entanglements to the domestic sphere, where they see grave danger in the political movement surrounding Trump. Carle argues that Trump’s actions are part of a broader ideological push by elements of the Republican Party’s right wing to gut the federal government. This includes promoting the “unitary executive theory,” shrinking federal functions to defense and border control, and dismantling institutions built since the New Deal. These ideas, according to Carle, come not from Trump himself but from his inner circle and movement intellectuals.
The crisis of American democracy
Carle concludes with a stark warning: The United States is undergoing its deepest institutional crisis since the Civil War. Unlike the societal unrest of the 1960s, he believes the current moment poses a threat to the core structures of American governance. He cites attacks on the First Amendment and on the free media, reduction of social services programs, efforts to centralize military command and widespread distrust in democratic institutions. Although critics may dismiss these concerns as exaggerated, Carle insists they are very real — and dangerous.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” Retired CIA officer Glenn Carle offers a provocative and deeply unsettling analysis of US President Donald Trump. He claims that Trump is what intelligence professionals would classify as a Russian asset, not a traditional spy who takes orders, but someone who has been cultivated and influenced…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Fair Observer Chair Claire Whitaker and retired CIA officer Glenn Carle discuss US President Donald Trump’s relationship with Russian intelligence. Carle argues that Trump is a cultivated Russian asset and warns of a broader ideological project threatening American institutions. He describes the present moment as the United States’s most serious national crisis since the American Civil War.” post-date=”Jul 13, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Did Russia Recruit Donald Trump as a Spy? Former CIA Officer Reveals” slug-data=”fo-talks-did-russia-recruit-donald-trump-as-a-spy-former-cia-officer-reveals”>
FO° Talks: Did Russia Recruit Donald Trump as a Spy? Former CIA Officer Reveals
Source link
Hazel ShearingEducation correspondent
Getty ImagesPupils in England who missed school during the first week back in September 2024 were more likely to miss large parts during the rest of the year, figures suggest.
More than half (57%) of pupils who were partially absent in week one became “persistently absent” – missing at least 10% of school, according to government data first seen by the BBC.
By contrast, of pupils who fully attended the first week, 14% became persistently absent.
Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson said schools and parents should “double down” to get children in at the start of the 2025 term, which is this week for most English schools.
A head teachers’ union said more support was needed “outside of the school gates” to boost attendance.
Schools have always grappled with attendance issues, but they became much worse after the pandemic in 2020 and schools closed to most pupils during national lockdowns.
Attendance has improved since, but it remains a bigger problem than before Covid.
Overall, about 18% of pupils were persistently absent in the 2024-25 school year, down from a peak of 23% in 2021-22 but higher than the pre-Covid levels of about 11%.
The Department for Education (DfE) said the data from the first week of the 2024-25 school year showed the start of term was “critical” for tackling persistent absence.
Karl Stewart, head teacher at Shaftesbury Junior School in Leicester, said his school’s attendance rates were higher than average and but there was a “definite dip” in the two years after Covid.
“I get why. Some of that wasn’t necessarily parents not wanting to send them in. It was because either they had got Covid or other things, they were saying, ‘We’ll just keep them off now to be sure’,” he said.
The school has incentives like awards and class competitions to keep absence rates down, and Mr Stewart said attendance had more or less returned to pre-Covid levels.
“When we have the children in every day the results are just better,” he said.
“If you’re here, that gives you more time for your teacher to notice you, for us to see all that good behaviour [and] that really hard work – and that’s what we want.”
But, like lots of schools, he said some parents still took their children on unauthorised term-time holidays to make the most of cheaper costs.
Others, he said, have taken children for medical treatments overseas to avoid NHS waiting lists.
The education secretary said that while attendance improved last year, absence levels “remain critically high, putting at risk the life chances of a whole generation of young people”.
“Every day of school missed is a day stolen from a child’s future,” Phillipson said.
“As the new term kicks off, we need schools and parents to double down on the energy, the drive and the relentlessness that’s already boosted the life chances of millions of children, to do the same for millions more.”
The DfE said 800 schools were set to be supported by regional school improvement teams – through attendance and behaviour hubs.
These hubs are made up of 90 exemplary schools which will offer support to improve struggling schools through training sessions, events and open days.
It said it had appointed the first 21 schools that will lead the programme.
However, Pepe Di’Iasio, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said attendance hubs were not a “silver bullet” and a more “strategic approach” was needed.
“I think the government has worked really hard to improve attendance and it continues to be a priority for them, but there’s certainly more to do,” he told the BBC.
“So many of the challenges that [school leaders] are facing come from beyond the school gates – children suffering with high levels of anxiety, issues around mental health.”
He said school leaders wanted quicker access to support for those pupils and specialist staff in schools, but pupils also needed “great role models” in the community through youth clubs and volunteer groups.
The Conservatives said Labour’s Schools Bill had dismantled a “system that has driven up standards for decades”.
Shadow education secretary Laura Trott said: “Behaviour and attendance are two of the biggest challenges facing schools and it’s about time the government acted.”
She added: “There must be clear consequences for poor behaviour not just to protect the pupils trying to learn, but to recognise when mainstream education isn’t the right setting for those causing disruption.”
Additional reporting by Nathan Standley
The recent explosion of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has pervaded numerous industries, going from a futuristic concept to an everyday reality. However, the impact of AI on schooling has been exceptionally staggering.
From helping students complete assignments to reshaping the way teachers think about homework and exams, AI is beginning to redefine education all over the world.
Bangladesh is no different.
Artificial Intelligence isn’t just coming to Bangladeshi classrooms—it’s already here. While its promise of convenience and quick solutions is quite alluring to students, the ever-growing presence of AI in schools has raised difficult questions: is learning actually taking place anymore or is it being replaced by answers generated not from thought, but from machines?
In schools across Bangladesh, AI tools like ChatGPT have quietly revolutionised how students complete their homework, how teachers prepare lessons, and how institutions rethink education altogether.
Is it a blessing or a bane?
Students have quickly adapted to using advanced AI chatbots like ChatGPT, making AI an unavoidable and integral part of academic life. From essays to homework, students are increasingly finding ways to rely on AI not just to work faster, but to sidestep studying altogether.
Many schools and educators have now been forced to accept that resisting AI is no longer an option. Schools must adapt to the new reality or risk becoming redundant.
Yafa Rahman, Vice Principal and Senior Business Studies Teacher of Adroit International School, told The Business Standard, “Talks about integrating AI in the school curriculum is a global concern, and my school has had meetings with Pearson Education on how to do that in the best possible manner as well as train teachers to use AI in a beneficial way while being able to spot unethical AI use. This is an ongoing discussion, and we will see many changes soon.”
Yafa explained that her school also employs AI tools to structure assignments and class content. Rather than banning AI altogether, she believes in channelling students’ fascination with technology into meaningful learning. “Students rely on technology so much that if we incorporate any technology into the learning process, students instantly become more interested,” she said.
Rethinking the curriculum
The convenience of AI comes with a heavy cost. Teachers are reporting a surge in AI-generated assignments. Entire essays, reports, and even personal reflections are being turned in with no human touch. And it’s getting harder to spot the difference.
Educators have responded by rethinking the very structure of education in the country. Oral assessments, in-class essays, and presentations have become increasingly common, as schools seek to test students’ independent thinking rather than their ability to reproduce AI-generated answers.
“For assignments meant to show knowledge and understanding, I’ve returned to using pencil and paper to prevent AI use. For reflective assignments, I encourage students to use AI but remind them to think critically. You do not always have to agree with what AI generated, and key facts and figures must be checked with reliable sources,” said Olivier Gautheron, a Science Teacher at International School Dhaka (ISD) who has earned the “AI Essentials for Educators” certification from Edtech Teachers in the US.
This hybrid approach reflects a wider consensus among educators that AI should not be ignored but incorporated responsibly, encouraging students to refine their critical faculties alongside their digital literacy.
It’s no longer just about stopping AI from being used. It’s about guiding how it’s used.
AI detection
Detecting AI-generated work isn’t straightforward. In universities, plagiarism software and AI detectors are standard. But in schools, teachers often rely on their personal knowledge of each student’s writing style and capability, using their instincts to identify when a student’s writing does not look like their own.
But Gautheron warns against over-reliance on intuition, preferring restraint over wrongful accusations.
“I believe it all comes down to knowing your students and their abilities,” he said. “There’s a high chance of mistakenly identifying student work as AI-generated when it’s not.”
He recalled an incident when he suspected a student of using AI, only to learn that the child had simply used software to improve grammar without altering the ideas. “This is perfectly acceptable, as the purpose of the assignment was for students to generate their own ideas,” he added.
He believes the solution lies not in advanced software but in dialogue. “Although software exists to detect AI, there are other softwares to make them undetectable. I believe that the best way to detect inappropriate use of AI is asking your students directly. If I feel that a student’s work quality is very different from previous tasks, simply asking them to clarify a few ideas of their work is enough.”
For resource-constrained schools, this approach is also pragmatic, since not every institution can afford detection software.
AI for teachers
Just like students, teachers are also increasingly turning to AI for lesson planning and content creation
Emran Taher, Cambridge examiner and senior English instructor at Mastermind School, sees AI as a game-changer.
“It is not just the students who use AI. Teachers and schools are using it too. I can keep my syllabus up-to-date and incorporate more relevant topics and examples instead of just relying on textbooks. This helps grab students’ interest while reducing issues like bunking classes.”
He also uses AI for personalised instruction. By feeding student data—age, class level, strengths, and weaknesses—into AI tools, he receives tailored recommendations that help him address individual needs. “There are no bad students, only bad teachers,” he said.
Striking the right balance
AI’s presence in schools reveals a tension: the same tool that can personalise learning and spark creativity can also be used to bypass real thinking. This balancing act between embracing innovation and preserving the essence of education appears to be the defining challenge of AI use.
However, there is no turning back. AI is already embedded in how schools operate. What matters now is how educators choose to respond. As Bangladeshi schools navigate this shift, teacher training, investment in digital infrastructure, and the development of ethical guidelines will all be crucial.
Some see AI as a threat to academic honesty. Others see it as a catalyst for overdue change in the old, rigid education system. But everyone realises that the role of teachers must evolve to address the new digital landscape.
The Education Ministry was panned across social media over the weekend for posting an AI image to Facebook on Friday of a fictional sextuplets ostensibly starting first grade, ahead of the start of the school year on September 1.
The ministry posted a picture of the six children standing in front of a school with the caption: “Next week we go back to school! In the meantime, meet the only sextuplets in the country who are entering first grade: Oren, Omer, Uri, Nadav, Dvir and Gil Orenstein.”
The post then quoted their fictional mother, Ilanit, as saying: “I invested a lot in raising the children; it’s a great miracle that they were all born healthy. I took a two-year break from work to focus on raising the children and my husband was the sole breadwinner. I am the most excited in the world to see them grow up.”
No such sextuplets exist, and the photo was AI-generated. This fact was not initially made clear by the ministry. The post quickly drew a backlash on social media, with thousands of users slamming the ministry that is supposed to educate children for spreading a lie.
“One of your more embarrassing posts. The education system is collapsing, there are no teachers, no values, and schools are barely managing, and this is what you decide to post? A chauvinistic AI story about imaginary sextuplets with a mom who stays home and a father who supports them,” one person responded on Facebook, garnering 1,700 likes.
“Focus on improving education and not on degrading the conversation online,” she added.
Education Minister Yoav Kisch attends a meeting of the Knesset Education, Culture, and Sports Committee in Jerusalem, May 12, 2025. (Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)
Another commenter said the post was “absurd,” and “typical of the lazy and spineless” Education Minister Yoav Kisch, saying that “these are his values and what he promotes before the start of the school year.”
One commenter said that they asked ChatGPT what it thought of the post, saying that the AI chatbot said it was “highly problematic, especially coming from the Education Ministry.”
“The post undermines public trust [in the ministry], and trust is the foundation of the education system,” ChatGPT added, according to the commenter.
“This is the page that represents the places to which you send your children,” said another poster. “Time to consider homeschooling.”
The ministry later defended the upload, responding in a comment to its original post: “Okay, we admit these sextuplets are not really on the way to first grade, the photo was created with AI.
“We wanted to open the school year with a smile and to remind you that just like in school, on the web we also need to stop, check, and use our critical thinking,” it asserted.
“Wishing everyone a curious, fun school year full of good surprises,” its second post said.
Illustrative photo of students on the first day of school, at the Gabrieli Carmel School in Tel Aviv, on September 1, 2024. (Avshalom Sassoni/Flash90)
The Education Ministry under Kisch has undergone a tumultuous year, which included several teacher strikes, budget issues and a controversial change to public school curriculum, which mandated an hour of bible study each week for all students in first to twelfth grade, as well as additional mandatory classes on Zionism and “Israel’s wars and rebirth.”
Schools will also be required to bring students on tours of Jerusalem and Jewish heritage sites around the country, with an emphasis on sites in the West Bank.
-
Tools & Platforms3 weeks ago
Building Trust in Military AI Starts with Opening the Black Box – War on the Rocks
-
Ethics & Policy1 month agoSDAIA Supports Saudi Arabia’s Leadership in Shaping Global AI Ethics, Policy, and Research – وكالة الأنباء السعودية
-
Events & Conferences3 months agoJourney to 1000 models: Scaling Instagram’s recommendation system
-
Jobs & Careers2 months agoMumbai-based Perplexity Alternative Has 60k+ Users Without Funding
-
Business2 days agoThe Guardian view on Trump and the Fed: independence is no substitute for accountability | Editorial
-
Funding & Business2 months agoKayak and Expedia race to build AI travel agents that turn social posts into itineraries
-
Education2 months agoVEX Robotics launches AI-powered classroom robotics system
-
Podcasts & Talks2 months agoHappy 4th of July! 🎆 Made with Veo 3 in Gemini
-
Podcasts & Talks2 months agoOpenAI 🤝 @teamganassi
-
Jobs & Careers2 months agoAstrophel Aerospace Raises ₹6.84 Crore to Build Reusable Launch Vehicle