The views expressed in this article\/video are the author\u2019s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer\u2019s editorial policy.<\/p>\n
”
\npost-content-short=”
\nFair Observer\u2019s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh and Argentine international-relations analyst Ricardo Vanella discuss renewed geopolitical attention surrounding the Falkland Islands, known in Argentina as the Islas Malvinas. Following reports that the Trump administration may reconsider…”
\npost_summery=”In this episode of FO Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Ricardo Vanella discuss renewed geopolitical tensions surrounding the Falkland Islands after reports suggest Trump may reconsider supporting Britain. Argentina shouldn\u2019t overinterpret signals from Washington, but pursue patient diplomacy grounded in international law. Vanella proposes a South Atlantic framework based on investment and trust-building between Argentina and the UK.”
\npost-date=”May 16, 2026″
\npost-title=”FO Talks: Why the US Could Abandon the UK and Back Argentina in the Falkland Islands Dispute” slug-data=”fo-talks-why-the-us-could-abandon-the-uk-and-back-argentina-in-the-falkland-islands-dispute”>
\n
\nFO Talks: Why the US Could Abandon the UK and Back Argentina in the Falkland Islands Dispute<\/p>\n
![](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Ricardo-Vanella-150x150.jpg\"\/)
<\/p>\n
William M. LeoGrande”
\npost_date=”May 15, 2026 06:44″
\npUrl=”https:\/\/www.fairobserver.com\/video\/fo-talks-making-sense-of-us-policy-towards-cuba-under-obama-biden-and-trump\/” pid=”162465″
\npost-content=”<\/p>\n
Fair Observer Contributing Editor Laura Pav\u00f3n Arambur\u00fa speaks with American University Professor William M. LeoGrande about the rapid deterioration of US\u2013Cuba relations under US President Donald Trump. They examine how Washington\u2019s tightening of its long-standing embargo, combined with new pressure on countries supplying oil to Cuba, has deepened the island\u2019s humanitarian and economic crisis. LeoGrande contrasts the current strategy of coercion with US President Barack Obama\u2019s earlier engagement policy, arguing that decades of sanctions have failed to produce meaningful political change. Is the United States pursuing realistic diplomacy or repeating a regime-change strategy that has repeatedly failed elsewhere?<\/p>\n
From engagement to economic strangulation<\/p>\n
Arambur\u00fa opens by revisiting the Obama administration\u2019s normalization efforts, which included restoring diplomatic relations, loosening travel restrictions and removing Cuba from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. LeoGrande notes that the two governments signed 22 bilateral agreements during Obama\u2019s final years in office, reflecting an attempt to build cooperation around mutual interests.<\/p>\n
Today, he says, the relationship has deteriorated dramatically. \u201cThe situation today in the bilateral relationship is probably as bad as it has ever been,\u201d LeoGrande states. Alongside the traditional embargo imposed in 1962, the Trump administration has added new pressure through secondary sanctions targeting countries that export oil to Cuba, and foreign firms doing business in Cuba.<\/p>\n
According to LeoGrande, Mexico, Algeria and Angola all halted shipments after Washington threatened economic retaliation. Russia remains willing to provide oil, but not enough to offset the losses. This has resulted in a worsening energy crisis that has disrupted transportation, electricity production and industrial activity across the island.<\/p>\n
LeoGrande argues that the contrast between Obama and Trump reflects two fundamentally different theories of change. Obama believed greater engagement would gradually encourage economic and political opening. Trump\u2019s approach, by contrast, seeks to \u201cstrangle the Cuban economy\u201d until Havana accepts US terms.<\/p>\n
Oil, leverage and the limits of regime change<\/p>\n
The conversation then broadens into a larger debate about US regime-change strategies. Arambur\u00fa compares Cuba to recent US confrontations with Venezuela and Iran, questioning whether Washington\u2019s objectives are clearly defined or driven by a broader ideological hostility toward socialism and anti-American governments.<\/p>\n
LeoGrande points to Venezuela as an example of inconsistency. The US publicly pursued regime change while Venezuelan President Nicol\u00e1s Maduro held office, yet Washington later appeared willing to work with the post-Maduro government so long as American oil companies regained access to the Venezuelan energy sector.<\/p>\n
A similar logic may exist in Cuba. Current negotiations reportedly focus heavily on economic questions, including property claims, foreign investment and access to Cuba\u2019s strategic minerals. Yet political demands remain a major obstacle, particularly calls from US Secretary of State Marco Rubio for leadership change in Havana.<\/p>\n
For Cuban officials, sovereignty remains non-negotiable. LeoGrande argues that negotiations could succeed if they remain focused on economic normalization, but they are unlikely to survive any attempt by Washington to dictate Cuba\u2019s political system.<\/p>\n
A society under pressure<\/p>\n
The discussion also explores the severe humanitarian effects of Cuba\u2019s energy shortages. LeoGrande describes hospitals struggling to maintain electricity, factories closing for parts of the week and public transportation nearly collapsing because of fuel scarcity. Farmers often cannot move crops to market, further worsening food shortages.<\/p>\n
Simultaneously, Cuba\u2019s own economic failures have compounded the crisis. LeoGrande notes that the government delayed market reforms for years and became overly dependent on tourism. Attempts to unify Cuba\u2019s currency system in 2021 also contributed to inflation and instability.<\/p>\n
Even traditional pillars of the economy are weakening. Cuba\u2019s sugar sector, once central to national identity and exports, has deteriorated so badly that the country recently had to import sugar. Cuba now needs major foreign investment to rebuild critical industries and modernize infrastructure.<\/p>\n
Still, LeoGrande highlights some areas of resilience. China has supplied solar technology that is helping Cuba slowly expand renewable energy production, while the island\u2019s biotechnology sector continues to demonstrate significant scientific capacity despite sanctions.<\/p>\n
Generational divides and the Cuban diaspora<\/p>\n
Arambur\u00fa raises the question of whether internal political change could eventually emerge from younger generations. LeoGrande describes a growing divide between older Cubans who remember the revolution\u2019s early years more positively and younger Cubans whose experience has been dominated by austerity and economic stagnation.<\/p>\n
Yet he remains skeptical that widespread unrest will produce regime collapse. \u201cThere\u2019s no organized opposition,\u201d LeoGrande explains, arguing that many critics eventually emigrate rather than build sustained movements inside Cuba. Dissatisfaction is widespread, but the state still retains strong institutional control.<\/p>\n
The Cuban diaspora remains another major political force, especially in Florida. Cuban Americans have historically exercised outsized influence over US policy because of their concentration in a key electoral state and their strong focus on Cuba-related issues.<\/p>\n
However, the community itself has become increasingly divided. Some supported Obama\u2019s normalization efforts, while others continue backing a hard-line embargo strategy. Trump\u2019s immigration policies have also created tensions by ending many of the special protections historically granted to Cuban migrants.<\/p>\n
Negotiation or collapse?<\/p>\n
The conversation concludes by considering possible future scenarios. LeoGrande argues that a direct US invasion of Cuba remains highly unlikely. Such an operation would alienate parts of Trump\u2019s political base, impose enormous economic burdens on Washington and potentially trigger a prolonged guerrilla conflict.<\/p>\n
Instead, he believes negotiations remain the only realistic path forward. \u201cThe only option for the United States to get something that it wants from the situation is to sit down at the negotiating table with the Cuban government,\u201d he says.<\/p>\n
Still, continued economic pressure risks producing another migration crisis similar to the Mariel boatlift or the 1994 raft exodus. For LeoGrande, the deeper tragedy is that ordinary Cubans continue paying the highest price for a geopolitical conflict that has lasted more than six decades.<\/p>\n
[Lee Thompson-Kolar<\/a> edited this piece.]<\/p>\n The views expressed in this article\/video are the author\u2019s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer\u2019s editorial policy.<\/p>\n ” Vinay Singh” Fair Observer\u2019s Chief Strategy Officer Peter Isackson and Global Civilization Dynamics Founder Vinay Singh discuss a variety of tech subjects, starting with Meta\u2019s decision to track employee keystrokes and mouse movements in order to train AI systems that can \u201creplicate\u201d human work. From there, Isackson and Singh widen the lens, arguing that the same logic driving automation may also undermine the consumer economy on which Western capitalism depends. Modern societies are optimizing for efficiency and consumption while eroding the human capacities \u2014 trust, attention and critical thinking \u2014 needed to sustain civilization itself.<\/p>\n From workers to data points<\/p>\n Singh opens with reports that Meta is increasing surveillance of employees by monitoring keyboard activity and mouse movements to improve AI agents. The company presents the move as a technical necessity, arguing that AI systems still struggle with many small human tasks. Yet both speakers see the development as symbolic of a deeper shift in management culture.<\/p>\n Isackson argues that workers are increasingly treated not as members of a productive community but as objects to be optimized. He compares the trend to a modern version of Charlie Chaplin\u2019s Modern Times, where human beings become extensions of machines rather than the reverse.<\/p>\n Singh remains skeptical of claims that humans will simply \u201cmonitor\u201d AI systems while retaining stable employment. He predicts that companies will eventually reduce headcounts dramatically, leaving only a handful of people supervising vast networks of automated agents. More troubling for him is the wider corporate tendency to imitate whatever large technology firms do. He warns that many executives now assume that if Meta or another tech giant adopts a model, every industry should follow it regardless of whether it fits their own business realities.<\/p>\n Isackson notes that boards, venture capital firms and financial actors often reinforce this pressure. Because they are removed from day-to-day production, they reward short-term efficiency gains without considering how workplace culture or human motivation may deteriorate over time.<\/p>\n The AI layoff trap<\/p>\n Isackson and Singh then turn to an economics paper describing what researchers call the \u201cAI Layoff Trap.\u201d The paper argues that firms are automating labor faster than the broader economy can absorb the consequences, creating a destructive feedback loop. Companies benefit individually from layoffs, but collectively they weaken consumer demand across society.<\/p>\n To illustrate the idea, Singh introduces his \u201cthree brothers\u201d analogy. One brother owns a phone company, another a grocery chain and the third a car dealership. When the phone company lays off workers to cut costs, those unemployed workers spend less on groceries. The grocery business then suffers and cuts its own workforce. Those additional layoffs reduce spending on phones and cars, eventually harming the original company that initiated the cuts.<\/p>\n Singh calls this a \u201ccircular dynamic\u201d that exposes how interconnected economic systems really are. What appears rational at the level of one corporation becomes destructive at the level of society.<\/p>\n Isackson connects the argument to Henry Ford\u2019s realization that workers needed enough income to buy the products they produced. He notes that the US economy remains overwhelmingly consumer-driven, making large-scale demand destruction particularly dangerous. \u201cWhen you start doing things that are focused on the logic of production,\u201d he warns, \u201cyou may be undermining\u201d the consumer system itself.<\/p>\n Both speakers argue that short-term thinking has become embedded in corporate culture. Firms focus narrowly on immediate efficiency gains while ignoring the wider social consequences of mass automation.<\/p>\n A crisis of trust<\/p>\n The conversation then shifts from economics to politics and social cohesion. Singh cites polling from Harvard Kennedy School showing that only 19% of young Americans trust the federal government to do the right thing most or all of the time. Trust in Congress, the presidency and the Supreme Court is similarly low.<\/p>\n For Singh, the numbers reflect growing financial insecurity and what he describes as a \u201ccrisis of community.\u201d Younger generations increasingly struggle to see stable pathways into adulthood, employment or social belonging.<\/p>\n Isackson argues that the phenomenon extends beyond the United States. In Europe, citizens may still trust state institutions more because of stronger welfare systems, but confidence is eroding there as well. He also points to collapsing trust in mainstream media, which historically helped define shared expectations and social norms.<\/p>\n Singh believes generational disconnect worsens the problem. Younger people, he argues, often fail to learn resilience from older generations who experienced earlier economic crises such as the dot-com collapse or the 2008 recession. Social media has weakened those intergenerational relationships and replaced lived experience with digital interaction.<\/p>\n \u201cDigital Doritos\u201d and the loss of attention<\/p>\n The final section explores the cognitive consequences of constant digital consumption. Singh references studies linking short-form video platforms such as TikTok and Instagram to reduced attention spans and weaker concentration. Other research suggests that even the mere presence of a smartphone can impair cognitive performance.<\/p>\n Drawing on author Cal Newport\u2019s idea of \u201cDigital Doritos,\u201d Isackson and Singh compare low-value online content to junk food for the mind. Isackson argues that the solution requires more than personal discipline. \u201cWe have to learn how to achieve balance,\u201d he says. Societies must rethink education and culture rather than simply asking individuals to use their phones less.<\/p>\n He argues that the humanities remain essential because they expose people to history, literature and unfamiliar perspectives that cultivate deeper thinking. Standardized education systems increasingly prioritize measurable productivity instead of intellectual breadth or reflection.<\/p>\n Singh closes with an anecdote about watching children at a restaurant sit silently with headsets and tablets instead of interacting with one another. For him, the scene captures the broader danger of replacing lived human experience with digital immersion. The concern is not simply distraction, but the possibility that societies are losing the very habits of thought and social connection that make innovation, trust and civilization possible.<\/p>\n [Lee Thompson-Kolar<\/a> edited this piece.]<\/p>\n The views expressed in this article\/video are the author\u2019s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer\u2019s editorial policy.<\/p>\n ” Manu Sharma” Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and FOI<\/a> Partner and geopolitical analyst Manu Sharma discuss how the Iran war reaches far beyond the battlefield into everyday economic life. What began as a military conflict in the Gulf has quickly spread through shipping lanes to fuel markets, agriculture, finance and trade. The war will raise the cost of fuel, travel, transport, fertilizers, food, medicine, industrial inputs and borrowing across much of the world.<\/p>\n A regional war with global consequences<\/p>\n Atul opens by asking Manu to map the immediate, medium-term and long-term implications of the conflict, along with its effects across different regions. Manu frames the crisis along both time and space, noting that what started as a regional war is already becoming something much larger. As he puts it, \u201cwe are seeing this grand convergence\u201d as military disruption in one part of the world begins to reshape economic life in other parts of the world.<\/p>\n The most immediate shock comes through the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world\u2019s most important energy chokepoints. Before the conflict, roughly 140 ships passed through the strait each day. Now traffic has almost completely stopped. That matters for crude oil, gasoline, jet fuel, petrochemicals and industrial inputs that move through the chokepoint.<\/p>\n The closed chokepoint has led to major consequencees. Air travel becomes more expensive as jet fuel supplies tighten. Hydrocarbon byproducts such as sulfur, lubricants, asphalt, plastics and chemical derivatives also grow scarcer. Since modern medicine depends heavily on these inputs, a prolonged conflict could drive up medical costs and disrupt pharmaceutical production. The first phase of the crisis hits energy, transport and the basic materials that support modern economies.<\/p>\n From fuel shock to food shock<\/p>\n As the discussion moves into the medium term, Manu explains how shortages in energy and industrial inputs begin to spread downstream. If fertilizer supplies remain constrained during the spring planting season, the effects will show themselves months later in weaker harvests and rising food prices. Modern agriculture, Atul notes, depends on both fuel and fertilizers. When both come under pressure at once, food shortages are inevitable.<\/p>\n The closed chokepoint also makes the Gulf monarchies especially vulnerable because they import almost all of their food. They also depend on steady flows of revenue from hydrocarbons to maintain social stability. If food becomes scarce and welfare systems come under strain, governments may have to sell their assets to stay in power.<\/p>\n The Iran war has made the investment climate highly uncertain. A \u201cflight to safety\u201d into hard assets such as precious metals and agricultural land is likely. This flight will be caused by the decline in normal economic activity because of the supply shock. It will also be exacerbated by declining confidence in institutions. Equities represent confidence in future growth. If that confidence weakens, capital retreats toward harder assets that appear more direct and less dependent on intermediaries. The result is a lower-trust global economy, marked by caution, volatility and a reordering of trade and investment patterns.<\/p>\n Stagflation and the strain on the dollar system<\/p>\n Looking further ahead, Atul asks what the world might look like five years from now if the conflict continues and critical infrastructure across the Gulf suffers sustained destruction. Manu sketches a grim scenario in which energy production capacity is damaged on a large scale, leading to long-lasting shortages and high input costs. That, in turn, creates the classic ingredients of stagflation: slower growth combined with persistent inflation.<\/p>\n Atul reminds viewers that the world experienced similar inflationary shocks after the 1973 Arab oil embargo and again after the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Manu sees the current war as a possible third Iran-linked stagflationary episode, one that could once again shake the foundations of the global economy.<\/p>\n This also raises deeper questions about the petrodollar system. Atul explains the historical bargain at its core: US security guarantees in exchange for a dollar-based oil order. Manu replies that if the United States cannot protect infrastructure in the Persian Gulf and keep shipping going through the Strait of Hormuz, then Gulf states may begin rethinking the currency architecture tied to that security relationship. Manu does not predict the end of the dollar, but he does suggest that its position could come under greater strain if the war exposes the limits of American protection.<\/p>\n Asia and Africa are exposed<\/p>\n The regional discussion begins with East and Southeast Asia, which Manu describes as the industrial engine of the world. The economies in this region depend heavily on Gulf energy and raw materials. If those flows are disrupted, output falls, finished goods become scarcer and inflation rises globally. Cheap electronics, clothes and household goods no longer remain so cheap. Western consumers feel the loss through a lower standard of living, but the effect within Asia may be even more politically significant.<\/p>\n Manu notes that many East Asian states built social stability on a promise of rising incomes and steady growth. If that growth model falters, long-suppressed political volatility could return. He stresses that these societies have a history of rapid and dramatic political change, a reality many outside observers underestimate.<\/p>\n South Asia appears even more vulnerable. Countries across the region depend heavily on remittances from Gulf workers and on imported energy. The Iran war has hit South Asia with a double whammy: rising import costs and falling external income. Manu is particularly pessimistic about pressure on the Indian rupee. India is stronger than it was during the 1991 balance-of-payments crisis, thanks to its services sector and wider diaspora, but will face increasing strains. Manu also warns that the region could face a mix of inflation, capital outflows and political strain.\u00a0<\/p>\n In contrast to Asia, Africa is a continent rich in resources. Political structures are weak though. Manu sees intensifying competition for African resources with outside powers, private military actors and regional players jockeying to gain a greater share of the pie. Resource politics, proxy conflict and coercive competition all become more likely.<\/p>\n Europe\u2019s bind and America\u2019s test<\/p>\n For Europe, the war compounds an already difficult situation. After reducing reliance on Russian gas, many European economies now face further energy stress, inflationary pressure and rising borrowing costs. Manu believes Europe is also spending political capital by being associated with the US in a broader Western bloc whose credibility has weakened in the eyes of much of the world.<\/p>\n Atul closes by turning to the US. If Washington prevails decisively, its strategic and financial position may hold. If it fails to control the Strait of Hormuz or the war ends in stalemate, much larger questions emerge about the dollar, American power and the future of the global order. Should the US fail to prevail, the economic system that has shaped daily life across the world for decades will crumble.<\/p>\n [Lee Thompson-Kolar<\/a> edited this piece.]<\/p>\n The views expressed in this article\/video are the author\u2019s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer\u2019s editorial policy.<\/p>\n ” Martin Plaut” Fair Observer\u2019s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with Martin Plaut, a journalist, academic and author, about the deepening rupture between the Trump administration and South Africa. They examine why Washington barred South Africa from the 2026 G20 summit in Miami, Florida, and how decades of ANC foreign policy have collided with US President Donald Trump\u2019s worldview. Plaut views the dispute as not simply about one diplomatic incident, but ideological alignment, domestic politics and competing visions of the global order. Can South Africa preserve its BRICS-oriented identity while remaining economically dependent on the United States?<\/p>\n A long-brewing rupture<\/p>\n Plaut argues that tensions between Washington and Pretoria predate Trump, rooted in the African National Congress (ANC)\u2019s longstanding \u201cthird-worldist\u201d foreign policy outlook. During the anti-apartheid struggle, both the Soviet Union and China supported the ANC, creating political loyalties that still shape South African diplomacy today. Pretoria continues to pursue close ties with Russia and China while promoting a multipolar world order through forums such as BRICS.<\/p>\n Khattar Singh highlights several recent flashpoints. South African military officials visited Iran, and Pretoria participated in joint naval exercises alongside Iran, Russia and China. For Plaut, these actions became impossible to separate from Trump\u2019s confrontational posture toward the Iranian capital of Tehran. He suggests that the White House increasingly views South Africa not as a neutral middle power, but as a state drifting toward America\u2019s strategic rivals.<\/p>\n The decision to exclude South Africa from the G20 therefore reflects more than personal animosity. Plaut believes that it signals growing American frustration with Pretoria\u2019s geopolitical positioning and with what Washington sees as persistent anti-Western instincts inside the ANC.<\/p>\n Trump, Musk and the white farmer narrative<\/p>\n The discussion then shifts to the highly charged politics surrounding white South African farmers. Plaut explains that Trump\u2019s relationship with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa deteriorated sharply after a White House meeting in which Trump confronted him with images of murdered farmers and allegations of anti-white discrimination.<\/p>\n Plaut acknowledges that violent crime in South Africa is severe and often brutal. However, he stresses that white farmers are not uniquely targeted compared to other vulnerable groups. Khattar Singh notes that available statistics show most farm murder victims in recent years have been black South Africans, complicating the narrative circulating on social media.<\/p>\n Plaut says that the issue resonates with Trump because it fits into a broader MAGA-era cultural framework. \u201cWhat is the MAGA movement? It\u2019s Make White America Great Again,\u201d he says.<\/p>\n Tesla CEO Elon Musk also looms over the conversation. Musk, who was born in South Africa, has repeatedly amplified claims about attacks on white farmers through X. Plaut believes Musk and a circle of wealthy South African expatriates exert more influence over Trump\u2019s understanding of the country than traditional diplomatic channels. \u201cThey just drip feed this stuff into his ear whenever they have the opportunity,\u201d Plaut says.<\/p>\n The dispute also intersects with business interests. Musk reportedly wants to expand Starlink operations in South Africa but opposes Black Economic Empowerment policies requiring foreign firms to partner with black South Africans.<\/p>\n Israel, the ICJ and competing worldviews<\/p>\n Another major source of friction is South Africa\u2019s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice. Plaut describes the move as a significant irritant for Washington, particularly given the Trump administration\u2019s skepticism toward international institutions.<\/p>\n For many South Africans, support for the Palestinian cause fits naturally within the ANC\u2019s anti-colonial political identity. Yet Plaut notes that divisions persist within South Africa itself. Some conservative white South Africans identify strongly with Israel and view themselves as similarly isolated within a hostile regional environment.<\/p>\n The broader disagreement reflects competing attitudes toward global governance. Plaut argues that while much of the world still relies on institutions built after World War II, Trump increasingly favors personal diplomacy and transactional bilateral relationships over multilateral frameworks.<\/p>\n Khattar Singh raises the larger question of whether Africa itself is being sidelined. South Africa was the continent\u2019s sole G20 representative for decades before the African Union joined the grouping in 2024. Plaut rejects the idea of a coordinated American strategy against Africa, instead portraying Trump\u2019s approach as highly personal and improvisational.<\/p>\n South Africa\u2019s declining dominance<\/p>\n Plaut repeatedly returns to South Africa\u2019s internal problems. Ordinary citizens care less about G20 access than about failing infrastructure, unemployment and rising crime. Johannesburg has faced prolonged water shortages and rolling electricity outages, while youth unemployment has climbed to catastrophic levels.<\/p>\n \u201cSixty percent of young people under 25 are unemployed,\u201d Plaut says. \u201cIt is just horrific.\u201d<\/p>\n These weaknesses are eroding South Africa\u2019s claim to continental leadership. Khattar Singh points to the growing prominence of countries such as Egypt, Kenya, Nigeria and Ethiopia. Plaut agrees that other African powers are increasingly \u201cpunching above their weight,\u201d even as divisions inside the African Union make unified continental leadership difficult.<\/p>\n Simultaneously, the ANC itself is weakening politically. After losing its outright majority, the party now governs through coalition arrangements and faces mounting electoral pressure at the local level. Plaut compares its trajectory to other historic liberation movements that dominated politics after independence before gradually declining.<\/p>\n Can the relationship be repaired?<\/p>\n To repair relations with Washington, Ramaphosa has appointed Ralph Meyer as ambassador to the US. A former National Party politician who later helped negotiate the end of apartheid, Meyer is an experienced statesman capable of calming tensions after the previous ambassador accused Trump of leading a white supremacist movement.<\/p>\n Yet Plaut warns that waiting for Trump to leave office would be a mistake. American concerns about South Africa\u2019s strategic orientation extend beyond one administration. Pretoria\u2019s economic interests remain rooted to the US even as parts of the ANC remain emotionally and ideologically aligned with Russia and China.<\/p>\n The result is a country caught between competing worlds: politically drawn toward multipolarity, economically dependent on the West and increasingly uncertain of its own position within Africa.<\/p>\n [Lee Thompson-Kolar<\/a> edited this piece.]<\/p>\n The views expressed in this article\/video are the author\u2019s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer\u2019s editorial policy.<\/p>\n ” Glenn Carle” Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and FOI<\/a> Senior Partner Glenn Carle, a retired CIA officer who now advises companies, governments and organizations on geopolitical risk, examine a conflict that has spilled far beyond the battlefield. The US\u2013Israel\u2013Iran war, anchored in a \u201cdouble blockade\u201d of the Strait of Hormuz, has ruptured the global resource, financial and security architecture. Crucially, this disruption extends beyond Hormuz to a second chokepoint at Bab al-Mandab, where Houthi threats have compounded shipping risks and insurance costs, effectively turning a regional crisis into a multi-node global supply shock.<\/p>\n An unwinnable standoff<\/p>\n The US and Iran are now in a military and diplomatic impasse. Iran blocked the Strait of Hormuz while the US Navy countered by restricting access to Iranian ports. The result has become an economic war of attrition rather than a decisive military contest. Negotiations continued intermittently in Pakistan, which is painting itself as a new neutral Switzerland for peace negotiations. However, both Iran and the US treat the negotiations as positioning exercises rather than genuine attempts at resolution.<\/p>\n Glenn argues that the structure of the conflict makes escalation unlikely. Neither a US invasion nor a prolonged Iranian blockade is sustainable. Economic pressures constrain both sides: Tehran cannot endure extended isolation, while Washington cannot justify the political and financial costs of indefinite deployment. A negotiated outcome is therefore likely, even if neither side formally acknowledges this.<\/p>\n Glenn expects a settlement resembling a diluted version of the 2015 nuclear agreement, with Iran accepting inspections while retaining its right to nuclear technology, and the strait reopening under conditions that implicitly increase Iranian influence. Both sides, he suggests, will declare victory. The underlying reality, however, is less ambiguous: The balance of leverage in the Gulf has shifted.<\/p>\n The supply shock that breaks the system<\/p>\n For Atul, the deeper story lies in the economic consequences. He calls the crisis the most severe supply-side shock since the 1970s, which has disrupted energy flows, industrial inputs and shipping routes. Hormuz\u2019s closure has constrained not only oil and gas exports but also critical materials such as helium, aluminum and fertilizers. This has created a ripple effect across many supply chains, from semiconductors to agriculture.<\/p>\n The crisis has caused a breakdown between financial pricing and physical reality. Industry sources report that actual delivery prices exceeded benchmark prices by 20% or more, revealing a failure in market price discovery. This disconnect, Atul suggests, reflects a deeper structural flaw: Financial \u201cscreen prices\u201d are increasingly driven by algorithms and interest rate expectations, while real-world scarcity is determined by physical delivery constraints.\u00a0<\/p>\n War-risk insurance for transit through the Persian Gulf (if available), the extra costs of diverting around the African continent, port congestion, sanctions, variable freight rates, and differing grades of crude mean that European or Asian buyers may pay substantially more per barrel than North American buyers.\u00a0<\/p>\n Similar price differentials are now in place for refined products. For instance, at over $200 per barrel, the average price of jet fuel is ~$40 higher in Asia than in North America. Jet fuel in Asia was, on average, cheaper than in the US before the war. Already, almost every one of the world\u2019s major airlines has canceled flights due to the shortage and rising costs of jet fuel. In turn, this has led to a decrease in tourism, particularly to places like Thailand and Japan, because of the increase in air ticket prices.<\/p>\n At the household level, shortages of liquefied petroleum gas have caused restaurants and bakeries to shut down across South Asia. Aluminum shortages have caused cola cans to disappear. Supply chains for consumer goods are in disarray. Helium shortages have begun to affect semiconductor production. Across South, Southeast and East Asia, rising input costs have driven inflation and not only suppressed but also destroyed demand. Stagflation, the combination of stagnation and inflation, has already hit Asia.<\/p>\n A ceasefire will not end the supply shock. It will continue and cause much pain. There are silver linings, though. The supply shock is accelerating structural change, pushing the global economy to be less reliant on oil and gas for its energy needs. Solar panels, batteries and electric vehicles already have a higher demand.<\/p>\n The reverse flow of capital<\/p>\n Importantly, the Hormuz Crisis has led to what Atul terms the \u201cReverse Gulf Stream.\u201d For decades, countries of the Persian Gulf sold oil, gas, fertilizers and other commodities denominated in dollars. These Gulf states invested this money in the West. In a nutshell, capital flowed from the Persian Gulf to the West, boosting financial markets and other asset prices. Now, that flow of capital has stopped.<\/p>\n Gulf states run generous welfare states. They now face revenue shortfalls and rising domestic costs. Some have requested dollar swap lines from the US, a move Atul describes as a \u201ccanary in the coal mine,\u201d signaling stress even among the most financially resilient states like the UAE. This is a signal of financial stress even among historically wealthy states. There is a chance that they might sell assets they hold in the West to tide them over hard times.<\/p>\n The Gulf\u2019s sovereign wealth funds, managing an estimated $5\u20136 trillion in assets, may be forced into large-scale liquidations. These pressures operate through multiple channels: equity sell-offs in Western markets, reduced investment in AI and technology sectors, declining purchases of US Treasuries and feedback loops in which falling asset prices force further liquidation.\u00a0<\/p>\n In addition, Gulf countries are no longer pricing and paying everything in dollars. Alternative payment systems such as China\u2019s CIPS have gained traction. Iran has charged transit fees in yuan, euros and cryptocurrencies, while many countries have purchased energy using non-dollar currencies. The implications of these developments extend far beyond the Persian Gulf. Reduced demand for dollars has weakened the foundations of the petrodollar system itself.<\/p>\n Experienced investors in our circle argue that bond markets are starting to recognize increased financial risks. Market yields on ten-year US Treasury securities have increased from 3.97% on February 27 to 4.35% on April 28. These investors expect bond yields to rise further. The US is spending a lot of money on the Iran war at a time when American debt has crossed $39 trillion. The \u201cexorbitant privilege\u201d that allows the US to borrow money at lower interest rates will become less exorbitant because of the growing loss of trust in the competence of the American government and the strength of the US. Furthermore, neither the Gulf countries nor America\u2019s East Asian allies can keep buying US debt when their earnings drop. Our investor sources are convinced that bond yields will rise because of the war. Some even expect a 15-20% correction in equity markets within a few weeks.<\/p>\n Financial markets, long buoyed by liquidity, have begun to confront the constraints of the real economy. Atul warns that a \u201creverse contagion\u201d could emerge, in which shortages in the physical economy trigger corrections in the prices of financial assets. The adjustment, delayed but inevitable, would reshape global capital flows. A \u201cReverse Gulf Stream\u201d could emerge where capital does not flow from the Persian Gulf to the West but reverses direction and goes back to the Gulf countries.<\/p>\n A fractured security order<\/p>\n The conflict has also accelerated the fragmentation of global alliances. Glenn describes the United States as a \u201cstrategic loser,\u201d noting that Iran has emerged with greater regional influence despite sustaining military damage. The regime has consolidated into what he characterizes as a garrison state dominated by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), strengthening its capacity to extract leverage from control of the strait.<\/p>\n Confidence in US security guarantees has eroded. European leaders have openly criticized Washington\u2019s strategy, while countries such as Spain and Italy have distanced themselves from the conflict. Note that Italy is led by Giorgia Meloni, a leader of the right who had good relations with US President Donald Trump. NATO, already strained, is further strained by the rift between Europe and the US, calling its long-term viability into question. For this reason, Europe has increased defense spending and coordination, signaling a shift toward greater autonomy from the US and a preparation for a post-NATO future.<\/p>\n A similar pattern has unfolded in East Asia. Japan, South Korea and Taiwan have deepened cooperation. These countries question US reliability after American forces and military equipment in the region have been redeployed to the Middle East. They regard Barack Obama\u2019s Asia Pivot and Trump\u2019s China focus as aspirational efforts by a superpower that is still fundamentally mired in the Middle East.\u00a0<\/p>\n The Gulf states themselves are increasingly looking to external partners such as Pakistan for both diplomatic mediation and potential security support. Not only do these states face a threat from Iran but they also fear popular unrest at home. Hence, they are diversifying away from exclusive reliance on the US.\u00a0<\/p>\n Across regions, allies have begun to hedge, investing in their own capabilities rather than relying on American protection. This realignment reflects a broader transformation. The US role as guarantor of global trade routes \u2014 central to its post-World War II dominance \u2014 has appeared less certain. As Atul notes, the inability to secure key chokepoints challenges the very foundation of American hegemony. At its heyday, the UK was able to keep the Strait of Gibraltar, the Suez Canal, the Bab al-Mandeb, the Strait of Hormuz and the Strait of Malacca open. That is the standard for a global superpower and that is the standard the US is failing to meet.\u00a0<\/p>\n The Hormuz Crisis of 2026 is for the US what the Suez Crisis of 1956 was for the UK. Just as Suez demonstrated the limits of British power, Hormuz is revealing the limits of American might.<\/p>\n Technology, energy and the new balance of power<\/p>\n Amid these disruptions, structural shifts have accelerated. The transition to renewable energy has gained momentum as countries seek to reduce dependence on vulnerable supply chains. Glenn estimates that the timeline for renewables to dominate global electricity production could advance by five to six years.<\/p>\n China has stood out as a primary beneficiary. Its leadership in electric vehicles, solar technology and battery production puts Chinese companies in pole position to capitalize on this transition. Even in the US, electric vehicle sales have already gone up because of higher gas prices.<\/p>\n The war has also showcased the ongoing revolution in military technology. Cheap drones, costing tens of thousands of dollars, have threatened assets worth billions. This asymmetry has undermined traditional power projection, reducing the effectiveness of aircraft carriers and other capital-intensive systems. As Glenn illustrates, even highly effective defense systems can be overwhelmed by asymmetric warfare. Destroying 98 out of 100 incoming drones still leaves two capable of inflicting catastrophic damage at a fraction of the cost of the systems they target. The result has been a leveling effect. Regional actors have gained relative strength while superpowers have faced higher costs and greater vulnerability.<\/p>\n In a nutshell, the old order is now dead. The resource, financial and security architectures that shaped the post-World War II world are crumbling. What is emerging is not yet a coherent new system, but a world in transition \u2014 more fragmented, more competitive and less predictable than the one it is replacing.<\/p>\n [Lee Thompson-Kolar<\/a> edited this piece.]<\/p>\n The views expressed in this article\/video are the author\u2019s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer\u2019s editorial policy.<\/p>\n ” Glenn Carle” Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and FOI<\/a> Senior Partner Glenn Carle, a retired CIA officer who now advises companies, governments and organizations on geopolitical risk, survey a month in which disparate events point in a single direction: a global order under strain. The US\u2013Israel\u2013Iran war anchors their analysis, but the surrounding developments \u2014 from space exploration to European politics \u2014 reveal deeper structural shifts. As Atul puts it, the aim is to \u201csift signal from noise\u201d in a moment when American primacy appears less certain and states are recalibrating accordingly.<\/p>\n A brief moment of optimism<\/p>\n Atul and Glenn begin with the Artemis II mission. Astronauts orbited around the moon and returned, marking humanity\u2019s first departure from Earth\u2019s orbit in 54 years. For Glenn, the mission signals more than symbolic progress. It expands \u201cthe range of human capabilities\u201d and promises technological spillovers that will boost economies for decades.<\/p>\n Yet even here, not all is rosy. Glenn notes that the current NASA architecture may prove financially unsustainable, with private-sector systems such as SpaceX\u2019s Starship likely to dominate future exploration. Even in space, state-led models are giving way to hybrid or commercial ones, mirroring broader economic trends.<\/p>\n Israel, Europe and the politics of rupture<\/p>\n Atul and Glenn soon turn sombre and shine the light on Israel. The country was in the news for passing a law that, in effect, makes it mandatory for Palestinians to receive a death sentence if they are convicted by a military court of deadly terrorist acts. Those convicted have no right to appeal. Israeli civil and human rights groups say the law is racist. The language of the law implies that it could be applied to Israeli Arabs, for example, but not to Jewish citizens. This means they could be becoming second-class citizens in their own country.<\/p>\n The Israeli parliament has also passed a record $271 billion budget. This huge defense spending suggests the country is evolving into even more of a \u201cSpartan state.\u201d Israel is now the dominant military power in the region.<\/p>\n Israel is also increasingly losing international support. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni suspended defense cooperation despite her prior alignment with both Israel and US President Donald Trump. Meloni\u2019s changed position reflects mounting domestic opposition in Italy to the war. Therefore, her government has denied US aircraft access to bases in Sicily. In Spain, Prime Minister Pedro S\u00e1nchez has been very vocal in opposing the war and attracted American ire.\u00a0<\/p>\n S\u00e1nchez has also made a sweeping change to Spain\u2019s immigration policy. His government has offered residency to 500,000 undocumented migrants, provided they have lived in Spain for at least five months and have no criminal record. This is an unconventional immigration policy at a time when other European countries are tightening, not opening, borders to immigrants.<\/p>\n The tensions over immigration in the US, Europe and elsewhere point to a deeper dilemma across advanced economies: demographic decline versus social cohesion. Immigration sustains growth but can lead to a clash of cultures. It can also cause political backlash, fueling the rise of far-right movements. Tensions in Europe over immigration are triggered by structural changes and are here to stay.<\/p>\n Britain and the crisis of governance<\/p>\n British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer is in increasingly hot soup. His decision to appoint Lord Peter Mandelson as ambassador to America has come back to haunt him. Mandelson was one of the architects of New Labour who brought Tony Blair and Gordon Brown to power. In the UK, Mandelson is known as \u201cthe Dark Lord\u201d and \u201cthe Prince of Darkness,\u201d because he has too many dodgy friends. These include folks in China and Russia and a certain Jeffrey Epstein.\u00a0<\/p>\n After facing mounting criticism for appointing Mandelson, the Starmer government sacked Sir Oliver Robbins. Starmer blamed the Foreign Office for not telling him that Mandelson had failed security clearances. Robbins told a parliamentary committee there was a \u201cvery, very strong expectation\u201d from the prime minister\u2019s office to rush the process. Talk of Labour members of parliament defenestrating Starmer is now rife in London.<\/p>\n This political instability in the UK is worsening economic fragility. The broader picture is one of eroding confidence not only in the government but also in the country. Inflation, increasing debt and bond yields are pushing the country into a crisis.<\/p>\n Defense has also been in the news in the UK. Lord George Robertson said that Britain is in \u201cperil\u201d because of the Starmer government’s \u201ccorrosive complacency.\u201d The former NATO secretary-general blamed the UK Treasury for its failure to fund the review\u2019s recommendations.<\/p>\n Antisemitism is on the rise<\/p>\n In April, Britain\u2019s chief rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis, warned that \u201ca sustained campaign of violence\u201d against Jews was gathering momentum. Nine people were arrested for planning an attack on an unknown Jewish target in one of the recent incidents.<\/p>\n Not only the UK but also the US is experiencing rising antisemitism. In fact, antisemitism is experiencing a dramatic, record-high surge globally. After the October 7, 2023, terror attacks on Israel and the subsequent Israeli conflict with Hamas in Gaza, antisemitic sentiment has increased. Data shows a nearly 350% increase in US incidents over the past five years, with over 9,300 incidents reported in 2024 alone. American Jewish Committee\u2019s report<\/a>, The State of Antisemitism in America 2025, chronicles rising physical attacks and online vitriol against Jews. One highlight from the report says, \u201cIn The Two Years Since October 7, An Overwhelming Number Of American Jews Feel Less Safe.\u201d<\/p>\n In Europe, antisemitism is coming from two sources: the traditional far-right, as well as many recent Muslim immigrants. The nativist nationalist right has fanned prejudice against Jews, who have historically been the other. Many immigrants identify with the Palestinian cause. They believe that Jews oppress their fellow Muslims in an apartheid state and, often fanned by radical mosques, come to believe that attacks on Jews are justified.<\/p>\n Many Muslims come from societies where non-Muslims have few rights. So, they carry their prejudices to their new homes. French and British intelligence have been worried about many radical mosques preaching a toxic brew. For decades, Saudi money propagated an extreme form of Islam that was highly antisemitic. For years, the CIA focused on the Saudi promotion of puritanical and fanatical Wahhabi Islam, promoting both antisemitism and jihadism. The flames that have been fanned for years continue to burn.<\/p>\n Key developments in India, Canada, Japan and Hungary<\/p>\n In India, the Narendra Modi government suffered a politically embarrassing defeat. For the first time, a government bill was voted out by parliament. This has occurred only twice this century, the last time was in 2002. The government tabled amendments that would have increased the number of seats in the lower house of parliament from 543 to 850. This would have weakened India\u2019s southern states, which duly voted against the bill. In addition to religion, language and region form the other two faultlines. Both faultlines have now returned to the forefront in Indian politics.\u00a0<\/p>\n Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney\u2019s Liberal Party secured a small majority in the House of Commons after winning special elections, also called by-elections, to three constituencies. Under Carney and his predecessor, Justin Trudeau, the Liberals ran a minority government with coalition partners. Now, they have a majority in parliament and have strengthened Carney\u2019s position.<\/p>\n In an important move, the Carney government has created a Canada Strong Fund, a sovereign wealth fund, to invest in energy, infrastructure, mining, agriculture and technology. This is a first for the country. The fund will have an initial corpus of $25 billion Canadian dollars, i.e. $18.4 billion. This is part of a broader strategy by Carney to boost Canada’s economy in the face of US tariff threats.\u00a0<\/p>\n In combination with the private sector, the government will invest in \u201cnation-building projects\u201d such as port upgrades and natural resource development. The opposition has criticised the move. They make the argument that, unlike Norway, Canada is in debt, meaning its sovereign wealth fund will not be paid for by revenues but by borrowed money. Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre has called it a \u201csovereign debt fund.\u201d In an innovative move, the Carney government will allow Canadians to directly pay into the new fund. This practice doesn’t exist in other countries with similar funds and might be a clever way to reduce reliance on Wall Street and Washington. Carney is taking a step to protect Canada from America\u2019s capriciousness.<\/p>\n Japanese Prime Minister Takaichi Sanae announced a relaxation of restrictions on weapons exports to open up the defence industry\u2019s trade with foreign countries. Sanae said, \u201cNo single country can now protect its own peace and security alone.\u201d Last year, Sanae sparked a row with China last year by suggesting Japan would respond if Taiwan was invaded. Beijing said it would resist Japan\u2019s \u201cnew form of militarism.\u201d Glenn takes the view that this marks Japan\u2019s emergence as a fully independent strategic actor, no longer relying entirely on the American security umbrella. Both Japan and Canada are similar in taking steps to rely less on the US and more on themselves.<\/p>\n In Hungary, the centrist Tisza party won around two-thirds of the seats in Hungary\u2019s election, booting Viktor Orb\u00e1n and his populist-right Fidesz party out of office after 16 years in power. P\u00e9ter Magyar will be the new prime minister. He once belonged to Orban\u2019s party and began to campaign against corruption and for the rule of law. Magyar won on competence and governance issues, overcoming apathy and energizing voters.<\/p>\n Magyar\u2019s victory was shaped by late-campaign events that weakened Orb\u00e1n. A leaked telephone call between Hungarian Foreign Minister P\u00e9ter Szijj\u00e1rt\u00f3 and Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov reinforced perceptions of the government\u2019s subservience to Moscow. Also, US Vice President JD Vance\u2019s visit to support Orb\u00e1n did not cut much ice with Hungarian voters.<\/p>\n For Glenn, Orb\u00e1n was a pawn of Moscow who ran an \u201cauthoritarian and corrupt regime\u201d aligned with Moscow. Atul offers a more qualified view, noting that Magyar was able to run a grassroots campaign, win handsomely and also that Orb\u00e1n conceded defeat quickly.<\/p>\n On an important note, Magyar has made improving relations with the EU a priority. Now, Brussels is likely to release not only previously frozen funds for Hungary but also an aid package for Hungary that had so far been blocked by Orb\u00e1n. Now, we have a completely new political landscape in Hungary and in Europe.<\/p>\n [Lee Thompson-Kolar<\/a> edited this piece.]<\/p>\n The views expressed in this article\/video are the author\u2019s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer\u2019s editorial policy.<\/p>\n ” Sinem Sonmez” Fair Observer\u2019s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with economist and game theorist Sinem Sonmez about a conflict in which economics proves as consequential as military force. Their discussion examines how the US-led blockade in the Strait of Hormuz, combined with strikes on Iranian infrastructure, pushed Iran into an increasingly unsustainable position. While the war revealed Iran\u2019s military resilience in some areas, Sonmez argues that the decisive factor was economic vulnerability. The episode ultimately asks whether modern wars are now won less through battlefield dominance than through the ability to choke an adversary\u2019s financial system.<\/p>\n A blockade built on economic pressure<\/p>\n Khattar Singh opens by asking Sonmez to explain the legal and strategic logic behind the blockade in the Strait of Hormuz. She notes that under UNCLOS Article 38, passage through the strait is ordinarily protected even during conflict. The United States, however, justified its actions by designating Iran a \u201crogue state\u201d and arguing that it had the right to inspect vessels carrying war-sustaining material.<\/p>\n She states that the blockade only became possible after the US first degraded Iran\u2019s military and industrial capacity. She argues that Washington delayed enforcement until it could reduce the risk posed by Iranian air power and ensure that economic pressure would be maximally effective. \u201cThe US had to destroy Iran\u2019s critical infrastructure and industries in order to bring Iran\u2019s economy to a standstill,\u201d she says.<\/p>\n The blockade itself was a major logistical operation involving warships, fighter aircraft, helicopters and thousands of US personnel. Sonmez argues that its effectiveness demonstrated how maritime power can still determine the trajectory of modern conflict. Once Iranian exports were interrupted, Tehran rapidly lost economic room to maneuver.<\/p>\n Iran\u2019s economic vulnerability<\/p>\n The central theme of the discussion is Iran\u2019s structural dependence on oil revenues. Sonmez explains that oil accounts for roughly 13% of Iran\u2019s GDP and provides the foreign exchange needed to finance imports. Without access to those revenues, the country faces currency devaluation, hyperinflation and industrial paralysis.<\/p>\n The blockade quickly exposed those weaknesses. Iran reportedly had only two to three weeks of storage capacity before it would have to shut down production entirely. According to certain figures, the blockade was costing Iran approximately $435 million per day, including hundreds of millions in lost oil and petrochemical exports.<\/p>\n The domestic consequences were severe. Nearly 12 million jobs or 50% of Iran\u2019s workforce were reportedly at risk, while major sectors such as steel, petrochemicals and pharmaceuticals faced mass disruption. Sonmez argues that this pressure forced Iran to negotiate far sooner than it otherwise would have. \u201cIran runs on cash generated by oil exports,\u201d she explains, warning that without foreign currency reserves and a currency devaluation, \u201chyperinflation ensues.\u201d<\/p>\n Khattar Singh notes that Iran\u2019s economy had already been weakened by years of sanctions following the collapse of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2018. The war compounded those problems, leaving Tehran with shrinking options even before the blockade took full effect.<\/p>\n Regional escalation and China\u2019s calculation<\/p>\n The conversation also explores Iran\u2019s attempt to widen the conflict by targeting infrastructure and bases across the Gulf region. Khattar Singh points out that Iranian strikes hit the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain and even Oman, despite Oman\u2019s role as a mediator.<\/p>\n Sonmez believes Tehran hoped Gulf states would pressure Washington to halt the assault once their own energy infrastructure came under threat. Instead, the strategy backfired. Reports suggested that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman favored a tougher US response after damage to regional infrastructure, including disruptions affecting Qatar\u2019s liquefied natural gas capacity.<\/p>\n The role of China emerges as another critical factor. As Iran\u2019s largest oil customer, Beijing was theoretically positioned to soften the impact of the blockade. Yet Sonmez argues that US pressure on Chinese banks and shipping companies successfully deterred major intervention. Chinese tankers reportedly rerouted away from the strait, while Beijing assured Washington it would not provide weapons or military assistance to Tehran.<\/p>\n For Sonmez, this became the decisive turning point. \u201cThe whole thing boils down to economics,\u201d she says. Without Chinese financial or military backing, Iran lacked the capacity to sustain a prolonged confrontation.<\/p>\n Military surprises and political realities<\/p>\n Despite Iran\u2019s economic weakness, the war still revealed unexpected strengths. Sonmez notes that the scale of Iran\u2019s drone and missile arsenal surprised observers and imposed significant costs on US defensive systems. Iranian attacks also continued even after senior military figures were killed.<\/p>\n \u201cThe organization ran seamlessly,\u201d Sonmez says, describing how Iranian operations continued despite leadership losses. That resilience complicated assumptions that decapitation strikes alone could cripple the Iranian state.<\/p>\n Still, Sonmez argues that military endurance could not overcome financial exhaustion. She believes Tehran entered negotiations because it needed immediate economic relief and had to preserve the regime\u2019s ability to pay the military and security establishment that keeps it in power.<\/p>\n Khattar Singh and Sonmez close by turning to the broader global economy. Sonmez expresses astonishment that US stock markets rallied during the crisis despite continuing uncertainty surrounding oil prices, private credit markets and heavily valued AI companies. She compares the surge in markets to the dot-com bubble and argues that investor optimism became detached from underlying risks.<\/p>\n Even after the ceasefire reduced oil prices, Sonmez remains skeptical that the underlying structural problems have disappeared. The episode ends with a broader warning that economic fragility, financial markets and geopolitical conflict are now deeply interconnected. Military victories may shape headlines, but the long-term balance of power increasingly depends on who can survive economic pressure the longest.<\/p>\n [Lee Thompson-Kolar<\/a> edited this piece.]<\/p>\n The views expressed in this article\/video are the author\u2019s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer\u2019s editorial policy.<\/p>\n ” Ali Omar Forozish” Fair Observer\u2019s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with author Ali Omar Forozish about Turkey\u2019s attempt to navigate an increasingly fragmented world order without fully committing to either East or West. Under Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdo\u011fan, the Turkish capital of Ankara is expanding ties with Russia- and China-led institutions while remaining embedded within NATO and the broader Western security system. Forozish believes this balancing act reflects both Turkey\u2019s geopolitical realities and its growing desire for strategic autonomy. Yet the discussion also raises a central question: Can a middle power sustain a position between rival blocs without eventually being forced to choose?<\/p>\n Turkey\u2019s search for its own center of gravity<\/p>\n Forozish frames Turkey\u2019s geopolitical strategy through political scientist Samuel Huntington\u2019s \u201cClash of Civilizations\u201d thesis rather than political scientist Francis Fukuyama\u2019s \u201cEnd of History.\u201d In his view, the contemporary world is increasingly divided into competing civilizational and geopolitical blocs, leaving countries such as Turkey searching for a distinct position between them.<\/p>\n He says Turkey occupies a \u201climinal space\u201d shaped simultaneously by the Islamic and Ottoman past and the secular, Western-oriented republic created in the 20th century. Ankara\u2019s frustrations with both camps have reinforced this ambiguity. Turkey spent decades attempting to join the European Union without success, while its NATO membership has also generated suspicion among non-Western powers.<\/p>\n As a result, Forozish believes Ankara no longer seeks full integration into either side. \u201cTurkey believes its role identity is not to be a side, but to be [the] center of gravity,\u201d he states.<\/p>\n Domestic politics reinforce this orientation. Erdo\u011fan\u2019s alliance with politician Devlet Bah\u00e7eli\u2019s Nationalist Movement Party has strengthened nationalist narratives that portray the West as hostile to Turkish sovereignty and Islamic civilization. Forozish links this outlook to the long-standing \u201cS\u00e8vres Syndrome,\u201d a belief among Turkish nationalists that foreign powers continue to seek Turkey\u2019s fragmentation and subordination.<\/p>\n Hedging between NATO and Eurasia<\/p>\n Khattar Singh and Forozish describe Turkey\u2019s strategy as one of institutional hedging rather than outright realignment. Ankara is deepening engagement with non-Western organizations while avoiding a complete break with NATO.<\/p>\n Turkey formally applied for BRICS membership in 2024, although it ultimately received partner status rather than full accession. At the same time, Turkey has maintained dialogue-partner status within the Shanghai Cooperation Organization since 2013, making it the only NATO member connected to the group.<\/p>\n Forozish argues these moves are pragmatic rather than ideological. \u201cIt\u2019s not a complete shift to the Eastern Bloc,\u201d he says. \u201cIt\u2019s just a complementary act for them.\u201d<\/p>\n Geography remains central to Ankara\u2019s calculations. Turkey seeks to position itself as a logistical bridge between Europe and Asia through the so-called Middle Corridor, a trans-Caspian trade route connecting China and Europe while bypassing Russia. The corridor has gained importance following disruptions tied to the war in Ukraine and wider instability across Eurasia.<\/p>\n Under optimal conditions, delivery times along this route could reportedly fall to around 15 days. Ankara therefore sees infrastructure and transit connectivity as tools for expanding both economic influence and geopolitical leverage.<\/p>\n An \u201cunholy alliance\u201d of convenience<\/p>\n Despite Turkey\u2019s growing engagement with Russia and China, Forozish rejects the idea that a coherent Eurasian bloc is emerging. Instead, he characterizes the relationship as an \u201cunholy alliance\u201d built on mutual convenience rather than shared values or long-term trust.<\/p>\n The three states continue to compete across multiple arenas. Turkey and Russia back opposing actors in conflicts such as Syria and Libya, while Ankara\u2019s push to expand influence among Turkic states in Central Asia challenges Moscow\u2019s historic dominance in the region. China, meanwhile, remains economically dominant within the relationship.<\/p>\n Trade figures illustrate the imbalance. Turkey runs trade deficits of roughly $40\u201350 billion with China and approximately $16 billion with Russia. According to Forozish, this leaves Turkey functioning more as a transit and consumer economy than an equal strategic partner.<\/p>\n Tensions also persist over the treatment of Uyghurs in China. Forozish warns that Ankara\u2019s silence on the issue could generate domestic backlash inside Turkey, where many nationalists and Islamists identify closely with Turkic Muslim communities.<\/p>\n For him, the partnership ultimately reflects transactional realpolitik rather than ideological solidarity. Russia gains opportunities to weaken NATO cohesion, China expands access to European markets and Turkey acquires leverage against the West.<\/p>\n The danger of \u201cdouble isolation\u201d<\/p>\n Khattar Singh presses Forozish on the risks of Turkey\u2019s balancing strategy failing. If Ankara drifts too far from the West without securing meaningful alternatives from Russia or China, it could find itself isolated from both camps at once.<\/p>\n Forozish describes this possibility as \u201cdouble isolation\u201d or \u201cstrategic homelessness.\u201d Turkey could become too Eastern for Western allies to fully trust while remaining too connected to NATO for Russia and China to treat as a dependable partner.<\/p>\n Such a scenario would create economic as well as geopolitical vulnerabilities. Turkey remains deeply integrated with Western capital markets and trade networks. A decisive rupture with Europe and the United States could intensify inflation, weaken the lira and trigger capital flight.<\/p>\n Forozish also warns that strategic isolation could deepen domestic radicalization. \u201cTurkey will be the hub for the radical Islamists,\u201d he says, describing what he views as the most dangerous possible outcome of a failed balancing strategy.<\/p>\n The conversation ultimately presents Turkey\u2019s Eurasian pivot as a high-risk effort to maximize flexibility in a multipolar world. Ankara may gain short-term leverage from balancing rival powers, but the structural tensions within the strategy place clear limits on how far that balancing act can go.<\/p>\n [Lee Thompson-Kolar<\/a> edited this piece.]<\/p>\n The views expressed in this article\/video are the author\u2019s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer\u2019s editorial policy.<\/p>\n ” Daniel J. Fern\u00e1ndez-Guevara” Fair Observer\u2019s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with historian Daniel J. Fern\u00e1ndez-Guevara about why Cuba, despite facing one of the gravest crises in its modern history, still has not collapsed. The island is enduring deep economic pain, constant blackouts, inflation, outmigration and institutional strain. Yet Fern\u00e1ndez-Guevara argues that anyone trying to understand Cuba must look beyond the usual predictions of imminent regime change and pay attention to the forces that have long sustained the country: national sovereignty, historical memory and local resilience.<\/p>\n A crisis without a clear breaking point<\/p>\n Fern\u00e1ndez-Guevara describes Cuba\u2019s present condition as a \u201cpolycrisis,\u201d borrowing the term as it applies to the island from scholar Mayra Espina. The country is confronting several overlapping emergencies at once: economic decline tied to Venezuela\u2019s reduced support, structural adjustments to a harsher global market, severe demographic loss through migration and the corrosion of the solidarity networks that once helped people endure hardship.<\/p>\n This has brought grave social consequences. Infant mortality has risen, life expectancy has fallen and the energy grid is in near collapse. Blackouts have become routine, disrupting hospitals, schools and daily life. Fern\u00e1ndez-Guevara goes so far as to say the situation is in some respects worse than the crisis that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union.<\/p>\n Even so, he resists declaring that Cuba is on the verge of collapse. As he notes, \u201cEveryone who has forecasted the change in government in Cuba has been wrong for 67 years.\u201d That does not make the current situation any less severe. It means only that suffering alone has not translated neatly into regime change.<\/p>\n Why Cuba never fully embraced the China or Vietnam model<\/p>\n Khattar Singh presses Fern\u00e1ndez-Guevara on why Cuba has not taken the same path as China or Vietnam, both of which incorporated major elements of capitalism while preserving one-party rule. Fern\u00e1ndez-Guevara explains that Cuba has repeatedly opened parts of its economy, then pulled back once private wealth began to accumulate too visibly.<\/p>\n He recalls a remark from someone close to the Cuban government: \u201cCuba wants to have a country that makes millions and millions of dollars but without any millionaires.\u201d That paradox lies at the heart of the Cuban system. The leadership wants growth, foreign exchange and investment, but remains wary of the inequalities that market reform can unleash.<\/p>\n This pattern has produced a stop-start cycle of reform and retrenchment. Tourism was opened. Small private restaurants, or paladares, emerged. Independent drivers and other small entrepreneurs found room to operate. But each time the private sector began to develop social and economic weight, the state moved to contain it.<\/p>\n Fern\u00e1ndez-Guevara suggests that Cuba has not followed a long-term strategic reform plan so much as it has improvised under pressure. It has had to adapt not only to the global spread of capitalism, but also to shifting regional politics and the collapse of older support systems.<\/p>\n Sovereignty, memory and the rejection of foreign pressure<\/p>\n For Fern\u00e1ndez-Guevara, the key to Cuba\u2019s endurance lies not only in institutions, but in history. He believes many outside observers underestimate how central national sovereignty remains to Cuban political identity. Cubans may be deeply critical of their own government, but that does not mean they welcome external intervention.<\/p>\n He points to a long history of US involvement in Cuban affairs. After the war of 1898, the United States intervened directly and then imposed the Platt Amendment, which embedded US power in the island\u2019s constitutional order. Washington later backed Batista, including after his 1952 coup against a constitutional government. That memory still shapes how many Cubans understand foreign pressure today.<\/p>\n As Fern\u00e1ndez-Guevara puts it, \u201cnational sovereignty is a very important thing\u201d in Cuba. The 1959 revolution, despite all its failures and contradictions, still carries symbolic weight because it is seen by many as the moment Cuba definitively resisted outside domination.<\/p>\n That helps explain why US pressure does not always produce the outcome Washington expects. Hardship can fuel anger, but it can also reinforce a siege mentality, strengthen nationalist sentiment and push people to rely more heavily on one another.<\/p>\n Trump, Rubio and the logic of maximum pressure<\/p>\n The conversation then turns to US President Donald Trump\u2019s renewed focus on Cuba and the role of Secretary of State Marco Rubio in shaping policy. Fern\u00e1ndez-Guevara argues that the Trump administration sees Cuba as unusually weak after the pandemic, the collapse of tourism, currency unification and the continuing deterioration of the energy system.<\/p>\n He contrasts this with the years of US President Barack Obama\u2019s administration, when normalization created what he remembers as a mood of genuine optimism. Cubans repaired homes, opened businesses and believed the long freeze with Washington might finally end. Trump\u2019s first term halted that opening, and US President Joe Biden largely continued the same restrictions. Then came Covid-19 and a disastrous currency reform, which compounded the damage.<\/p>\n From Fern\u00e1ndez-Guevara\u2019s perspective, the current administration appears to believe this is the best possible moment to force concessions. He describes that approach as \u201cthe bluster of the art of the deal,\u201d with foreign policy treated as a coercive business negotiation.<\/p>\n Yet he is careful not to pretend that Washington\u2019s aims are fully clear. Economic liberalization appears to be one goal. Tourism and foreign capital may be another. But whether the US wants a negotiated transition or a more confrontational outcome remains uncertain.<\/p>\n Why Cuba still endures<\/p>\n Khattar Singh closes by asking the most important question: If life in Cuba is so hard, why has the system not broken? Fern\u00e1ndez-Guevara says that Cuba lacks a coordinated opposition of the kind seen in Venezuela, while still retaining a powerful state structure, especially through the military. Protest exists, but it remains fragmented and localized.<\/p>\n At the same time, ordinary Cubans have decades of experience surviving under pressure. Communities share resources. Families improvise. People leave when they can, adapt when they cannot and continue living inside a system that has taught them endurance.<\/p>\n This is what outsiders miss. Cuba is not simply a failing state waiting to tip over. It is a society marked by exhaustion, pain and uncertainty, but also by a long political memory and a stubborn resistance to external designs. That is why the country\u2019s future remains so difficult to predict.<\/p>\n [Lee Thompson-Kolar<\/a> edited this piece.]<\/p>\n The views expressed in this article\/video are the author\u2019s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer\u2019s editorial policy.<\/p>\n ” Stephen Zunes” Fair Observer\u2019s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with Stephen Zunes, professor of politics and director of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of San Francisco, about a war that was meant to weaken adversaries but may instead be reinforcing them. As fighting spills across Iran, Israel and Lebanon, is the military force achieving its stated political aims? Or is it producing the opposite effect?<\/p>\n A war measured in displacement<\/p>\n Khattar Singh opens with Lebanon, where the scale of destruction has become impossible to ignore. Zunes points to the displacement of roughly 1.2 million people in a country of just five million, describing a campaign that goes far beyond tactical strikes. Entire towns in southern Lebanon have been leveled, often in areas with little evidence of active combat.<\/p>\n For Zunes, the pattern resembles deliberate devastation rather than incidental damage. \u201cThese are not buildings damaged in firefights\u2026 this is controlled demolitions,\u201d he says, highlighting how the campaign disproportionately affects civilians. The targeting of infrastructure linked to Hezbollah\u2019s social services, including medical networks, further blurs the line between military and civilian space. The result is a humanitarian crisis that risks reshaping Lebanon\u2019s social fabric for years to come.<\/p>\n Hezbollah\u2019s resilience and roots<\/p>\n Khattar Singh and Zunes then turn to Hezbollah itself. Despite the killing of senior leaders and significant operational setbacks, the group remains intact. Zunes provides historic context for the group\u2019s resilience: Hezbollah emerged in direct response to Israel\u2019s 1982 occupation of southern Lebanon, embedding itself within marginalized Shia communities.<\/p>\n Over time, it evolved into more than a militant organization. By providing healthcare, welfare and local governance where the Lebanese state fell short, Hezbollah built a durable support base. That dual role as both militia and service provider helps explain why it can absorb military blows without collapsing.<\/p>\n Zunes also highlights the cyclical nature of the conflict. Efforts to eliminate Hezbollah risk reproducing the very conditions that sustain it. Military pressure, particularly when it affects civilian populations, can deepen grievances and reinforce the group\u2019s legitimacy among its constituents.<\/p>\n Strategic goals, unmet outcomes<\/p>\n At the core of the conversation is the gap between stated objectives and actual results. The United States and Israel entered the conflict with ambitions that included weakening Iran\u2019s regime, curbing its nuclear capacity and dismantling the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The US hasn\u2019t achieved even one of these goals.<\/p>\n The IRGC remains in place. Iran\u2019s nuclear material has not been removed. Instead, Tehran has demonstrated new leverage by disrupting the Strait of Hormuz, a critical artery for global energy flows. A ceasefire, announced on April 16 and mediated by Pakistan, reflects these constraints as much as any diplomatic breakthrough.<\/p>\n Zunes is blunt about the broader pattern. \u201cThis kind of pressure\u2026 has not eliminated their nuclear program\u2026 if anything, it\u2019s strengthened the regime,\u201d he says. Rather than forcing capitulation, the campaign appears to have consolidated hardline power within Iran, undermining earlier internal dissent.<\/p>\n Regional ripple effects<\/p>\n Beyond the immediate battlefield, the war has triggered wider instability. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has disrupted supply chains and strained Gulf economies that depend on both exports and imports through the corridor. Even states traditionally aligned against Iran now face difficult trade-offs between security and economic survival.<\/p>\n Khattar Singh notes that Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, have experienced the conflict\u2019s consequences more directly. While some remain wary of Iran\u2019s influence, the economic shock has increased the appeal of deescalation. For many, reopening the strait has become an overriding priority.<\/p>\n Simultaneously, tensions persist. Iranian strikes on regional infrastructure have hardened attitudes in some capitals, complicating any unified response. The result is a fragmented landscape in which no actor fully controls the trajectory of events.<\/p>\n Power, politics and unintended consequences<\/p>\n The conversation closes with the political dimension. Both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump face domestic pressures that intersect with military strategy. For Netanyahu, ongoing conflict may delay political reckoning at home. For Trump, the war\u2019s economic and strategic fallout could shape upcoming elections.<\/p>\n Yet the most consequential shift may be inside Iran. Despite earlier protests against the regime, the external threat has rallied segments of the population around the state. Zunes sees this as a familiar dynamic. \u201cPeople rally around the flag when they\u2019re being bombed,\u201d he observes. External intervention often strengthens the very forces it seeks to weaken.<\/p>\n This leads to a broader conclusion about regime change. Zunes argues that durable political transformation cannot be imposed from outside, but must emerge internally. Historical examples, from Eastern Europe to Southeast Asia, underscore the limits of military solutions in achieving political ends.<\/p>\n If the war has demonstrated anything, it is that escalation does not guarantee control. Instead of collapse, it may produce adaptation. Instead of weakening adversaries, it may entrench them. For policymakers, that raises a difficult but unavoidable question: What happens when the use of force systematically fails to deliver the outcomes it promises?<\/p>\n [Lee Thompson-Kolar<\/a> edited this piece.]<\/p>\n The views expressed in this article\/video are the author\u2019s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer\u2019s editorial policy.<\/p>\n ” Aron Rimanyi” Fair Observer\u2019s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with Aron Rimanyi, an associate at Training The Street, about an election result that may reshape Hungary\u2019s political trajectory. P\u00e9ter Magyar\u2019s center-right Tisza party has secured an electoral victory, ending incumbent Prime Minister Viktor Orb\u00e1n\u2019s 16-year dominance and raising questions about whether this marks a routine change of leadership or a deeper systemic shift. Beyond the numbers, Khattar Singh and Rimanyi explore the economic, social and political forces behind the vote, and what they signal for Hungary\u2019s future.<\/p>\n A landslide that signals rupture<\/p>\n Rimanyi describes the election as more than a decisive win. With 55.3% of the vote translating into a two-thirds parliamentary majority \u2014 141 out of 199 seats \u2014 Tisza has achieved the kind of mandate rarely seen in European politics. Turnout reached roughly 80%, underscoring the scale of public engagement.<\/p>\n For Rimanyi, the magnitude of the outcome carries particular meaning. He calls it a \u201cpopular rejection of 16 years of Orb\u00e1n government;\u201d the result reflects accumulated dissatisfaction rather than a narrow electoral swing. While pre-election polling had pointed to a Magyar victory, the scale of defeat for Orb\u00e1n\u2019s right-wing Fidesz party \u2014 especially among government-aligned pollsters \u2014 turned the outcome into a genuine political upset.<\/p>\n The result also reflects a generational shift. Younger voters, many of whom have only known Orb\u00e1n\u2019s leadership, played a decisive role. Their participation suggests not only dissatisfaction with the present, but a desire to redefine Hungary\u2019s political future.<\/p>\n Economic strain and campaign contrast<\/p>\n Economic conditions form the backbone of Rimanyi\u2019s explanation. Hungary\u2019s post-2010 growth model, he argues, faltered after external conditions worsened. EU funds declined, global conditions tightened and inflation surged to the highest levels in the European Union during 2022 and 2023. As costs rose faster than wages, public frustration deepened.<\/p>\n Rimanyi frames this as a structural problem rather than a temporary downturn. He notes that the system \u201cran out of steam,\u201d leaving Hungary caught in a middle-income trap where productivity lags and living standards stagnate. Voting behavior became more pragmatic, driven by household economics rather than ideological alignment.<\/p>\n Simultaneously, the campaign itself highlighted a contrast in political style. Magyar\u2019s grassroots approach \u2014 touring small towns and villages often overlooked by national politicians \u2014 helped him build a broad support base. His focus on everyday concerns, from wages to cost of living, resonated more strongly than the government\u2019s emphasis on geopolitical messaging.<\/p>\n By contrast, Fidesz\u2019s communication strategy appeared increasingly detached from voter priorities. Its focus on external threats, particularly Ukraine, failed to address domestic economic pressures. Rimanyi suggests that voters ultimately prioritized tangible concerns over abstract security narratives. He also notes that the visit of US Vice President JD Vance during the campaign had little to no impact. Vance has low name recognition in Hungary and arrived without concrete economic commitments, reinforcing the perception that Orb\u00e1n\u2019s ties to Washington produced rhetoric rather than tangible benefits for Hungarian voters.<\/p>\n System fatigue and political backlash<\/p>\n Beyond economics, the election exposed deeper institutional tensions. Rimanyi points to a series of late-campaign revelations from insiders, including allegations that state institutions were used for partisan purposes. Among the most striking was a military captain \u2014 previously the public face of the armed forces\u2019 recruitment campaign \u2014 who broke ranks to describe chronic underfunding and claimed that most personnel would not support Orb\u00e1n. This intervention, largely overlooked in Western coverage, resonated strongly with Hungarian voters. These developments reinforced perceptions of overreach within a highly centralized system.<\/p>\n He characterizes the dynamic as \u201cstate capture.\u201d This use of public institutions to target political opponents crossed a threshold for many voters. While corruption had long been part of the political discourse, these more direct allegations appear to have intensified public backlash.<\/p>\n The election result, therefore, reflects not only dissatisfaction with governance but also fatigue with the broader political structure. It represents a rejection not just of Orb\u00e1n\u2019s leadership but of the system that sustained it \u2014 and, notably, of older opposition parties that failed to offer a credible alternative in the past.<\/p>\n A different governing approach<\/p>\n Magyar\u2019s rise ties closely to his positioning as both insider and outsider. A former Fidesz affiliate, he leveraged his familiarity with the system to critique it, presenting himself as someone capable of reform from within while breaking decisively from past practices.<\/p>\n Rimanyi emphasizes that Magyar\u2019s appeal lies less in ideology than in pragmatism. Rather than framing his movement along a traditional left\u2013right spectrum, he has presented his Tisza party as a broad coalition focused on practical improvements. This \u201cbig tent\u201d approach reflects the diverse electorate that delivered his victory, bringing together voters from across the political spectrum.<\/p>\n Policy priorities are likely to follow this pragmatic line. Domestically, the emphasis will remain on economic stabilization and administrative reform. Internationally, the shift may be more measured. Rimanyi expects a more cooperative stance toward the European Union and a less confrontational approach on issues such as Ukraine, while maintaining certain limits, such as not exporting lethal military aid.<\/p>\n What comes next for Hungary<\/p>\n The immediate future remains uncertain. Rimanyi outlines a wide range of possible outcomes for Orb\u00e1n and Fidesz, from internal fragmentation to sustained resistance through institutional influence. The coming weeks, before Magyar is sworn in on May 9 and his new government fully consolidates power, may prove decisive in determining which path emerges.<\/p>\n Still, Hungary\u2019s broader orientation could shift. A government more aligned with EU policy frameworks and less closely tied to Russia would mark a notable departure from recent years. Yet the extent of this change will depend on how firmly Magyar translates electoral momentum into durable policy.<\/p>\n Rimanyi frames the election as both an end and a beginning. It closes a long chapter in Hungarian politics while opening a more uncertain one, shaped by high expectations and structural constraints. Whether this moment becomes a lasting realignment will depend on how effectively the new leadership addresses the economic pressures and institutional tensions that brought it to power.<\/p>\n [Lee Thompson-Kolar<\/a> edited this piece.]<\/p>\n The views expressed in this article\/video are the author\u2019s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer\u2019s editorial policy.<\/p>\n ” Fernando Carvajal” Fair Observer\u2019s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh moderates an FO Live discussion on the Muslim Brotherhood, from its founding in Egypt in 1928 to its varied roles across Yemen, Sudan and the wider Middle East. He is joined by Fernando Carvajal, executive director of The American Center for South Yemen Studies; Dr. Abdul Galil Shaif, author of South Yemen: Gateway to the World, former Chairman of the Aden Free Zone Public Authority and Chairman of the Friends of South Yemen; and Anas Himedan, a Sudanese biomedical scientist and human rights advocate. The discussion presents the Brotherhood not as a single visible institution, but as a flexible political and social network that adapts to local conditions while retaining a broader ideological framework. Nearly a century after its creation, the central question is whether the movement is fading, or merely changing form once again.<\/p>\n A movement built for adaptation<\/p>\n Shaif begins by noting the difficulty of defining the Brotherhood. Founded by a schoolteacher named Hassan al-Banna in Egypt, it started as a religious movement but developed into a political project aimed at shaping society through education, religious outreach and institutional influence. In Egypt, it has been severely restricted since the fall of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, but Shaif argues that its influence persists underground.<\/p>\n Yemen offers a different model. There, the Brotherhood-linked Al-Islah party did not simply copy the Egyptian organization. Instead, it embedded itself in tribal politics, patronage networks and state institutions. Shaif describes Al-Islah as a \u201chybrid political actor,\u201d shaped by ideology but also by pragmatism and survival.<\/p>\n Sudan as a warning<\/p>\n Himedan gives the starkest account of the Brotherhood\u2019s impact, focusing on Sudan. He argues that the movement, through the National Congress Party and related Islamist networks, helped shape decades of war, repression and institutional decay. He says Sudan shows what happens when the Brotherhood penetrates the state, education system, military and civil society.<\/p>\n Himedan describes recruitment through universities, where students could face pressure to join affiliated groups in order to advance academically. He also points to forced military recruitment, ideological indoctrination and the use of religion or ethnicity to divide communities. Brotherhood-linked elements within the Sudanese Armed Forces have been accused of extreme brutality in the current conflict, including the use of chemical weapons against civilians, which has contributed to sanctions and terrorist designations by multiple states. For him, the Brotherhood is no longer compatible with the modern world, because it cannot reform or adapt morally, even if it adapts tactically.<\/p>\n He believes the movement survives by creating enemies, sustaining conflict and blocking peaceful transitions that might end its political usefulness.<\/p>\n Yemen\u2019s Al-Islah and political survival<\/p>\n Shaif and Carvajal both emphasize that Yemen\u2019s Al-Islah is more adaptable than Himedan\u2019s account of Sudan might suggest. Shaif says Al-Islah has survived because it understands Yemen\u2019s fractured landscape. It has worked with tribal leaders, aligned with Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh\u2019s regime, opposed southern independence and later positioned itself as a useful partner for Saudi Arabia against the Houthis.<\/p>\n Carvajal adds historic depth. He notes that Brotherhood influence in Yemen dates back to the 1940s, when Yemeni students in Cairo encountered Brotherhood networks. Over time, this influence moved through schools, mosques and state institutions. After unification in 1990, Al-Islah became a major pillar of political life.<\/p>\n Carvajal believes Al-Islah is not a normal party. Rather, it is an umbrella organization combining Brotherhood activists, Salafis, tribal leaders and business interests. Its strength lies in its capacity to provide religious legitimacy to political projects, much as it did for Saleh\u2019s secular military regime.<\/p>\n Regional rivalries and shared enemies<\/p>\n The panel also explores how the Brotherhood fits into regional rivalries. Carvajal explains that Gulf monarchies view the movement as a threat because it seeks to shape Arab societies through religious politics. The Arab Spring intensified these fears, especially when the Brotherhood briefly led Egypt after 2011.<\/p>\n Yet the movement\u2019s alliances are not simple. Despite the Sunni\u2013Shia divide, Carvajal and Himedan both point to cooperation between Brotherhood-linked actors and Iran. Sudan, they note, has served as a route for Iranian weapons to Hamas, while Islamist forces in Sudan have received Iranian support. In Yemen, the Houthis, Al-Islah, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates form a shifting field of rivalry and convenience.<\/p>\n Carvajal summarizes the logic clearly: \u201cBoth entities, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamic Republic, need an enemy.\u201d For him, permanent conflict gives ideological movements a reason to endure.<\/p>\n Decline or transformation?<\/p>\n The speakers disagree on the Brotherhood\u2019s future. Himedan believes its era is ending because social media, public awareness and modern political expectations make old forms of manipulation harder to sustain. Shaif is more cautious. He sees Al-Islah as a survivor, especially in Yemeni cities like Taiz and Marib, where it retains social and charitable networks.<\/p>\n Carvajal warns that the Brotherhood remains dangerous precisely because it often lacks visible headquarters or formal structures. Its power lies in networks, education, secrecy and social influence rather than in a single command center.<\/p>\n The discussion ends with uncertainty rather than closure. The Brotherhood may be weakened in some countries, outlawed in others and divided by local conditions. Yet its history suggests that decline does not necessarily mean disappearance. Across Sudan, Yemen and the wider region, the movement\u2019s future may depend less on its original ideology than on the crises, rivalries and political vacuums that continue to give it room to adapt.<\/p>\n [Lee Thompson-Kolar<\/a> edited this piece.]<\/p>\n The views expressed in this article\/video are the author\u2019s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer\u2019s editorial policy.<\/p>\n ” Ishtiaq Ahmed” Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and eminent scholar Ishtiaq Ahmed explore Pakistan\u2019s striking contradiction: The country faces political instability, economic strain and fragile institutions, yet it has emerged as a facilitator for dialogue between the United States and Iran. Singh and Ahmed examine how geography, relationships and leadership have created this moment of diplomatic relevance, and whether it can endure.<\/p>\n A fragile state at the center of diplomacy<\/p>\n Singh opens by outlining Pakistan\u2019s internal strains. Economic instability, repeated reliance on assistance from the International Monetary Fund and a lack of broad political legitimacy define the current moment. Regional tensions compound this picture; Pakistan has strained ties with Iran, Afghanistan and India.<\/p>\n Against this backdrop, Pakistan\u2019s emergence as a diplomatic venue appears counterintuitive. Ahmed acknowledges the contrast but points out that context matters. When major powers seek a channel for dialogue, practical constraints narrow the field. Pakistan excludes Israel because it does not recognize Israel, while other potential venues carry their own political complications.<\/p>\n Why Pakistan, not Turkey?<\/p>\n Why are peace talks not being hosted in a more obvious location, like Turkey? Ahmed points to leadership dynamics and geopolitical rivalries. Personal rapport plays a role in shaping diplomatic choices, particularly under the current US administration. He notes that strained relations between Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and US President Donald Trump make Turkey a less appealing venue.<\/p>\n Pakistan, by contrast, benefits from a convergence of factors. Its leadership maintains working ties with Washington, reinforced by recent economic and business engagements. Simultaneously, Pakistan is not seen as a direct rival by Iran in the way Turkey might be. This combination creates a degree of acceptability across parties. As Ahmed puts it, \u201cIt\u2019s been more credible to have such talks in an apparently neutral Pakistan than, let\u2019s say, in Istanbul.\u201d<\/p>\n Strategic depth and social links<\/p>\n Geography and demography further strengthen Pakistan\u2019s case. The country shares a long border with Iran and maintains deep cultural and religious linkages. Its sizable Shia Muslim minority, integrated across political, military and economic life, provides an additional layer of connection. These factors contribute to a level of familiarity and understanding that can facilitate dialogue.<\/p>\n Leadership also matters. Singh highlights the role of Pakistani Field Marshal Asim Munir, described as an Iran specialist with prior engagement on related issues. Ahmed says that this expertise enhances Pakistan\u2019s credibility in the eyes of external actors. Combined with ties to Saudi Arabia, China and the US, Pakistan occupies a rare position of overlapping relationships. This allows it to engage multiple sides without appearing fully aligned with any single one.<\/p>\n A diplomatic opening with domestic impact<\/p>\n Ahmed characterizes Pakistan\u2019s current posture as unusually effective. \u201cFor once, I think Pakistan\u2019s diplomacy has been very effective this time,\u201d he says. In the past, Pakistan\u2019s geostrategic positioning was often used primarily for military alliances rather than diplomatic leverage.<\/p>\n This shift has produced tangible domestic effects. A government previously criticized for weak legitimacy has gained a measure of public approval. Even political opponents have adjusted their behavior to avoid disrupting the diplomatic process. The perception of Pakistan as a constructive international actor has created a narrative of competence at a time when internal governance remains contested.<\/p>\n Pakistan presents its approach as balanced. It has criticized both US\u2013Israeli actions against Iran and Iranian actions against Saudi interests, framing its role as principled rather than partisan. Ahmed broadly accepts this characterization, noting that such positioning helps sustain credibility across competing actors.<\/p>\n Limits, risks and regional implications<\/p>\n Despite the current momentum, both Singh and Ahmed remain cautious about long-term outcomes. The situation remains fluid, with only a ceasefire rather than a durable settlement in place. If negotiations falter or conflict escalates, Pakistan\u2019s role could quickly diminish.<\/p>\n Ahmed stresses that future influence depends on execution. \u201cRight now, they have done it very well,\u201d he observes, but sustaining that advantage requires continued diplomatic skill and favorable external conditions. A second round of talks could reinforce Pakistan\u2019s standing, while failure could expose its limitations.<\/p>\n Regional implications further complicate the situation. India has reacted critically, reflecting broader tensions in South Asian geopolitics. Meanwhile, unresolved conflicts with Afghanistan highlight the limits of Pakistan\u2019s diplomatic reach. Ahmed raises a pointed question: Can a country capable of facilitating dialogue between distant powers apply similar energy to resolving disputes closer to home?<\/p>\n Ultimately, Pakistan\u2019s current role reflects a convergence of circumstance rather than a guaranteed shift. It draws on historical patterns, including its past role in facilitating US\u2013China rapprochement, but unfolds in a more volatile environment. Whether this moment translates into sustained influence or remains a passing alignment of interests will hinge on how Pakistan and the wider region respond to what follows.<\/p>\n [Lee Thompson-<\/a>K<\/a>olar<\/a> edited this piece.]<\/p>\n The views expressed in this article\/video are the author\u2019s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer\u2019s editorial policy.<\/p>\n ” Ashraf Haidari” Fair Observer\u2019s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with Ambassador Ashraf Haidari, a former Afghan diplomat and the president of Displaced International, about the escalating hostilities between Pakistan and the Taliban, and the devastating consequences for Afghan civilians.<\/p>\n Airstrikes and contested truths<\/p>\n Khattar Singh opens by mentioning a recent and highly controversial Pakistani airstrike on the Omit camp in Kabul, a rehabilitation center that reportedly housed more than 1,000 drug addiction patients. According to initial reports, the strike killed nearly 400 people. Pakistan maintains that the site was a Taliban drone factory, while the Taliban insist it was a civilian medical facility.<\/p>\n Haidari firmly rejects Islamabad\u2019s version, calling it \u201ca flat lie\u201d and arguing that the Taliban lack the technological capacity to operate such a facility. He reframes the broader pattern of strikes as part of a campaign that disproportionately harms civilians rather than Taliban leadership. In his account, Pakistan\u2019s actions reflect a deeper strategic logic: weakening Afghanistan as a whole rather than targeting specific militant actors.<\/p>\n This divergence in narratives highlights a recurring feature of the conflict. Competing claims obscure accountability, while Afghan civilians bear the immediate cost. Images of grieving families and destroyed infrastructure have circulated, but they have not translated into sustained international scrutiny.<\/p>\n A battlefield for regional rivalry<\/p>\n The discussion then widens to the geopolitical dynamics shaping the conflict. Haidari describes Afghanistan as a space where regional powers pursue competing interests through indirect means. He characterizes the Taliban as a \u201cstrategic project up for rent,\u201d suggesting that different factions within the movement are influenced by external actors.<\/p>\n Khattar Singh notes the historical irony: Pakistan originally cultivated the Taliban to secure strategic depth. Yet that relationship has become more complicated. Haidari explains that the group is no longer monolithic. Internal divisions, combined with shifting alliances, have opened the door for other players, particularly India, to establish influence.<\/p>\n Pakistan\u2019s airstrikes can be seen as an attempt to reassert control. Haidari argues that India has found ways to pressure Pakistan indirectly, including through militant groups operating from Afghan territory. This triangular dynamic of Pakistan, India and the Taliban creates a volatile environment in which Afghanistan becomes a proxy arena.<\/p>\n The result, as Haidari puts it, is a \u201close-lose for the Afghan people,\u201d but a strategic gain for external powers. Each actor extracts some advantage, while the underlying instability persists.<\/p>\n Silence and selective outrage<\/p>\n Khattar Singh points out that the airstrikes occurred during Ramadan, yet drew limited condemnation from Muslim-majority countries. Haidari contrasts this silence with the frequent statements issued by organizations such as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation on other conflicts.<\/p>\n He interprets this disparity as evidence of selective attention shaped by political priorities. Even when aid arrives, as in India\u2019s delivery of medical supplies, Haidari views it through a geopolitical lens. Assistance may alleviate immediate suffering, but it does not address the structural drivers of the conflict.<\/p>\n For Afghans, this silence reinforces a sense of abandonment. The country\u2019s crises compete with larger global events, including the Iran war, leaving Afghanistan largely absent from headlines and diplomatic agendas.<\/p>\n A deepening humanitarian crisis<\/p>\n Beyond the geopolitical maneuvering lies a deteriorating humanitarian situation. Haidari describes Taliban rule as enforcing a system of \u201cgender apartheid,\u201d restricting women and girls from education, employment and public life. These policies have far-reaching social and economic consequences.<\/p>\n Health indicators have also worsened. Mortality rates among infants and young children have risen, reversing gains made during the previous two decades. Haidari contends that more Afghans are now dying under current conditions than during the years of active conflict before 2021.<\/p>\n Simultaneously, the country faces economic isolation. Sanctions and lack of recognition limit formal trade and financial flows, while reports of external cash shipments create what Haidari calls an \u201cartificial macroeconomic stability.\u201d The result is a fragile system that masks deeper structural collapse.<\/p>\n Leadership vacuum and an uncertain future<\/p>\n The conversation concludes with a focus on governance and accountability. Haidari views the current situation as the outcome of both external decisions and internal failures. He describes the US withdrawal as enabling the Taliban\u2019s return to power and leaving a political vacuum that has yet to be filled.<\/p>\n Inside Afghanistan, opposition forces remain fragmented and ineffective. Without a coherent alternative, the Taliban face limited pressure to change. Haidari argues that meaningful reform would require strong external incentives, both rewards and penalties, capable of altering the group\u2019s calculations.<\/p>\n He also challenges attempts to frame the Taliban as representative of Afghanistan\u2019s Pashtun population, emphasizing that many Pashtuns have been among the movement\u2019s primary victims. This distinction underscores the complexity of Afghan society, which cannot be reduced to simple ethnic or political narratives.<\/p>\n Afghanistan remains a \u201cmanaged island of instability,\u201d in Haidari\u2019s words, shaped by external competition and internal weakness. For now, the Afghan people continue to endure a conflict driven by forces largely beyond their control.<\/p>\n [Lee Thompson-Kolar<\/a> edited this piece.]<\/p>\n The views expressed in this article\/video are the author\u2019s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer\u2019s editorial policy.<\/p>\n ” Josef Olmert” Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and Josef Olmert, a former Israeli government official and Middle East scholar, discuss the fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah, and the unresolved questions it leaves behind. The truce may reduce immediate fighting in southern Lebanon, but Olmert argues that it has not settled the strategic contest. Instead, the discussion moves from Hezbollah\u2019s origins and Iran\u2019s regional strategy to Israel\u2019s military dilemmas, Lebanon\u2019s humanitarian crisis and the changing nature of US\u2013Israel relations.<\/p>\n A ceasefire under pressure<\/p>\n Olmert begins by stressing how precarious the situation remains. Just before the discussion, Israeli forces killed more than 20 Hezbollah members in an encounter several miles from the border. Hezbollah then announced that it no longer recognized the ceasefire, though it would decide its response according to circumstances.<\/p>\n For Olmert, this shows that the truce is not a stable political settlement. He argues that the ceasefire was forced on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by the United States as part of broader negotiations with Iran. In his view, Israel was close to weakening Hezbollah more decisively but stopped too soon. The result is a pause that may allow Hezbollah to recover rather than a turning point that changes Lebanon\u2019s security landscape.<\/p>\n Hezbollah and Iran\u2019s regional strategy<\/p>\n Singh asks Olmert to explain Hezbollah\u2019s history from an Israeli perspective. Olmert responds that while the name Hezbollah emerged after Israel\u2019s 1982 invasion of Lebanon, the movement\u2019s roots go back earlier, particularly to Shia factions influenced by Iran\u2019s 1979 revolution. He accepts that Israel\u2019s occupation of southern Lebanon gave Hezbollah momentum, but insists that Iran would have backed a radical Shia movement regardless.<\/p>\n Singh offers a counternarrative often heard from critics of Israel: Hezbollah grew from the marginalization of Lebanon\u2019s Shia community, the failures of the Lebanese state and the group\u2019s provision of social services. Olmert does not deny Hezbollah\u2019s civic role, but says that these services are funded and shaped by Iran. For him, the organization\u2019s defining function is not Lebanese representation but Iranian strategy. He calls Hezbollah \u201ca division in the Iranian army which is based in Lebanon.\u201d<\/p>\n That framing shapes his entire analysis. Olmert sees Hezbollah as part of Iran\u2019s plan to pressure Israel through multiple fronts. Its role in the Syrian Civil War showed that the group was willing to sacrifice Lebanese lives for Tehran\u2019s objectives. In this view, Hezbollah\u2019s conflict with Israel is not primarily about Lebanese sovereignty, but Iran\u2019s regional confrontation with Israel.<\/p>\n The limits and purpose of force<\/p>\n Singh presses Olmert on what a \u201cfinal blow\u201d against Hezbollah would actually mean. Olmert clarifies that he does not believe Israel can eliminate an ideology. His goal is more limited: to weaken Hezbollah\u2019s armed wing so thoroughly that it can no longer dominate Lebanon or determine whether the Lebanese state goes to war.<\/p>\n Olmert rejects the idea that Israel can dismantle every Hezbollah structure or erase its political identity. But he believes Israel can reduce its military power to the point where it no longer controls Lebanon\u2019s strategic choices. \u201cYou can\u2019t kill an ideology,\u201d he says, \u201cbut you can weaken the people who bear arms in support of that ideology.\u201d<\/p>\n Singh also raises the humanitarian toll in Lebanon, noting that roughly 1.2 million people have been displaced and thousands have been killed or injured. He asks whether some critics are right to see Hezbollah as a pretext for broader Israeli ambitions, including control of southern Lebanon and the Litani River. Olmert dismisses that argument, saying Israel\u2019s desalination capacity has solved its water needs. He argues instead that Hezbollah created the crisis by attacking Israel after October 7, 2023, and that democracies must be strong enough to defeat forces that threaten their existence.<\/p>\n Lebanon after Hezbollah<\/p>\n The discussion turns to what a durable settlement would require. Singh states that many Israelis privately believe the way forward must combine military neutralization of Hezbollah with reconstruction of the Lebanese state. Olmert agrees.<\/p>\n In his view, Israel should withdraw fully to the international border once Hezbollah is no longer able to dictate Lebanon\u2019s security policy. He also calls for a stable buffer zone up to the Litani River, monitored by forces more effective than the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon. Beyond that, Lebanon would need international support and, potentially, Israeli cooperation to rebuild.<\/p>\n Yet Olmert sees a central obstacle: Lebanon remains difficult to govern because of corruption, sectarian patronage and Hezbollah\u2019s power. Singh emphasizes that elite politics and dysfunction also predate Hezbollah. Olmert accepts this but insists that no serious peace is possible while Hezbollah retains the ability to prevent Lebanon from making sovereign decisions.<\/p>\n The old US\u2013Israel relationship is gone<\/p>\n The conversation ends by widening the frame to US\u2013Israel relations. Singh notes growing Democratic opposition to Israeli military action and changing attitudes among younger Americans. Olmert agrees that the old bipartisan consensus has eroded. He points to demographic changes, social media, the rise of Muslim political influence and polarization inside both US parties.<\/p>\n Olmert is especially critical of Netanyahu\u2019s relationship with US President Donald Trump. He argues that Netanyahu has become too personally dependent on Trump, weakening Israel\u2019s strategic autonomy. Trump\u2019s public demand that Israel stop bombing Lebanon, Olmert says, exposed a troubling imbalance between the two leaders.<\/p>\n Still, Olmert does not reduce the problem to Netanyahu alone. He argues that the broader US\u2013Israel relationship must be rebuilt for a new political era. \u201cThe old relationships are dead,\u201d he says. A different Israeli government, he suggests, would find it easier to negotiate that new formula, though he acknowledges that if Netanyahu wins again, that too is democracy at work.<\/p>\n For Singh and Olmert, the ceasefire is therefore only one piece of a larger puzzle. Hezbollah remains powerful, Lebanon remains fragile, Israel remains divided and Washington is no longer the partner it once was. The truce may hold, but the conflict\u2019s deeper causes remain unresolved.<\/p>\n [Lee Thompson-Kolar<\/a> edited this piece.]<\/p>\n The views expressed in this article\/video are the author\u2019s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer\u2019s editorial policy.<\/p>\n ” \u00c9douard Husson” Fair Observer\u2019s Chief Strategy Officer Peter Isackson speaks with historian \u00c9douard Husson about the geopolitical implications of the Ukraine war and what it reveals about the erosion of diplomatic traditions in Europe. They examine how historical memory, strategic culture and competing visions of world order shape today\u2019s crisis. Together, Isackson and Husson explore whether the conflict reflects not only tensions between Russia and NATO but also a deeper transformation in Western thinking about diplomacy, security and global governance.<\/p>\n The fading of historical memory in Europe<\/p>\n Husson begins by arguing that contemporary European leadership lacks the historical experience that once shaped diplomatic caution. Leaders of the Cold War era, he notes, had lived through the devastation of two world wars and therefore understood the stakes of confrontation. This memory informed figures such as French President Charles de Gaulle, German Chancellor Willy Brandt and UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who encouraged dialogue with the Soviet Union and contributed to ending Cold War tensions. By contrast, Husson believes today\u2019s leaders have lost that sensibility. He describes \u201cthe lack of memory\u201d as the defining problem shaping current policy choices.<\/p>\n For Husson, this generational shift has coincided with growing intellectual alignment with American strategic thinking. He suggests that younger European leaders absorbed a worldview emphasizing ideological clarity and decisive action rather than the historically grounded pragmatism that once characterized European diplomacy. This shift, he argues, has weakened Europe\u2019s ability to act independently and to pursue negotiated settlements. Without leaders capable of challenging escalation, the continent risks drifting toward confrontation rather than compromise.<\/p>\n Ukraine\u2019s complex history and competing identities<\/p>\n The discussion then turns to Ukraine as a case study of how historical complexity is often ignored in contemporary policymaking. Husson emphasizes that Ukraine\u2019s regional diversity reflects centuries of shifting borders and cultural influences. Western regions were historically tied to Central Europe, while eastern areas developed closer links with Russia and the Soviet Union. These layered identities, he argues, complicate attempts to frame the conflict as a simple clash between two distinct civilizations.<\/p>\n Husson challenges narratives portraying Ukraine and Russia as entirely separate historical worlds. He calls it \u201cabsurd\u201d to claim that the two share nothing in common, pointing to linguistic and cultural overlaps that developed over centuries. Isackson reinforces this point with personal reflections on family history and linguistic continuity, underscoring how identity in the region cannot be reduced to clear national categories. For Husson, ignoring this complexity has encouraged policies that deepen division rather than promote reconciliation.<\/p>\n He also recalls interviews conducted in eastern Ukraine, where many residents identified as Ukrainian yet opposed confrontation with Russia. These memories illustrate how local perspectives often diverge from geopolitical narratives promoted by outside actors. The failure to account for these nuances, he argues, has contributed to a conflict that pits Europeans against each other instead of encouraging diplomatic compromise.<\/p>\n Contradictions in threat narratives<\/p>\n Isackson raises another issue dominating European political discourse: the claim that failing to defeat Russia in Ukraine could lead to broader Russian expansion across Europe. Husson sees this argument as internally inconsistent. On one hand, Russia is described as militarily weak for failing to secure quick victory; on the other, it is portrayed as capable of sweeping across the continent. He highlights this contradiction to question the coherence of current rhetoric.<\/p>\n Husson argues that such narratives reflect what he calls an \u201cAmericanization\u201d of European political thinking. Instead of traditional balance-of-power diplomacy, leaders increasingly adopt binary frameworks that divide the world into opposing camps. This shift, he contends, contrasts with earlier European diplomatic traditions, which emphasized coexistence among competing systems. By abandoning that approach, policymakers risk escalating conflicts rather than managing them.<\/p>\n The framing of global politics as a struggle between democracy and autocracy, Isackson suggests, echoes earlier crusading mindsets. Husson responds that past European diplomacy focused less on transforming other societies and more on maintaining stability between them. That pragmatic tradition helped Europe avoid major conflicts for long periods, Isackson says, and remains relevant today.<\/p>\n Neutrality, collective security and diplomatic traditions<\/p>\n Isackson and Husson then examine Russia\u2019s long-standing calls for a neutral security zone in Europe. Husson traces this concept back through Soviet and post-Soviet thinking, arguing that Moscow has repeatedly sought arrangements based on neutrality and collective security. While interpretations differ, he sees continuity in these proposals and believes they reflect a broader European tradition of balancing interests rather than imposing ideological uniformity.<\/p>\n Husson contrasts this with modern approaches that prioritize ideological alignment. He argues that diplomacy historically avoided judging the internal political systems of other states and instead focused on managing coexistence. His primary concern, he explains, is not endorsing any particular regime but \u201csecuring peace in Europe.\u201d This emphasis on stability over ideological competition reflects his broader critique of current Western policy.<\/p>\n Isackson adds that the concept of indivisible security \u2014 recognizing that one state\u2019s safety depends on its neighbors \u2014 could provide a foundation for renewed diplomacy. Both speakers suggest that returning to this principle would require acknowledging competing interests and accepting compromise.<\/p>\n Toward a multipolar diplomatic future<\/p>\n The conversation concludes with a discussion of initiatives aimed at reviving diplomatic thinking. Husson outlines plans for an international school of diplomacy designed to bring together students from Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas. Such collaboration could foster a multipolar mindset and rebuild the skills needed for negotiation in a fragmented world.<\/p>\n Husson also emphasizes the importance of cultural understanding and shared education. Training future leaders together could increase trust and encourage cooperation across civilizations. He ends on a hopeful note, expressing confidence that renewed emphasis on equality and mutual respect can help restore diplomacy. By acknowledging diverse perspectives and rejecting exceptionalism, the international system may move toward a more stable multipolar order.<\/p>\n [Lee Thompson-Kolar<\/a> edited this piece.]<\/p>\n The views expressed in this article\/video are the author\u2019s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer\u2019s editorial policy.<\/p>\n ” Stephen Zunes” Fair Observer\u2019s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with Stephen Zunes, professor of politics and director of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of San Francisco, about a war that was meant to be short but is becoming something far more complex and open-ended. What began as the United States and Israel\u2019s targeted campaign against Iran\u2019s leadership is now revealing deeper strategic limits, unintended consequences and a growing absence of clear objectives. As the conflict expands, the central question becomes whether military force is achieving anything at all \u2014 or simply prolonging the crisis.<\/p>\n A war built on flawed assumptions<\/p>\n Khattar Singh opens by challenging the premise of the campaign. It was framed as a swift operation aimed at regime change and nuclear rollback has instead turned into a prolonged and uncertain conflict. Zunes responds bluntly, arguing that the outcome was foreseeable from the start. As he puts it, \u201cI really don\u2019t know any serious strategic analyst\u2026 who thought that air power alone could end up with a regime change.\u201d<\/p>\n Despite the killing of senior clerical and military figures, Iran\u2019s political system has not collapsed. In some respects, it has adapted and even strengthened. Repression has increased, opposition has been contained and the state has shifted into survival mode. Rather than triggering internal revolt, the campaign appears to have reduced the space for dissent.<\/p>\n This exposes a recurring pattern in modern warfare: the assumption that precision strikes can produce political transformation. In this case, that assumption is proving deeply flawed.<\/p>\n Adaptation and the logic of resistance<\/p>\n Zunes explains that Iran anticipated such an attack and prepared accordingly. Its leadership structure has been decentralized both politically and militarily, making it harder to dismantle through targeted strikes. While this has created coordination challenges, it has also ensured continuity.<\/p>\n The result is a shift toward asymmetrical warfare. Iran continues to deploy drones and missiles across the region, maintaining pressure despite sustaining heavy losses. The conflict, in his view, has become an \u201cexistential struggle,\u201d one in which the regime is willing to endure significant costs.<\/p>\n Khattar Singh highlights how this dynamic complicates traditional measures of success. Damage inflicted does not necessarily translate into victory. As Zunes notes, overwhelming firepower can coexist with strategic failure if the adversary remains capable and willing to fight.<\/p>\n From military targets to civilian infrastructure<\/p>\n A key turning point in the discussion is the expansion of targets. The targets, initially just military assets, have broadened to include infrastructure such as bridges, schools and industrial facilities. Zunes calls this shift \u201ca war on the population.\u201d<\/p>\n Rather than weakening the regime, these attacks appear to be producing the opposite effect. Khattar Singh points to interviews with Iranian civilians who, despite opposing the government, express willingness to defend their country against foreign bombing. We now see national identity and historic pride becoming unifying forces.<\/p>\n Zunes reinforces this point by emphasizing the symbolic dimension of the strikes. Damage to culturally significant sites and urban infrastructure is not just material but psychological. It deepens resentment and reduces the likelihood of compromise, making the conflict more intractable.<\/p>\n A widening conflict with global consequences<\/p>\n The war\u2019s impact extends far beyond Iran. Khattar Singh highlights the disruption of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical artery for global trade in oil, gas, fertilizers and even helium. The blockage threatens supply chains, energy markets and food security.<\/p>\n Zunes notes that while Iran\u2019s actions may violate international norms, they are also part of a broader strategy to impose costs on the global system. Simultaneously, other powers show reluctance to intervene militarily, both because of the risks involved and a perception that the crisis was avoidable.<\/p>\n This widening scope underscores the absence of a coherent endgame. Even if the US or Israel declare victory, there is no guarantee that Iran will deescalate. The conflict risks becoming self-sustaining, with each side reacting to the other in an ongoing cycle.<\/p>\n No clear path to resolution<\/p>\n The conversation closes with a sobering assessment of the war\u2019s trajectory. Khattar Singh raises the possibility of further escalation, including a ground invasion, but Zunes outlines the practical constraints: Iran\u2019s size, mountainous terrain and limited US troop presence make such an option highly unlikely and costly.<\/p>\n He also dismisses more speculative scenarios, such as seizing nuclear facilities, as unrealistic. Meanwhile, the risk of catastrophic consequences, such as radiation leaks from damaged reactors, adds another layer of danger. Sites like Natanz, Iran\u2019s main uranium enrichment facility, are deeply buried and difficult to strike, while Bushehr, its only nuclear power plant, poses the risk of a wider environmental disaster if hit.<\/p>\n Ultimately, the core problem remains the lack of clear objectives. As Zunes observes, the goals of the war are \u201call over the map,\u201d contributing to confusion both domestically and internationally. Without defined aims or a political settlement, military action alone cannot produce a stable outcome.<\/p>\n The result is a conflict drifting without direction \u2014 one that risks entrenching the very forces it set out to weaken.<\/p>\n [Lee Thompson-Kolar<\/a> edited this piece.]<\/p>\n The views expressed in this article\/video are the author\u2019s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer\u2019s editorial policy.<\/p>\n ” Jean-Daniel Ruch” Fair Observer\u2019s Chief Strategy Officer Peter Isackson speaks with former Swiss diplomat Jean-Daniel Ruch and former NATO policy officer Peter Hoskins about Europe\u2019s place in a world growing more dangerous by the month. They ask a sharp question: Is Europe preparing for a harsher strategic environment, or is it spending more on defense without deciding what that defense is for? Europe faces not only external threats from war and instability but also an internal problem of political confusion, institutional fragmentation and diplomatic drift.<\/p>\n Two wars, two public reactions<\/p>\n Ruch begins by drawing a distinction between how Europeans see the war in Ukraine and the conflict involving Israel, Iran and the United States. Many Europeans still regard Russia\u2019s invasion of Ukraine as a direct threat to the continent, even if support varies by geography and weakens farther from Russia\u2019s borders. That perception helps explain why many governments have justified higher military spending despite the economic burden of inflation and energy costs.<\/p>\n The Middle East conflict produces a different response. Ruch argues that much of the European public does not see that war through the same moral or strategic lens. Polling shows broad opposition and suggests that many citizens regard it less as a necessary response to aggression than as a discretionary intervention. Europe is not responding to a single, coherent public mood; its leaders are navigating two overlapping crises with two different levels of public legitimacy.<\/p>\n More military spending with no clear strategy<\/p>\n Hoskins approaches the issue from the military side. He argues that European states, especially leading powers such as Britain and France, spent too many years preparing for counterinsurgency and overseas operations while neglecting the capabilities needed for a major conventional war in Europe. The result is a continent that talks more seriously about defense than it did a decade ago but is still not fully prepared for the kind of conflict it now fears.<\/p>\n Ruch takes the point further. For him, the real weakness is not just underprepared armed forces but the absence of a guiding political framework. Europe may be spending more, but it still lacks a clear security strategy linking military means to foreign-policy ends. He says Europe continues to run on \u201cold software,\u201d meaning the post-1945 habit of assuming that the US will provide both strategic direction and military backing. That dependency, he suggests, has outlived the world that produced it.<\/p>\n Hoskins broadly agrees. He sees Europe as too reliant on American protection and believes it must start preparing for a future in which Washington is less willing, or less able, to carry the burden.<\/p>\n The loss of diplomacy<\/p>\n Isackson returns to a deeper problem: the decline of diplomacy itself. Ruch and Hoskins agree that military planning cannot substitute for political engagement. Ruch argues that despite its dangers, the Cold War was in some ways safer because it had guardrails. Arms-control treaties, confidence-building measures and structured dialogue created habits of communication that reduced the risk of catastrophic miscalculation. With the expiration of the last major bilateral agreements and the weakening of diplomatic channels, that safety net has largely disappeared.<\/p>\n Ruch also argues that policymaking has shifted away from diplomatic institutions toward intelligence and military bureaucracies. That change matters because diplomats are trained to search for workable settlements, while security institutions are trained to identify and counter threats. The result, he says, is a world more inclined to manage crises through force than through negotiation.<\/p>\n Hoskins is more cautious but sympathetic to the point. He recalls periods when military officers from rival states could still work together and build trust. In his view, those opportunities mattered because professional contact often reduced suspicion. He laments that many of those openings were allowed to fade.<\/p>\n Russia, NATO and Europe\u2019s political confusion<\/p>\n The conversation then turns to Russia and the larger structure of European security. Hoskins maintains that, whatever opportunities may have been missed in the past, Russia remains Europe\u2019s primary strategic threat. Ruch is less convinced by the more alarmist versions of that argument. He points to a long history of what he sees as exaggerated or sometimes irrational fear of Russia and argues that Europe never developed a serious long-term vision for how to live with Russia as a permanent neighbor.<\/p>\n That debate leads into NATO and the European Union. Hoskins argues that NATO remains the most credible framework for defense, even if Europe must start thinking about how it would function with a diminished American role. Ruch responds that Europe still needs its own strategic culture and institutions if it wants genuine autonomy. Both men agree that Europe cannot drift indefinitely between dependence on Washington and vague talk of independence.<\/p>\n US President Donald Trump\u2019s return to power sharpens that dilemma. Ruch thinks the \u201cdivorce\u201d between Europe and the US may now be too obvious to ignore, while Hoskins argues that Europe should assume life \u201cwithout the United States\u201d is becoming a real strategic possibility.<\/p>\n A dangerous year without a settled order<\/p>\n By the end of the discussion, neither Ruch nor Hoskins offers much comfort. Ruch calls 2026 \u201cthe most dangerous year\u201d he has ever lived through, citing the erosion of diplomatic norms, the risk of wider war and even the possibility that nuclear escalation can no longer be dismissed as fantasy. Hoskins echoes the warning. He sees a clear gap between publics and leaders, but he also insists that leadership still matters. Europe\u2019s problem is that its leaders are weak, divided and often unable to sustain a common line.<\/p>\n Europe knows the world is changing. But can it define its own interests before major world events do?<\/p>\n
\npost-content-short=”
\nFair Observer Contributing Editor Laura Pav\u00f3n Arambur\u00fa speaks with American University Professor William M. LeoGrande about the rapid deterioration of US\u2013Cuba relations under US President Donald Trump. They examine how Washington\u2019s tightening of its long-standing embargo, combined with new…”
\npost_summery=”In this episode of FO Talks, Laura Pav\u00f3n Arambur\u00fa and William M. LeoGrande examine how US President Donald Trump\u2019s oil restrictions have pushed US\u2013Cuba relations to a low point. The strategy of economic coercion has deepened Cuba\u2019s humanitarian crisis without producing political change, while exposing the limits of regime-change policies seen in Venezuela. What is Cuba\u2019s path forward?”
\npost-date=”May 15, 2026″
\npost-title=”FO Talks: Making Sense of US Policy Towards Cuba Under Obama, Biden and Trump” slug-data=”fo-talks-making-sense-of-us-policy-towards-cuba-under-obama-biden-and-trump”>
\n![](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Making-Sense-of-US-Policy-Towards-Cuba-Under-Obama-Biden-and-Trump-Fair-Observer.jpeg\")
\nFO Talks: Making Sense of US Policy Towards Cuba Under Obama, Biden and Trump<\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/William-LeoGrande-150x150.jpg\"\/)
<\/p>\n
\npost_date=”May 14, 2026 06:02″
\npUrl=”https:\/\/www.fairobserver.com\/business\/fo-talks-inside-metas-ai-surveillance-tracking-keystrokes-and-clicks-to-replace-you\/” pid=”162447″
\npost-content=”<\/p>\n
\npost-content-short=”
\nFair Observer\u2019s Chief Strategy Officer Peter Isackson and Global Civilization Dynamics Founder Vinay Singh discuss a variety of tech subjects, starting with Meta\u2019s decision to track employee keystrokes and mouse movements in order to train AI systems that can \u201creplicate\u201d human work. From…”
\npost_summery=”In this episode of FO Talks, Peter Isackson and Vinay Singh examine how AI-driven workplace surveillance treats workers merely as data to optimize, not people to develop. Rapid automation risks triggering an \u201cAI layoff trap,\u201d where companies destroy the demand their own economies depend upon. Short-form Internet content is weakening critical thinking, attention spans and lived human experience.”
\npost-date=”May 14, 2026″
\npost-title=”FO Talks: Inside Meta\u2019s AI Surveillance: Tracking Keystrokes and Clicks to Replace You?” slug-data=”fo-talks-inside-metas-ai-surveillance-tracking-keystrokes-and-clicks-to-replace-you”>
\n![](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Inside-Metas-AI-Surveillance-Tracking-Keystrokes-and-Clicks-to-Replace-You-Fair-Observer.jpeg\"){kind=tracking}
\nFO Talks: Inside Meta\u2019s AI Surveillance: Tracking Keystrokes and Clicks to Replace You?<\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Vinay-Singh-150x150.jpg\"\/)
<\/p>\n
\npost_date=”May 13, 2026 06:58″
\npUrl=”https:\/\/www.fairobserver.com\/world-news\/middle-east-news\/fo-talks-the-iran-war-could-crash-the-global-economy-heres-how\/” pid=”162442″
\npost-content=”<\/p>\n
\npost-content-short=”
\nEditor-in-Chief Atul Singh and FOI Partner and geopolitical analyst Manu Sharma discuss how the Iran war reaches far beyond the battlefield into everyday economic life. What began as a military conflict in the Gulf has quickly spread through shipping lanes to fuel markets, agriculture, finance and…”
\npost_summery=”In this episode of FO Talks, Atul Singh and Manu Sharma examine how the Iran war is triggering a global economic chain reaction, thanks to the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz through which about 20% of global oil and gas pass. This supply-side energy shock has spread into food systems, financial markets and regional economies. The specter of stagflation has returned after the 1970s, raising questions about the dollar-based global financial system.”
\npost-date=”May 13, 2026″
\npost-title=”FO Talks: The Iran War Could Crash the Global Economy, Here\u2019s How” slug-data=”fo-talks-the-iran-war-could-crash-the-global-economy-heres-how”>
\n![](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/The-Iran-War-Could-Crash-the-Global-Economy-Heres-How-Fair-Observer.jpeg\")
\nFO Talks: The Iran War Could Crash the Global Economy, Here\u2019s How<\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/manu-sharma1-100x100.jpeg\"\/)
<\/p>\n
\npost_date=”May 12, 2026 06:13″
\npUrl=”https:\/\/www.fairobserver.com\/world-news\/fo-talks-the-elon-musk-factor-why-has-trump-snubbed-south-africa-from-the-g20\/” pid=”162425″
\npost-content=”<\/p>\n
\npost-content-short=”
\nFair Observer\u2019s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with Martin Plaut, a journalist, academic and author, about the deepening rupture between the Trump administration and South Africa. They examine why Washington barred South Africa from the 2026 G20 summit in Miami, Florida, and how…”
\npost_summery=”In this episode of FO Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Martin Plaut examine why the Trump administration barred South Africa from the 2026 G20 summit. They explore South Africa\u2019s ties with Russia, China and Iran, Elon Musk\u2019s influence and politics surrounding white farmer violence. South Africa must balance its commitment to multipolarity with its economic dependence on the US.”
\npost-date=”May 12, 2026″
\npost-title=”FO Talks: The Elon Musk Factor \u2014 Why Has Trump Snubbed South Africa from the G20?” slug-data=”fo-talks-the-elon-musk-factor-why-has-trump-snubbed-south-africa-from-the-g20″>
\n![](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/The-Elon-Musk-Factor-Why-Has-Trump-Snubbed-South-Africa-from-the-G20-Fair-Observer.jpeg\")
\nFO Talks: The Elon Musk Factor \u2014 Why Has Trump Snubbed South Africa from the G20?<\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Martin-Plaut-1-100x100.jpg\"\/)
<\/p>\n
\npost_date=”May 10, 2026 05:36″
\npUrl=”https:\/\/www.fairobserver.com\/world-news\/fo-exclusive-us-iran-double-blockade-of-hormuz-threatens-global-economy\/” pid=”162383″
\npost-content=”<\/p>\n
\npost-content-short=”
\nEditor-in-Chief Atul Singh and FOI Senior Partner Glenn Carle, a retired CIA officer who now advises companies, governments and organizations on geopolitical risk, examine a conflict that has spilled far beyond the battlefield. The US\u2013Israel\u2013Iran war, anchored in a \u201cdouble blockade\u201d of the…”
\npost_summery=”In this section of the April 2026 episode of FO Exclusive, Atul Singh and Glenn Carle argue that the Iran war has triggered a massive supply shock to the economy. Oil, gas, fertilizers and industrial inputs are scarce, causing shortages and price rises in the real economy. In fact, the resource, financial and security architectures of the post-World War II era are crumbling as the limits of American power become visible to the entire world.”
\npost-date=”May 10, 2026″
\npost-title=”FO Exclusive: US\u2013Iran Double Blockade of Hormuz Threatens Global Economy” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-us-iran-double-blockade-of-hormuz-threatens-global-economy”>
\n![](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Trumps-Double-Blockade-of-Hormuz-has-Shocked-the-Global-Supply-Chain-Fair-Observer-Exclusive.jpeg\")
\nFO Exclusive: US\u2013Iran Double Blockade of Hormuz Threatens Global Economy<\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Glenn-Carle-100x100.jpg\"\/)
<\/p>\n
\npost_date=”May 09, 2026 05:22″
\npUrl=”https:\/\/www.fairobserver.com\/world-news\/fo-exclusive-global-lightning-roundup-of-april-2026\/” pid=”162370″
\npost-content=”<\/p>\n
\npost-content-short=”
\nEditor-in-Chief Atul Singh and FOI Senior Partner Glenn Carle, a retired CIA officer who now advises companies, governments and organizations on geopolitical risk, survey a month in which disparate events point in a single direction: a global order under strain. The US\u2013Israel\u2013Iran war anchors…”
\npost_summery=”In this section of the April 2026 episode of FO Exclusive, Atul Singh and Glenn Carle analyze key events of the month. They analyze the Artemis II mission, a discriminatory Israeli law, loss of international support for Israel, a deepening crisis in the UK, and antisemitism in the UK, the US and Europe. They also examine major political developments in India, Canada, Japan and Hungary.”
\npost-date=”May 09, 2026″
\npost-title=”FO Exclusive: Global Lightning Roundup of April 2026″ slug-data=”fo-exclusive-global-lightning-roundup-of-april-2026″>
\n![](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Global-Lightning-Roundup-of-April-2026-Fair-Observer-Exclusive.jpeg\")
\nFO Exclusive: Global Lightning Roundup of April 2026<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\npost_date=”May 08, 2026 05:54″
\npUrl=”https:\/\/www.fairobserver.com\/region\/middle_east_north_africa\/fo-talks-economy-sanctions-and-oil-why-iran-could-not-sustain-this-war\/” pid=”162354″
\npost-content=”<\/p>\n
\npost-content-short=”
\nFair Observer\u2019s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with economist and game theorist Sinem Sonmez about a conflict in which economics proves as consequential as military force. Their discussion examines how the US-led blockade in the Strait of Hormuz, combined with strikes on Iranian…”
\npost_summery=”In this episode of FO Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Sinem Sonmez examine how the US-led blockade in the Strait of Hormuz pushed Iran\u2019s already economy toward crisis. Oil dependence, limited storage capacity, sanctions and foreign exchange shortages made Iran unable to sustain a prolonged war. Modern conflict increasingly turns on economic leverage as much as military power.”
\npost-date=”May 08, 2026″
\npost-title=”FO Talks: Economy, Sanctions and Oil \u2014 Why Iran Could Not Sustain This War” slug-data=”fo-talks-economy-sanctions-and-oil-why-iran-could-not-sustain-this-war”>
\n![](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Economy-Sanctions-and-Oil-Why-Iran-Could-Not-Sustain-This-War-Fair-Observer.jpeg\")
\nFO Talks: Economy, Sanctions and Oil \u2014 Why Iran Could Not Sustain This War<\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Sinem-Sonmez-150x150.jpg\"\/)
<\/p>\n
\npost_date=”May 07, 2026 06:20″
\npUrl=”https:\/\/www.fairobserver.com\/world-news\/fo-talks-turkeys-eurasian-partnership-with-russia-and-china-risks-isolation-in-nato\/” pid=”162337″
\npost-content=”<\/p>\n
\npost-content-short=”
\nFair Observer\u2019s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with author Ali Omar Forozish about Turkey\u2019s attempt to navigate an increasingly fragmented world order without fully committing to either East or West. Under Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdo\u011fan, the Turkish capital of Ankara is…”
\npost_summery=”In this episode of FO Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Ali Omar Forozish discuss Turkey\u2019s attempt to balance between the West and a Russia\u2013China-led Eurasian bloc. They examine Turkey\u2019s BRICS application, its ties to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and its promotion of the Middle Corridor trade route. This strategy gives Ankara leverage, but risks isolating Turkey from both sides.”
\npost-date=”May 07, 2026″
\npost-title=”FO Talks: Turkey\u2019s Eurasian Partnership with Russia and China Risks Isolation in NATO” slug-data=”fo-talks-turkeys-eurasian-partnership-with-russia-and-china-risks-isolation-in-nato”>
\n![](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Turkeys-Eurasian-Partnership-with-Russia-and-China-Risks-Isolation-in-NATO-Fair-Observer.jpeg\")
\nFO Talks: Turkey\u2019s Eurasian Partnership with Russia and China Risks Isolation in NATO<\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Ali-Omar-Forozish-100x100.jpg\"\/)
<\/p>\n
\npost_date=”May 02, 2026 06:53″
\npUrl=”https:\/\/www.fairobserver.com\/region\/latin_america\/fo-talks-trump-says-cuba-is-collapsing-so-why-hasnt-it-fallen-yet\/” pid=”162255″
\npost-content=”<\/p>\n
\npost-content-short=”
\nFair Observer\u2019s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with historian Daniel J. Fern\u00e1ndez-Guevara about why Cuba, despite facing one of the gravest crises in its modern history, still has not collapsed. The island is enduring deep economic pain, constant blackouts, inflation, outmigration…”
\npost_summery=”In this episode of FO Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Daniel J. Fern\u00e1ndez-Guevara examine Cuba\u2019s deepening \u201cpoly-crisis,\u201d marked by economic collapse, blackouts and mass migration. Despite severe hardship, Cuba has not fallen due to strong national sovereignty, historical memory and no coordinated opposition. External pressure, especially from the United States, continues to strain the system without collapsing it.”
\npost-date=”May 02, 2026″
\npost-title=”FO Talks: Trump Says Cuba Is Collapsing, so Why Hasn\u2019t It Fallen Yet?” slug-data=”fo-talks-trump-says-cuba-is-collapsing-so-why-hasnt-it-fallen-yet”>
\n![](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Trump-Says-Cuba-Is-Collapsing-So-Why-Hasnt-It-Fallen-Yet-Fair-Observer.jpeg\")
\nFO Talks: Trump Says Cuba Is Collapsing, so Why Hasn\u2019t It Fallen Yet?<\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Daniel-J.-Fernandez-Guevara-150x150.jpg\"\/)
<\/p>\n
\npost_date=”May 01, 2026 06:09″
\npUrl=”https:\/\/www.fairobserver.com\/region\/middle_east_north_africa\/fo-talks-irgc-survives-why-the-iran-war-has-backfired-for-trump-and-netanyahu\/” pid=”162233″
\npost-content=”<\/p>\n
\npost-content-short=”
\nFair Observer\u2019s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with Stephen Zunes, professor of politics and director of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of San Francisco, about a war that was meant to weaken adversaries but may instead be reinforcing them. As fighting spills across Iran,…”
\npost_summery=”In this episode of FO Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Stephen Zunes argue that the Iran War reveals a persistent gap between military success and political outcomes. While the campaign has inflicted damage, it has strengthened hardline forces and deepened humanitarian crises. Additionally, Zunes reviews modern Lebanese history to explain why Israel\u2019s devastating war likely won\u2019t destroy Hezbollah.”
\npost-date=”May 01, 2026″
\npost-title=”FO Talks: IRGC Survives \u2014 Why the Iran War Has Backfired for Trump and Netanyahu” slug-data=”fo-talks-irgc-survives-why-the-iran-war-has-backfired-for-trump-and-netanyahu”>
\n![](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/IRGC-Survives-Why-The-Iran-War-Has-Backfired-for-Trump-and-Netanyahu-Fair-Observer.jpeg\")
\nFO Talks: IRGC Survives \u2014 Why the Iran War Has Backfired for Trump and Netanyahu<\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Stephen-Zunes-100x100.jpg\"\/)
<\/p>\n
\npost_date=”April 30, 2026 06:05″
\npUrl=”https:\/\/www.fairobserver.com\/politics\/fo-talks-hungary-votes-for-change-peter-magyar-ends-viktor-orbans-16-year-rule\/” pid=”162211″
\npost-content=”<\/p>\n
\npost-content-short=”
\nFair Observer\u2019s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with Aron Rimanyi, an associate at Training The Street, about an election result that may reshape Hungary\u2019s political trajectory. P\u00e9ter Magyar\u2019s center-right Tisza party has secured an electoral victory, ending incumbent Prime…”
\npost_summery=”In this episode of FO Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Aron Rimanyi examine Hungarian Prime Minister-elect P\u00e9ter Magyar\u2019s landslide victory as a rejection of incumbent Prime Minister Viktor Orb\u00e1n\u2019s 16-year rule. Economic strain, institutional fatigue and youth turnout drive the shift, while grassroots campaigning outperforms geopolitical messaging. The result may signal a deeper political realignment.”
\npost-date=”Apr 30, 2026″
\npost-title=”FO Talks: Hungary Votes for Change \u2014 P\u00e9ter Magyar Ends Viktor Orb\u00e1n\u2019s 16-Year Rule” slug-data=”fo-talks-hungary-votes-for-change-peter-magyar-ends-viktor-orbans-16-year-rule”>
\n![](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Hungary-Votes-for-Change-Peter-Magyar-Ends-Viktor-Orbans-16-Year-Rule-Fair-Observer.jpeg\")
\nFO Talks: Hungary Votes for Change \u2014 P\u00e9ter Magyar Ends Viktor Orb\u00e1n\u2019s 16-Year Rule<\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Aron-Rimanyi-150x150.jpg\"\/)
<\/p>\n
\npost_date=”April 29, 2026 06:20″
\npUrl=”https:\/\/www.fairobserver.com\/region\/middle_east_north_africa\/fo-live-how-the-muslim-brotherhood-survives-and-thrives-across-the-middle-east\/” pid=”162194″
\npost-content=”<\/p>\n
\npost-content-short=”
\nFair Observer\u2019s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh moderates an FO Live discussion on the Muslim Brotherhood, from its founding in Egypt in 1928 to its varied roles across Yemen, Sudan and the wider Middle East. He is joined by Fernando Carvajal, executive director of The American Center for…”
\npost_summery=”In this episode of FO Live, Rohan Khattar Singh and regional experts examine the Muslim Brotherhood as a decentralized network that embeds itself within political and educational institutions. While Anas Himedan highlights Sudan to show its destructive legacy, Abdul Galil Shaif and Fernando Carvajal reveal its flexibility in Yemen. The Brotherhood is evolving, shaped by shifting alliances and regional conflicts.”
\npost-date=”Apr 29, 2026″
\npost-title=”FO Live: How the Muslim Brotherhood Survives and Thrives Across the Middle East” slug-data=”fo-live-how-the-muslim-brotherhood-survives-and-thrives-across-the-middle-east”>
\n![](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/How-the-Muslim-Brotherhood-Survives-and-Thrives-Across-the-Middle-East-Fair-Observer.jpeg\")
\nFO Live: How the Muslim Brotherhood Survives and Thrives Across the Middle East<\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Fernando-Carvajal--100x100.jpg\"\/)
<\/p>\n
\npost_date=”April 28, 2026 06:35″
\npUrl=”https:\/\/www.fairobserver.com\/region\/asia_pacific\/fo-talks-why-pakistan-is-mediating-between-the-us-and-iran-and-why-is-israel-not-invited\/” pid=”162179″
\npost-content=”<\/p>\n
\npost-content-short=”
\nEditor-in-Chief Atul Singh and eminent scholar Ishtiaq Ahmed explore Pakistan\u2019s striking contradiction: The country faces political instability, economic strain and fragile institutions, yet it has emerged as a facilitator for dialogue between the United States and Iran. Singh and Ahmed examine…”
\npost_summery=”In this episode of FO Talks, Atul Singh and Ishtiaq Ahmed examine how Pakistan, despite political and economic fragility, has emerged as a facilitator for US\u2013Iran dialogue. Geography, leadership ties and regional relationships have created this moment of diplomatic relevance. Whether it endures depends on how Pakistan and the region manage what comes next.”
\npost-date=”Apr 28, 2026″
\npost-title=”FO Talks: Why Pakistan Is Mediating Between the US and Iran \u2014 and Why Is Israel Not Invited?” slug-data=”fo-talks-why-pakistan-is-mediating-between-the-us-and-iran-and-why-is-israel-not-invited”>
\n![](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Why-Pakistan-Is-Mediating-Between-the-US-and-Iran-\u2014-and-Why-Is-Israel-Not-Invited-Fair-Observer.jpeg\")
\nFO Talks: Why Pakistan Is Mediating Between the US and Iran \u2014 and Why Is Israel Not Invited?<\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Ishtiaq--150x150.jpg\"\/)
<\/p>\n
\npost_date=”April 27, 2026 05:23″
\npUrl=”https:\/\/www.fairobserver.com\/region\/middle_east_north_africa\/fo-talks-pakistans-airstrikes-in-kabul-is-taliban-failing-to-keep-afghanistan-safe\/” pid=”162149″
\npost-content=”<\/p>\n
\npost-content-short=”
\nFair Observer\u2019s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with Ambassador Ashraf Haidari, a former Afghan diplomat and the president of Displaced International, about the escalating hostilities between Pakistan and the Taliban, and the devastating consequences for Afghan civilians.Airstrikes…”
\npost_summery=”In this episode of FO Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Ashraf Haidari examine Pakistan\u2019s airstrikes in Afghanistan, including a deadly strike in Kabul that likely hit civilians. Afghanistan may be a proxy arena for India\u2013Pakistan rivalry, with the Taliban exploited by external powers. With worsening humanitarian conditions and little international response, Afghan civilians remain unprotected and without meaningful leadership.”
\npost-date=”Apr 27, 2026″
\npost-title=”FO Talks: Pakistan\u2019s Airstrikes in Kabul \u2014 Is Taliban Failing to Keep Afghanistan Safe?” slug-data=”fo-talks-pakistans-airstrikes-in-kabul-is-taliban-failing-to-keep-afghanistan-safe”>
\n![](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Pakistans-Airstrikes-in-Kabul-Is-Taliban-Failing-to-Keep-Afghanistan-Safe-Fair-Observer.jpeg\")
\nFO Talks: Pakistan\u2019s Airstrikes in Kabul \u2014 Is Taliban Failing to Keep Afghanistan Safe?<\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Ashraf-Haidari-100x100.jpg\"\/)
<\/p>\n
\npost_date=”April 26, 2026 09:28″
\npUrl=”https:\/\/www.fairobserver.com\/region\/middle_east_north_africa\/fo-talks-why-the-iran-ceasefire-solves-nothing-in-israel-hezbollah-war\/” pid=”162134″
\npost-content=”<\/p>\n
\npost-content-short=”
\nEditor-in-Chief Atul Singh and Josef Olmert, a former Israeli government official and Middle East scholar, discuss the fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah, and the unresolved questions it leaves behind. The truce may reduce immediate fighting in southern Lebanon, but Olmert argues that…”
\npost_summery=”In this episode of FO Talks, Atul Singh and Josef Olmert discuss the fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah, which may not be a strategic resolution. They examine Hezbollah\u2019s roots, Iran\u2019s regional strategy, Israel\u2019s military limits, Lebanon\u2019s humanitarian crisis and the need to weaken Hezbollah before reaching a lasting peace. They also explore the erosion of the old US\u2013Israel relationship.”
\npost-date=”Apr 26, 2026″
\npost-title=”FO Talks: Why the Iran Ceasefire Solves Nothing in Israel\u2013Hezbollah War” slug-data=”fo-talks-why-the-iran-ceasefire-solves-nothing-in-israel-hezbollah-war”>
\n![](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Why-the-Iran-Ceasefire-Solves-Nothing-in-Israel\u2013Hezbollah-War-Fair-Observer.jpeg\")
\nFO Talks: Why the Iran Ceasefire Solves Nothing in Israel\u2013Hezbollah War<\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Josef-Olmert-100x100.jpg\"\/)
<\/p>\n
\npost_date=”April 25, 2026 04:50″
\npUrl=”https:\/\/www.fairobserver.com\/region\/europe\/fo-talks-is-europes-strategic-amnesia-driving-the-world-toward-another-global-war\/” pid=”162112″
\npost-content=”<\/p>\n
\npost-content-short=”
\nFair Observer\u2019s Chief Strategy Officer Peter Isackson speaks with historian \u00c9douard Husson about the geopolitical implications of the Ukraine war and what it reveals about the erosion of diplomatic traditions in Europe. They examine how historical memory, strategic culture and competing visions…”
\npost_summery=”In this episode of FO Talks, Peter Isackson and \u00c9douard Husson examine how the Ukraine war reflects a breakdown in European diplomacy and historical awareness. Husson argues that NATO expansion, neglect of collective security and oversimplified narratives about Ukraine\u2019s identity contributed to the conflict. He advocates renewed diplomacy, neutrality and multipolar cooperation as pathways to restoring global stability.”
\npost-date=”Apr 25, 2026″
\npost-title=”FO Talks: Is Europe\u2019s Strategic Amnesia Driving the World Toward Another Global War?” slug-data=”fo-talks-is-europes-strategic-amnesia-driving-the-world-toward-another-global-war”>
\n![](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Is-Europes-Strategic-Amnesia-Driving-the-World-Toward-Another-Global-War-Fair-Observer.jpeg\")
\nFO Talks: Is Europe\u2019s Strategic Amnesia Driving the World Toward Another Global War?<\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Edouard-Husson-150x150.jpg\"\/)
<\/p>\n
\npost_date=”April 24, 2026 06:42″
\npUrl=”https:\/\/www.fairobserver.com\/world-news\/fo-talks-the-iran-war-has-no-clear-endgame\/” pid=”162097″
\npost-content=”<\/p>\n
\npost-content-short=”
\nFair Observer\u2019s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with Stephen Zunes, professor of politics and director of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of San Francisco, about a war that was meant to be short but is becoming something far more complex and open-ended. What began as the…”
\npost_summery=”In this episode of FO Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Stephen Zunes examine how the US\u2013Israel campaign against Iran has drifted from a limited military operation into an open-ended conflict. Iran has adapted, strengthened internal cohesion and shifted to asymmetrical warfare. With expanding targets, global economic risks and no clear objectives, the war lacks a clear path to resolution.”
\npost-date=”Apr 24, 2026″
\npost-title=”FO Talks: The Iran War Has No Clear Endgame” slug-data=”fo-talks-the-iran-war-has-no-clear-endgame”>
\n![](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/The-Iran-War-Has-No-Clear-Endgame-Fair-Observer.jpeg\"){kind=spacer}
\nFO Talks: The Iran War Has No Clear Endgame<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\npost_date=”April 23, 2026 05:28″
\npUrl=”https:\/\/www.fairobserver.com\/video\/fo-live-wars-in-ukraine-iran-does-europe-look-weak-in-2026\/” pid=”162083″
\npost-content=”<\/p>\n
![](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Wars-in-Ukraine-Iran-Does-Europe-Look-Weak-in-2026-Fair-Observer.jpeg\")
![](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Jean-Daniel-Ruch-100x100.jpg\"\/)
<\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Viktor-Orban-Faces-His-Toughest-Challenge-in-Hungarys-Defining-Vote-Fair-Observer.jpeg\")