In this episode of Chalkboard Politics, the team examines the causes, escalation, and aftermath of the 2025 India-Pakistan crisis, as well as its broader implications for regional and global politics. The discussion also highlights Pakistan’s unexpected role on the world stage as the main mediator of diplomatic negotiations between Iran and the United States in their 2026 war. Our guests are Professor Niloufer Siddiqui, Associate Professor of Political Science at Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy, SUNY Albany, whose research focuses on political violence, religion, and electoral politics, and Professor Sushant Singh, lecturer in South Asian Studies at Yale University’s MacMillan Center for International and Area Studies and a journalist with extensive experience covering the region’s political and military dynamics.

The episode begins by revisiting the Pahalgam attack and the rapid escalation that followed, including India’s retaliatory strikes and the unprecedented nature of the conflict between the two nuclear-armed states. Both guests reflect on how nationalism, domestic political incentives, and competing narratives shaped the trajectory of the crisis and heightened fears of wider war.

The discussion then turns to the unexpected ceasefire, which emerged quickly despite high tensions and expectations of prolonged conflict. Niloufer Siddiqui and Sushant Singh explore how the “fog of war,” media environments, and external actors—including the Trump administration—contributed to both escalation and the eventual ceasefire.

The episode then considers the broader geopolitical consequences of the conflict, including India’s doctrine of strategic autonomy, shifting U.S.-India and U.S.-Pakistan relations, and Pakistan’s growing diplomatic role in the region, particularly in mediation efforts related to the U.S.-Iran war. The conversation also addresses key flashpoints such as the Indus Waters Treaty, Pakistan’s relationship with Saudi Arabia, and the current conflict between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Altogether, this episode analyzes whether the 2025 crisis reflects a continuation of long-standing patterns in India-Pakistan relations or a turning point in regional order—and what it reveals about escalation risks in a nuclearized and increasingly unstable geopolitical environment.

Escalation, Narratives, and Domestic Incentives:

Crossing Red Lines and Escalation Dynamics:

The Ceasefire and the “Fog of War”:

Strategic Autonomy and Shifting Global Alignments:

Pakistan’s New Roles on the World Stage:

Structural Flashpoints and Future Risks:

Chotiner, Isaac. “The Dynamics Behind the India-Pakistan Clash” (Q &A with Sushant Singh). The New Yorker, May 9, 2025. https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/the-dynamics-behind-the-current-india-pakistan-clash.

Clary, Christopher. The Difficult Politics of Peace: Rivalry in Modern South Asia. Modern South Asia. Oxford University Press, 2022.

Clary, Christopher, Sameer Lalwani, and Niloufer Siddiqui. “Public Opinion and Crisis Behavior in a Nuclearized South Asia.” International Studies Quarterly 65, no. 4 (2021): 1064–76. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqab042.

Clary, Christopher, and Asfandyar Mir. “Pakistan Is Waging Its Own War in Afghanistan.” Good Authority, March 17, 2026. https://goodauthority.org/news/pakistan-is-waging-its-own-war-in-afghanistan/.

Siddiqui, Niloufer. Under the Gun: Political Parties and Violence in Pakistan. Cambridge University Press, 2022.

Singh, Sushant. “India Faces Down New Security Calculus.” Foreign Policy, October 9, 2025. https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/10/09/pakistan-saudi-arabia-defense-pact-india-security-calculus/.

This episode of Chalkboard Politics comes to you via the Good Authority podcast feed. Listen, rate, and subscribe to the Good Authority Podcast. The Good Authority podcast is available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Podcast Addict, and wherever you listen to podcasts. You can also follow Chalkboard Politics on Instagram and Bluesky.

If you have any comments or questions about today’s episode, or ideas for future segments, please email us at [email protected].

In this episode of Chalkboard Politics, the team explores the evolving challenges facing international institutions in a period of populist backlash and shifting global power. In the first conversation,  professors Allison Carnegie and Richard Clark discuss how international organizations – from the European Union to the IMF and WTO – navigate growing populist resistance, funding withdrawals, and declining hegemonic support. They explain how institutions respond strategically, sometimes appeasing critics, sometimes quietly working around them, while increasingly seeking new coalitions and sources of legitimacy.

The episode then turns to an interview with Professor Anjali Dayal, who examines the changing role of the United Nations in peacekeeping, humanitarian coordination, and global governance. Dayal traces how U.N. peacekeeping missions have evolved from neutral observers between countries to complex operations dealing with civil wars, counterterrorism, and regime stabilization. The conversation also explores the consequences of declining U.S. commitment to international institutions, Security Council gridlock, and growing tensions around international law.

Together, this podcast episode considers whether international institutions can adapt to populist pressure and declining hegemonic leadership, or whether the global order is entering a more fragmented and uncertain era.

Episode’s Main Themes: 

Populism and Institutional Pushback: Populist leaders increasingly challenge international organizations through funding withdrawals, rhetorical attacks, and institutional obstruction. Carnegie and Clark emphasize that these pressures are not entirely new, but they are reshaping how institutions operate and defend their legitimacy. Key terms: populism, institutional legitimacy, multilateralism

How International Organizations Adapt: International institutions are strategic actors that can respond to political pressure by appeasing critics, working around populist leaders, or finding alternative funding sources. Examples include states creating alternative dispute mechanisms like the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA) to preserve WTO dispute resolution functions. Key terms: institutional adaptation, strategic behavior, dispute resolution

Shifts in Global Leadership: Declining U.S. support for multilateralism raises questions about whether middle powers or rising states can fill leadership gaps in global governance. Countries like Canada and China have increased contributions in certain areas, though institutional rules and consensus requirements often limit collective action. Key terms: hegemonic decline, middle powers, global governance

The Changing Role of UN Peacekeeping: UN peacekeeping has evolved from monitoring ceasefires between states to complex missions that include civilian protection and state stabilization. While peacekeeping operations often help reduce violence, their success depends heavily on whether underlying political conflicts have been resolved. Key terms: peacekeeping, civil wars, civilian protection

The Human Stakes of Multilateral Withdrawal: When major powers reduce funding or political support for international institutions, vulnerable populations—such as refugees and those dependent on humanitarian assistance—often bear the greatest costs. Funding cuts can disrupt health programs, food aid, and long-standing humanitarian partnerships. Key terms: humanitarian aid, development assistance, global health

The Future of Multilateral Order: Growing Security Council gridlock and declining respect for international law raise concerns about the durability of the post-1945 international system. Dayal suggests that coalitions of smaller and middle powers may play an increasingly important role in sustaining multilateral institutions. Key terms: international law, Security Council veto, multilateralism

Suggested Reading: 

Follow the Chalkboard Politics Podcast: 

This episode of Chalkboard Politics comes to you via the Good Authority podcast feed. Listen, rate, and subscribe to the Good Authority Podcast. The Good Authority podcast is available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Podcast Addict, and wherever you listen to podcasts. You can also follow Chalkboard Politics on Instagram and Bluesky.

Contact the Chalkboard Politics Team: 

In this episode, Paul and Gulnaz sit down with Professor Jeffry Frieden, author of Global Capitalism: Its Fall and Rise in the Twentieth Century, to unpack what tariffs are, how they work, and their role in U.S. policy and abroad. Frieden describes how tariffs are some of the oldest tools of statecraft, tracing their history of domestic impacts through the British Corn Laws and showing how they raise prices for consumers while protecting favored producers. The conversation addresses the Trump administration’s expansive use of tariffs, operating not just as economic policy tools, but as instruments of foreign policy, bargaining, and national security. Overall, this episode asks whether Trump’s tariffs will ultimately decenter the U.S. in the global economy, and what a potential re-ordering could look like.

Episode’s Main Themes: 

Key terms: domestic industry protection, import/export, geoeconomics

Key terms: MFN, multilateralism, “Liberation Day,” international institutions, trade diversion

Key terms: Consumers, producers, free trade, protectionism, trade agreements

Key terms: Global order, great power competition, isolationism, trade wars

Suggested Reading: 

Follow the Chalkboard Politics Podcast: 

This episode of Chalkboard Politics comes to you via the Good Authority podcast feed. Listen, rate, and subscribe to the Good Authority Podcast. The Good Authority podcast is available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Podcast Addict, and wherever you listen to podcasts. You can also follow Chalkboard Politics on Instagram and Bluesky.

Contact the Chalkboard Politics Team: 

If you have any comments or questions about today’s episode, or ideas for future segments, please email us at [email protected].

The second Trump administration has aggressively disrupted climate policy and politics, both domestically and internationally. Trump has prioritized domestic oil and coal interests, gutting  the Biden administration’s main climate policy and withdrawing permits for major wind and solar projects. In recent weeks, he has withdrawn the United States from several major international climate institutions –  and some argue that he has used oil as an explicit motivation for using force in Venezuela.

To discuss what all of this means for the ongoing global effort to combat climate change, I spoke with two experts who have written extensively about energy and climate politics. Jeff D. Colgan is the Richard Holbrooke Professor in the Department of Political Science and the Watson School at Brown University. He is also the founding director of the Climate Solutions Lab. He recently contributed a piece on Venezuela for Good Authority. Federica Genovese is professor of political science and international relations at the University of Oxford and a recent winner of the prestigious Philip Leverhulme Prize. 

Our conversation was based in part on a short open access article that Jeff and Federica wrote for International Organization on “Global Climate Politics after the Return of Trump.” We talked about both the domestic and international implications of the Trump administration’s actions for climate change.

In this episode of Chalkboard Politics, students sit down with Professors Eduardo Moncada, Sarah Daly, and Elizabeth Saunders to unpack how concepts like narco-terrorism, criminal governance, and credible commitment have, and continue to, shape U.S. policy toward Venezuela. Drawing on the legacy of the War on Drugs, the conversation challenges the argument that militarized intervention or leadership removal can dismantle illicit economies. Instead, our guests explore the relevance and role of patronage systems, the “balloon effect,” and the political incentives behind spectacular uses of force, while asking what all of this means for Venezuelan citizens, democracy, and regional sovereignty, and whether the Trump administration can actually get what it wants.

Episode’s Main Themes and Concepts: 

1. Narco-terrorism as a political label

2. Criminal governance vs. terrorism

3. Why military intervention is likely to fail 

References and Suggested Reading: 

References:

Further Reading: 

Follow the Chalkboard Politics Podcast: 

This episode of Chalkboard Politics comes to you via the Good Authority podcast feed. Listen, rate, and subscribe to the Good Authority Podcast. The Good Authority podcast is available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Podcast Addict, and wherever you listen to podcasts. You can also follow Chalkboard Politics on Instagram and Bluesky.

Contact the Chalkboard Politics Team: 

If you have any comments or questions about today’s episode, or ideas for future segments, please email us at [email protected].

How will artificial intelligence reshape global power? And what can past technological revolutions tell us about today’s U.S.-China rivalry? In this episode of Good Authority, I spoke with Jeffrey Ding, assistant professor of political science at George Washington University and a leading scholar at the intersection of technology and international politics.

Ding’s award-winning book, Technology and the Rise of Great Powers, argues that technological leadership depends less on breakthrough inventions and more on a country’s ability to diffuse new technologies widely across its economy and society. Drawing on historical cases from Britain, the United States, Germany, and Japan, he shows how diffusion capacity helps determine which countries translate innovations into lasting geopolitical advantage. 

The book has drawn a lot of attention, including from leading AI companies like Microsoft, and from politicians, including former British prime minister Rishi Sunak. Our conversation explores what this diffusion-centered perspective means for the current race over AI, how China and the United States compare in their technological ecosystems, and what historical analogies can – and cannot – reveal about the future of global politics. And we tackle the big questions about the real constraints facing governments attempting to harness emerging technologies for national power.

Stacie Goddard and Abe Newman explain how cliques are ruling the world

The journal International Organization has just published a new online open access edition with short accessible essays written by prominent scholars about the future of international order. One of the more provocative essays is by Good Authority editor and Wellesley College professor Stacie Goddard together with Georgetown professor Abe Newman. 

In this new article, Goddard and Newman argue that we may be witnessing the emergence of a neo-royalist world order—one that looks less like the liberal, rules-based system many of us grew up studying, and more like a world dominated by powerful patrons, loyal clients, and informal hierarchies and cliques.

We talk about what they mean by “neo-royalism,” how it connects to debates about U.S. power, China’s rise, and the politics of global interdependence. We also discuss some examples of how this new order works, such as the authorization of the sale of large quantities of advanced Nvidia chips to the UAE and Saudi Arabia and other cases where the interests of the cliques appear to prevail over national security interests. We also discuss royal wannabes, like FIFA President Gianni Infantino, how this new order competes with other orders and whether it is likely to survive beyond Donald Trump’s Presidency.

The Trump administration’s freeze on foreign aid puts the lifesaving program PEPFAR at risk, halting the distribution of essential HIV/AIDS medications in over 50 countries. Despite an emergency humanitarian waiver, the executive order dismantling the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has created both confusion and life-and-death consequences. Good Authority Editor-in-Chief Kim Yi Dionne reads her February 2025 article, "PEPFAR has saved 25 million lives. Without it, millions will die."

Barbara Walter spoke with Good Authority a year ago about the war in Gaza, drawing from her New York Times bestselling research on how civil wars almost always fight until the end – unless an outside power steps in to guarantee a peace agreement. Now that a ceasefire is in place, she revisits her initial analysis and how domestic political factors are likely to shape what happens next.

Pundits and scholars were quick to propose reasons for the 2024 presidential election outcome, from the economy to foreign affairs to campaign strategy—but what does the evidence actually say? Good Authority publisher John Sides and political scientist Danny Hayes, both experts on U.S. elections, explore what factors were likely the most decisive. While some questions remain unanswered, they find key points of consensus on what truly shaped the results.