👉 Pitch in on Patreon and fuel the future of free-thinking conversations. https://www.patreon.com/parallaxviews

Also visit our returning sponsor Mike Swanson's Wall Street Window for the best financial and trading newsletter around:

On this edition of Parallax Views, I’m joined by historian and political analyst Michael F. Duggan for a wide-ranging discussion on realism in international relations, the legacy of George Kennan, and the emerging multipolar world order.

We begin with a deep dive into the thought of Cold War strategist George Kennan. Duggan explains what “realism” actually means in the context of foreign policy and why Kennan’s ideas are frequently misunderstood or oversimplified. We discuss Kennan’s skepticism toward ideological crusades in foreign policy, his emphasis on historical and cultural understanding in diplomacy, and the ways in which his outlook reflected a certain elitism that remains controversial today. At the same time, Duggan argues that Kennan remains an indispensable thinker for understanding the limits of power and the dangers of moralistic or utopian approaches to global politics.

From there, the conversation turns to Duggan’s argument that the era of American global primacy is drawing to a close. Drawing on his article “Realism and Regionalism: The United States in a Multipolar World,” Duggan outlines his case for a shift toward what he calls moderate realism and a strategic reorientation in which the United States consolidates its role as a regional power centered on North America rather than attempting to maintain global hegemony.

We also discuss Duggan’s critique of the ideological consensus that has dominated U.S. foreign policy since the end of the Cold War, including both neoconservative and liberal interventionist approaches, and why he believes they have contributed to imperial overstretch.

In the latter portion of the conversation, we examine Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s recent speech at Davos calling for a new role for “middle powers” in global politics. Duggan analyzes Carney’s proposal for greater strategic autonomy among mid-sized nations and explores whether coalitions of middle powers could realistically balance the influence of larger states in an increasingly multipolar system.

All that and more in this conversation about realism, strategy, and the shifting architecture of global power.

👉 Pitch in on Patreon and fuel the future of free-thinking conversations. https://www.patreon.com/parallaxviews

Also visit our returning sponsor Mike Swanson's Wall Street Window for the best financial and trading newsletter around:

On this edition of Parallax Views, returning guest Jon Hoffman, a research fellow in defense and foreign policy at the Cato Institute specializing in U.S. Middle East policy and political Islam, joins us to discuss the Trump administration’s risky aerial campaign against Iran—dubbed Operation Epic Fury—and the troubling lack of clarity surrounding the war’s objectives.

In our conversation, Jon and I examine what appears to be a startling degree of thoughtlessness behind this preemptive war. While the U.S. has already killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Islamic Republic itself remains intact, and the broader strategic goalposts seem to shift by the day. Pete Hegseth, the Trump administration’s Pentagon chief, insists this is not a regime-change war, while Donald Trump simultaneously signals that he intends to play a role in determining Iran’s future leadership. The result: mixed signals, strategic ambiguity, and no clear exit strategy or endgame.

At one point in the discussion Jon remarks, “We’ve seen this movie before.” The line captures a central theme of our conversation: the sense that the United States is once again embarking on a war whose consequences are poorly understood and whose goals are constantly shifting. From the quagmire of the Vietnam War to the long and costly interventions in the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan, and the destabilizing aftermath of the 2011 NATO intervention in Libya, recent history offers numerous examples of military campaigns launched with confidence but ending in chaos, instability, or strategic failure.

Jon warns that nobody really knows what happens next—and he suspects the administration doesn’t either.

We discuss the many potential consequences of this conflict: a massive refugee crisis, further polarization within the United States, terrorist blowback and radicalization, rising gas prices, and broader regional instability. We also examine how the war was launched without congressional approval and why United States Congress has thus far failed to meaningfully challenge the executive branch’s decision to initiate hostilities.

Along the way we explore troubling precedents already emerging in the prosecution of the war—including the destruction of an Iranian ship in international waters—and how the preemptive nature of the campaign risks reinforcing global perceptions of the United States as a rogue state. We also discuss the role of the Israel lobby, a fossilized foreign policy establishment still obsessed with maintaining U.S. primacy, and the unusual coalition—ranging from libertarians and leftists to Resistance liberals neoconservatives like Bill Kristol—that has emerged in opposition to Trump’s conduct of the war.

Other topics include comparisons between Israel’s war in Gaza and Operation Epic Fury, the shaky legal and moral foundations of the conflict (including Karoline Leavitt’s vibes-based claim that “President Trump felt there was an imminent threat”), the absence of a clear casus belli, and the historical lesson that bombing populations rarely liberates them from authoritarian regimes.

The bottom line? A massive geopolitical gamble has been taken—and no one knows where it leads next.

👉 Pitch in on Patreon and fuel the future of free-thinking conversations. https://www.patreon.com/parallaxviews

Also visit our returning sponsor Mike Swanson's Wall Street Window for the best financial and trading newsletter around:

On this edition of Parallax Views, returning for his monthly visit, journalist and geopolitical analyst James M. Dorsey of The Turbulent World joins us to unpack what the escalating Iran war means—and what it reveals about Donald Trump’s muscular foreign policy doctrine.

At the heart of our conversation is a striking reality: Tehran may be the first major state actor to flatly refuse Trump’s pressure tactics. As Dorsey explains, Trump has repeatedly relied on coercive threats and brinkmanship to extract varying degrees of compliance from adversaries and allies alike. Iran, however, has effectively said “no.” Whether one supports or opposes the Islamic Republic, Dorsey argues this moment is geopolitically significant because it directly tests the credibility of Trump’s “might-is-right” approach.

Drawing on his latest analysis, Dorsey contends that Iran gambled Washington would prefer a limited strike rather than risk a prolonged regional conflict—a bet that may have been a miscalculation but still represents an unprecedented challenge to Trump’s playbook. Even the killing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, he cautions, does not automatically translate into regime collapse or strategic victory.

We also dig into the growing debate over who bears responsibility for the war. Responding to claims amplified in some reporting that Gulf states pushed events toward conflict, Dorsey urges listeners to treat the “blame the Gulf” narrative with a heavy grain of salt. While Gulf monarchies remain deeply wary of Iran’s missile program and regional network of allies, he emphasizes that many of them have strong incentives to avoid a wider war that could leave their own territory and energy infrastructure exposed.

The conversation explores the limits of regime change by airpower and what this war means to Washington, Tehran, and Israel. Ultimately, Dorsey suggests the real benchmark may be far narrower than public rhetoric: regime survival for Iran versus clearly defined—and achievable—objectives for the United States.

👉 Pitch in on Patreon and fuel the future of free-thinking conversations. https://www.patreon.com/parallaxviews

Also visit our returning sponsor Mike Swanson's Wall Street Window for the best financial and trading newsletter around:

On this edition of Parallax Views, returning guest Ori Goldberg—Israeli dissident, former academic, and Middle East analyst—joins the program to discuss the rapidly escalating U.S.–Israel war on Iran and why he believes the conflict was both avoidable and dangerous. He gives a "View from Israel" on the events we see unraveling.

From his vantage point inside Israel, Goldberg characterizes the current military campaign as a war of choice and an illegal war of aggression. He argues that despite official justifications framed around security concerns and Iranian “liberation,” the underlying motivations of both Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu are more complex—and potentially at odds.

A key focus of the conversation is Goldberg’s provocative claim that Trump and Netanyahu are not as aligned as commonly portrayed. While public optics suggest tight coordination, Goldberg contends that personal ambition, ego, and strategic calculation may be creating quiet fissures between Washington and Jerusalem. He suggests Trump has “succumbed to an urge to gamble” on Iran in pursuit of historical legacy, even as officials like Pete Hegseth publicly insist the conflict is not aimed at regime change—something Goldberg believes Netanyahu may view differently.

The discussion also explores how the war is being perceived within Israel itself. Goldberg argues that many Israelis are operating from a distinct internal logic that blends genuine security fears with a belief that military action could help “free” Iranians. This, he says, reflects deeper ideological currents within Israeli society, including what he describes as forms of Jewish exceptionalism that shape public opinion.

Beyond geopolitics, the conversation tackles sensitive but crucial distinctions between American Jewish and Israeli perspectives on Israel, emphasizing how identity, diaspora experience, and political culture diverge in important ways. Goldberg stresses that criticism of state ideology must be carefully distinguished from antisemitism, and the episode examines how debates over exceptionalism, chauvinism, and ethnonationalism play out across different communities.

All that and much more on this edition of Parallax Views.

👉 Pitch in on Patreon and fuel the future of free-thinking conversations. https://www.patreon.com/parallaxviews

Also visit our returning sponsor Mike Swanson's Wall Street Window for the best financial and trading newsletter around:

On this edition of Parallax Views, returning guest Richard Silverstein of the Tikun Olam blog joins us to discuss his latest article, “Iran: Trump’s War of Annihilation.” Silverstein argues that Donald Trump has embarked on a dangerously escalatory military campaign against Iran, undertaken in close coordination with Benjamin Netanyahu, that risks massive civilian casualties, regional destabilization, and long-term blowback.

In this conversation, Silverstein contends that the strategy of decapitating Iranian leadership—including the reported killing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei—rests on flawed assumptions drawn from past U.S. interventions in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. Rather than producing regime collapse and democratic transition, he warns, such actions historically create power vacuums, fuel insurgencies, and entrench nationalist resistance.

The discussion turns to domestic politics in both the United States and Israel, where Silverstein suggests the war may function as a political distraction for embattled leaders facing declining approval ratings and mounting controversies. He cites polling data indicating significant American opposition to war with Iran and explores what he sees as shifting public opinion in the U.S.—particularly among younger Americans—regarding Israel and Palestine.

We'll also discuss what this means long-term for the U.S./Israel as well as Iran and the region as a whole, whether the Islamic Republic can survive this, and even delve into what this means for the Gulf state monarchies. Richard also discusses some of his recent articles on issues like the Israeli use of U.S. thermobaric weapons that are said to "vaporize" targets.

REPLAY OF AN EPISODE OF PARALLAX VIEWS FROM EARLIER THIS MONTH DUE TO A FAMILY CRISIS; PARALLAX VIEWS WILL BE BACK TO REGULAR SCHEDULE NEXT WEEK. MY APOLOGIES

👉 Pitch in on Patreon and fuel the future of free-thinking conversations. https://www.patreon.com/parallaxviews

Also visit our returning sponsor Mike Swanson's Wall Street Window for the best financial and trading newsletter around:

On this edition of Parallax Views, returning guest James M. Dorsey, independent journalist and scholar at The Turbulent World Substack, breaks down the latest developments shaping the Middle East. We start with the high-stakes U.S.-Iran talks, where Dorsey explains the deep mistrust between Washington and Tehran, the obstacles to a deal, and why, despite tensions, he doubts Trump seeks a full-scale war. We explore what military action against Iran could mean for the Gulf States, Turkey, and the Caucasus, and the broader question of regional stability.

Next, we analyze Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Washington, D.C., his fraught relationship with Trump, and what’s at stake politically for Israel as elections approach. Dorsey explains what Netanyahu likely seeks from the former president on Iran and why mutual distrust may be defining their interactions.

In the latter half, we dive into the rising rivalry between Saudi Arabia and the UAE, examining shifts in Saudi regional strategy, the UAE’s backing of militias and separatists, and the potential dangers this poses across North Africa, especially in Sudan. We also discuss the UAE’s growing closeness with Israel, Qatar’s positioning in the Saudi-UAE rivalry, and what these dynamics reveal about the future of Middle East geopolitics.

All that and more on this edition of Parallax Views.

👉 Pitch in on Patreon and fuel the future of free-thinking conversations. https://www.patreon.com/parallaxviews

Also visit our returning sponsor Mike Swanson's Wall Street Window for the best financial and trading newsletter around:

On this edition of Parallax Views, host J.G. Michael speaks with international relations expert Dr. Arta Moeini of the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy about the United States being on the brink of war with Iran. Moeini explains how we arrived at this dangerous moment and why escalating confrontation would be bad news for the U.S., Iran, Donald Trump’s presidency, and even Israel in the long run.

The conversation examines how hardliners in both Washington and Tehran feed off one another, creating a volatile cycle of escalation. Moeini warns that any U.S. strike could trigger a powerful “rally around the flag” effect inside Iran that would marginalize moderates who oppose war. The discussion also explores Trump’s instincts on Iran, how his approach differs from traditional neoconservative thinking, and why sustained pressure campaigns can convince targeted states that they face an existential threat requiring a do-or-die response.

The picture that emerges is stark: a grim geopolitical moment where miscalculation could have far-reaching consequences.

👉 Pitch in on Patreon and fuel the future of free-thinking conversations. https://www.patreon.com/parallaxviews

Also visit our returning sponsor Mike Swanson's Wall Street Window for the best financial and trading newsletter around:

On this edition of Parallax Views, J.G. Michael speaks with Reason journalist Matthew Petti about his reporting on Jeffrey Epstein, the Epstein network, and what newly surfaced emails reveal about Epstein’s attempts to enter the surveillance and security technology world in the final years of his life. Drawing from Petti’s article “Inside Jeffrey Epstein’s Spy Industry Connections,” the conversation examines Epstein’s ties to figures such as former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, connections to Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg, and the broader intersection of New York finance, global business elites, and intelligence-adjacent technology.

The discussion explores why the Epstein files are unlikely to contain a single “smoking gun,” instead reflecting networks built on influence, ambiguity, and deniability that leave behind oblique references rather than clear paper trails. Petti also addresses the challenges of reporting on Epstein in an environment shaped by misinformation and why dismissing the entire Epstein story as moral panic — as some commentators have done — risks overlooking the real lessons about power, access, and elite networks revealed by the case.

This episode focuses on separating reporting from speculation while examining what the Epstein story can still teach us about wealth, influence, surveillance technology, and the global connections that defined Epstein’s orbit.

👉 Pitch in on Patreon and fuel the future of free-thinking conversations. https://www.patreon.com/parallaxviews

Also visit our returning sponsor Mike Swanson's Wall Street Window for the best financial and trading newsletter around:

On this edition of Parallax Views, returning guest James M. Dorsey, independent journalist and scholar at The Turbulent World Substack, breaks down the latest developments shaping the Middle East. We start with the high-stakes U.S.-Iran talks, where Dorsey explains the deep mistrust between Washington and Tehran, the obstacles to a deal, and why, despite tensions, he doubts Trump seeks a full-scale war. We explore what military action against Iran could mean for the Gulf States, Turkey, and the Caucasus, and the broader question of regional stability.

Next, we analyze Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Washington, D.C., his fraught relationship with Trump, and what’s at stake politically for Israel as elections approach. Dorsey explains what Netanyahu likely seeks from the former president on Iran and why mutual distrust may be defining their interactions.

In the latter half, we dive into the rising rivalry between Saudi Arabia and the UAE, examining shifts in Saudi regional strategy, the UAE’s backing of militias and separatists, and the potential dangers this poses across North Africa, especially in Sudan. We also discuss the UAE’s growing closeness with Israel, Qatar’s positioning in the Saudi-UAE rivalry, and what these dynamics reveal about the future of Middle East geopolitics.

All that and more on this edition of Parallax Views.

👉 Pitch in on Patreon and fuel the future of free-thinking conversations. https://www.patreon.com/parallaxviews

Also visit our returning sponsor Mike Swanson's Wall Street Window for the best financial and trading newsletter around:

On this edition of Parallax Views, J.G. Michael speaks with Jordan Liz — Associate Professor of Philosophy at San José State University and a contributor to Common Dreams — about ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), the Department of Homeland Security, and why Liz argues that the “Abolish ICE” movement represents not a radical departure but a necessary response to the post-9/11 transformation of American governance.

Liz contends that ICE is not a longstanding institution but a product of the Bush administration’s Global War on Terror, created alongside DHS in an atmosphere shaped by fear, threat inflation, and national security panic. Rather than emerging as a neutral immigration enforcement body, Liz argues that ICE was embedded from the beginning within a broader security framework that treated immigration through the lens of counterterrorism — effectively recasting migrants as potential internal threats. This, he claims, helped fuel the militarization of policing and laid the groundwork for an expansive surveillance apparatus whose implications extend far beyond immigration policy.

Drawing on arguments developed in his Common Dreams writing, Liz explains why he believes ICE cannot be meaningfully reformed. In essays such as “Abolish ICE — and DHS Too,” he argues that the very concept of “homeland security” fused immigration enforcement with civilizational and cultural anxieties about national identity, encouraging policies that frame immigrants as existential dangers to the nation’s “way of life.” In his view, this logic incentivizes perpetual expansion of enforcement powers, increased funding, and the normalization of aggressive tactics justified by ever-inflated threats.

The conversation also explores Liz’s critique of DHS as an institution born from the War on Terror’s security paradigm. According to Liz, DHS consolidated vast surveillance and enforcement powers under a single umbrella, contributing to what he sees as the growth of a domestic security state capable of undermining civil liberties. His writing frequently warns that technologies such as biometric identification, data integration, and algorithmic policing expand ICE’s reach not only over undocumented migrants but over citizens as well, disproportionately affecting people of color and reshaping the boundaries of belonging in American political life.

Liz connects these concerns to his broader philosophical work on race and the “politics of belonging,” arguing that immigration enforcement reflects deeper questions about who is recognized as fully American and who remains perpetually suspect. The discussion examines how narratives of cultural threat and national decline shape immigration debates, and how these narratives intersect with policy decisions, surveillance practices, and enforcement priorities.

In addition, the episode addresses controversies surrounding ICE since its early years, the role of protest and public witnessing in challenging state power, and the human consequences of immigration enforcement, including the killings of Alex Pretti and Rene Good. Ultimately, the conversation grapples with a larger question: whether the post-9/11 security architecture has pushed the United States toward what critics describe as “Police State USA,” and what alternatives might exist for immigration policy outside the framework of national security.