Daniel Pipes is one of the most authoritative scholars on the Middle East and radical Islam of the past half-century. He served in five presidential administrations from 1982 to 2005 (including two presidential appointments) and has taught at Harvard, Pepperdine, the U.S. Naval War College, and the University of Chicago.
The author of 18 books and countless articles, Pipes founded and led the Middle East Forum (MEF) from 1994 through early 2025. The think tank promotes U.S. interests in the Middle East and defends Western values from extremist threats.
In this interview, Pipes delivers crucial insights on a range of topics, from the growing threat of radical leftism, to the counterproductive foreign policy of the current Trump administration. A man dubbed an “anti-Muslim figure” by the Southern Poverty Law Center and an “Orientalist” by the late Edward Said, Pipes has admirably never been afraid of speaking his mind.
Although he is one of the most well-known conservative public intellectuals, Pipes isn’t afraid of criticizing certain aspects of the contemporary American Right. Rather, some of Pipes’ most valuable insights perhaps appear in his criticism of the very movement that his work has deeply influenced.
Richard McDaniel (RM): How do you feel about the popularity (and power) of Islamist, anti-Israel politicians such as Omar Fateh, Zohran Mamdani, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib?
Daniel Pipes (DP): The growing prominence, appeal, and power of these extreme leftists deeply unsettles me. I had thought that the draw of communism had collapsed in the 1990s along with the Soviet Union. These people, along with Xi Jinping, punctured that assumption. Each generation, I fear, must learn the same lessons the hard way.
But is this quartet Islamist? When Obama was president, an argument developed on the Right about the role of his being born a Muslim in shaping his outlook and policies. Some, like Frank Gaffney, saw Islam as a defining characteristic. I disagreed, holding that he was a standard left-wing Democrat who just happened to have started out life as a Muslim. In similar fashion, I contend that Mamdani, Omar, and Tlaib just happen to be a Muslim (I know too little about Fateh to judge him); their outlook and policies are those of extreme American leftists in 2025, regardless of religion. For example, the self-identifying Jewish Bernie Sanders agrees with them on most issues, including Israel.
RM: How dangerous is fundamentalist Islam to American security, especially in cities, right now?
DP: If by security, you mean violence, it is not that dangerous; law enforcement has done a good job. I worry more about lawful Islamism than criminal Islamism. Infiltration of institutions threatens far more than occasional acts of violence – and that infiltration proceeds apace. For a glance of the future, look at the United Kingdom.
Unfortunately, the threat of Islamism has largely disappeared from the American consciousness, due mainly to two developments: ennui after the extreme attention paid to Islamism in the aftermath of 9/11 and the sudden re-emergence of great power threats from Russia and China.
RM: You personally knew Charlie Kirk. What do you think are the political implications of his assassination?
DP: I met him once, in about 2012, when he was just getting started. He impressed me, but I hardly imagined he would go on to achieve so much, so quickly. His assassination further ruptures the fabric of public life in the United States. I am dismayed that Trump exploits this tragedy for short-term political gain.
RM: Please discuss the radicalization of students in American universities.
DP: I place the blame largely on my generation, the one that aimed for revolution around 1970. It failed to overthrow the government, but it succeeded in radicalizing educational institutions, from pre-school up, with the results now clear.
RM: Currently, there exists a split within the MAGA movement on the issue of Israel, in which some members (such as Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and others) vehemently argue against funding Israel’s military operations. How do you feel about this fragmentation of the American Right?
DP: Hostility to Jews on the Right goes back a long way: think Henry Ford, Father Coughlin, Pat Buchanan, and Joseph Sobran. In an age of social media, however, antisemitism has a reach greater than ever. Imagine Fox News had fired Carlson 20 years earlier; he would basically have disappeared. As is, he is liberated to say whatever he wants to an audience of millions.
Note that anti-Zionism and antisemitism have different origins and implications: anti-Zionism concerns Israel’s actions, antisemitism focuses on supposed Jewish racial characteristics. Leftists are overwhelmingly anti-Zionists. The MAGA trio you mention are old-fashioned racial antisemites.
RM: In an article published earlier this year, you argued that promiscuously threatening “economic damage will undercut America’s position in the world.” Recently, India’s Narendra Modi seemed to turn toward China’s Xi Jinping, partly as a result of Trump’s tariffs. You’ve also criticized Trump’s handling of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Considering Trump’s foreign policy decisions, how worried are you about the future of U.S. dominance and diplomacy on the world stage?
DP: Plenty worried. Trump wants to order everyone and have them obey – from Republicans to military brass, from judges to municipalities. This same drive extends internationally; it’s all about him, his ego, his demands. He whimsically makes nice with enemies and alienates allies, then abruptly reverses course. It’s as though the United States were ruled by a mad king, one who roughly one-third of the population applauds his every eccentric move as four-dimensional chess.
The long-term implications of this unique brand of foreign policy depend on that one-third. Do they have enough of “winning” and wish to return to normal relations with the outside world? Or do they enjoy the ride and want more of it from a successor?
RM: You’ve previously criticized the U.S. government for having political relations with Islamist groups such as Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, Algeria’s FIS, and Gaza’s Hamas. What do you think of the Trump administration’s direct negotiations with Hamas?
DP: Going to an Israeli far-leftist, Gershon Baskin, to oversee U.S. negotiations with Hamas is as shocking as it is immoral and self-defeating.
RM: More broadly, how do you assess the second Trump administration’s involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
DP: Israel stands out as the one U.S. ally that has not (yet) felt the sting of Trump’s domineering whimsy, so the government has been able to pursue its preferred policies. That could change in an instant, however.
RM: You’ve previously outlined six reasons against Israel annexing the West Bank. Recently, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu signed an agreement to fulfill the E1 settlement plan, which would bisect the West Bank and separate the territory from East Jerusalem. Furthermore, Israeli Minister of Finance Bezalel Smotrich celebrated the coming “application of sovereignty throughout Judea and Samaria” (a biblical name used to describe the West Bank). What do you think the consequences will be of these actions?
DP: This terrible idea – Israeli annexation of part or all of the West Bank – gathered steam in the late summer until the word came from the United Arab Emirates that doing so would cause it to abort the Abraham Accords, at which time the idea promptly collapsed. I expect annexation will not happen because the costs hugely outweigh the benefits for Israel.
RM: Do you believe that another intifada is imminent?
DP: In Gaza, one already exists in the sense that residents there attack Hamas. In the West Bank, tensions are very high against Israelis so, yes, a new round of violence there is entirely possible.
RM: What are Israel’s major successes and failures during its current war in Gaza?
DP: Israel had impressive tactical successes in Gaza along with an abysmal strategic failure. The latter has two main sources: a complete misunderstanding of Hamas and pursuing incompatible priorities, being hostage return and Hamas destruction. Trying to reach contradictory goals, not surprisingly, ends up achieving neither.
Note the stark contrast between Israel’s Twelve-Day War versus Iran, a regional power, and its nearly two-year war against Hamas, a gang of ideological hoodlums. The one was brilliant and decisive with minimal casualties. The other is incompetent and indecisive, with substantial casualties.
RM: Should Israel continue fighting in Gaza?
DP: No, it should quit this minute. However important destroying Hamas is, the erosion of Israel’s standing in the world counts more and needs immediate staunching. To take just one example: never before has the leader of a democracy, in this case Spain, accused a fellow democracy of genocide. Further, aggressive Israeli actions in Gaza inflict great damage on diaspora Jewry, which becomes the target for those who want to do Israel harm but cannot reach it.
RM: In your recent book, Israel Victory: How Zionists Win Acceptance and Palestinians Get Liberated, you convincingly argue that Israel must adopt a victory mentality and obliterate the deeply entrenched Palestinian hope to destroy Israel. Importantly, you further argue that “Israel Victory need not be exclusively or even primarily a military victory.” If force isn’t the dominant method to extinguish Palestinian rejectionism, what should Israel do to attain victory?
DP: Thank you for your kind words. In the book I call for “minimal violence, maximal messaging” and deem this the key to Israel Victory. Violence leads to deaths, which leads to martyrs and deeper hostility. Messaging can convince Palestinians that the war is over and they lost. Unfortunately, Israel has followed the exactly opposite approach since Oct. 7 and is paying the consequences.
Richard McDaniel is a political science student at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities.
(Illustration of Daniel Pipes by Grok.)