Avril Haines, the former director of national intelligence, has warned that a third world war is a “plausible scenario” if the international community fails to develop structures capable of managing escalating global conflicts. Speaking to the Financial Times, Haines emphasized that the current geopolitical landscape is defined by the collapse of the rules-based order, rising state violence, weakening institutions, and domestic political dysfunction that empowers strongmen.
Haines, now leading the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, noted that the challenge is compounded by the difficulty of managing weapons of mass destruction. She argued that the foundational premise of her organization—that the era of major power conflict had ended—was proven wrong by two world wars, and history could repeat itself without effective diplomatic frameworks.
The interview took place at the British Library in London, where Haines reflected on her unconventional path from running a bookstore café in Baltimore to becoming President Joe Biden’s top intelligence adviser. She described a life shaped by personal tragedy, including raising herself after her mother’s death from tuberculosis and learning judo to gain a sense of control.
When asked about the Biden administration’s record, Haines defended the former president’s judgment during his final months in office, stating that Biden remained present and capable despite occasional slip-ups with names. She also addressed criticisms regarding the administration’s response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Israel’s campaign in Gaza.
Regarding Ukraine, Haines maintained that the strategy of bolstering Kyiv’s military capacity while sanctioning Russia was sound, arguing that economic pressure would eventually force Putin to negotiate. She dismissed fears of a direct Russian attack on NATO soil as “unlikely,” suggesting that Donald Trump’s presence in the White House would actually galvanize the alliance rather than invite aggression.
On Gaza, Haines was more circumspect about Biden’s reluctance to publicly rebuke Israel but suggested that Trump’s unpredictability could offer different leverage. However, she was sharply critical of Trump’s decision-making process, particularly regarding the recent conflict with Iran. She characterized the war as a “strategic mistake” driven by Trump’s reliance on his own instincts over expert advice.
“He trusts his gut, in many respects, far more than he trusts the expertise he’s being given,” Haines said. She lamented that clear warnings from the national security community failed to reach the president in a way that could alter course.
Haines expressed nostalgia for the diplomacy that produced the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, which she helped craft before the US withdrew during Trump’s first term. She argued that the current chaos serves as a stark reminder of why multilateral negotiations remain essential.
Looking ahead, Haines predicted that Trump’s disruption of traditional US foreign policy would persist regardless of future election outcomes. Her best-case vision involves a “network approach” where regions collaborate both internally and externally, though she acknowledged the risk of such systems devolving into spheres of influence dominated by regional bullies. The trajectory of this new era will largely depend on how the rivalry between the US and China is managed.
The shift from bookstore owner to top intelligence official is a wild background. Glad she’s at Carnegie now.
Is it just me, or does everyone keep assuming leaders act rationally? History suggests otherwise quite often.
Interesting she thinks Trump galvanizes NATO. I find that argument hard to swallow given his recent rhetoric about the alliance.
Haines is right about the nuclear risk. Our current diplomatic channels are too brittle for this level of tension.
Plausible doesn’t mean inevitable. If we rebuild the institutions, the nightmare scenario stays just that—a scenario on paper.