Category: Academic Reportage

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Dan Salas, Director of the Sustainable Landscapes Program, University of Illinois Chicago

There’s a well-worn debate in U.S. politics that goes something like this: Would you rather have abundant and affordable energy or a clean, healthy planet where wildlife can flourish?

It sounds like an either/or choice, but it doesn’t have to be.

Many corporate leaders, including those I’ve worked with, know that wildlife conservation can also be good business.

That’s worth remembering as the Trump administration prepares to convene, for the first time in over 30 years, a special committee known as the “God Squad” that has the power to override one of the nation’s most important environmental protection laws: the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

What is the God Squad?

The Endangered Species Act requires that federal agencies avoid any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species listed under the act. That includes federal permits for development, mining, drilling or logging.

To comply with the law, companies can be required to take actions to avoid harming protected species. Those steps can be frustrating when they add delays and costs to already costly development projects.

Early in the law’s history, Congress amended it to include an exemption. It authorized the creation of the Endangered Species Act Committee, made up of federal agency leaders, which could grant exemptions to this prohibition on federal actions considered likely to risk extinction of a listed species.

That committee – the God Squad – includes seven members, and a vote may succeed only if five or more committee members agree. The six permanent members are the secretaries of the interior, agriculture and Army; the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, and the administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The seventh member of the committee is a designated individual from the affected state or states.

The committee’s rare actions in the past

Meetings of the God Squad are so rare that the committee has gathered only three times in its existence.

The committee’s authority is limited to very uncommon circumstances in which there are no “reasonable and prudent alternatives” that would avoid jeopardizing a listed species or impair a species’ critical habitat.

The committee’s first and most notable case was in 1979. It involved the snail darter, a tiny, then-endangered fish whose habitat would have been harmed by the proposed Tellico Dam in Tennessee. Around the same time, the committee also met to review an exemption application related to water management at the Grayrocks Dam in Wyoming and its effects on endangered whooping cranes downstream in Nebraska.

The third meeting of the committee was in the 1990s, when it considered exempting from the Endangered Species Act multiple timber sales in Oregon and Washington that would likely jeopardize the northern spotted owl.

For Tellico Dam, the committee denied the exception, but Congress later cleared the way for the dam to be completed. For Grayrocks Dam, the committee granted an exemption but required the Missouri Basin Power Project to preserve habitat and manage water to reduce harm to the cranes.

In the case of the northern spotted owl, exemptions were initially granted for timber sales in Oregon but later withdrawn due to legal challenges and procedural violations. No such exemptions were authorized in Washington state.

Why is it convening now?

The official notice says the meeting is “regarding an exemption under the Endangered Species Act” with respect to oil and gas activities.

In a court document responding to a lawsuit filed over the meeting by the environmental group Center for Biological Diversity, the government wrote that the March 31 meeting was called because the “Secretary of War found it necessary for reasons of national security to exempt from the ESA’s requirements all Gulf of America oil and gas exploration and development activities” associated with the Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Program.

That likely refers to a May 2025 biological opinion by NOAA Fisheries. That opinion found that oil industry operations, particularly vessels striking wildlife, could jeopardize the Rice’s whale and other rare species.

The committee could be considering exemptions to the requirements of that biological opinion, which is being challenged by both conservation groups that want more protections and by industries that consider it too restrictive.

Convening the committee also follows the mandate of President Donald Trump’s January 2025 executive order declaring a “national energy emergency.” That executive order directs the Endangered Species Act Committee to “identify obstacles to domestic energy infrastructure specifically deriving from implementation of the ESA.”

Changing the paradigm

While the common rhetoric often makes it seem like energy and environmental goals are at odds, examples among leading energy and transportation companies have shown otherwise.

At the University of Illinois Chicago’s Energy Resources Center, my colleagues and I find ways conservationists and energy companies can work together, such as through networks like the Rights-of-Way as Habitat Working Group, which focuses on habitat conservation in working landscapes.

Balancing ecological and economic interests is not just a “nice idea” – it’s shown to be good business.

Planning new projects in ways that avoid harm to wildlife and include proactive conservation plans can avoid lawsuits, permit delays, reputational risks and increased costs.

Companies we work with in the energy and infrastructure sectors are finding that integrating ecological principles into projects and conservation practices into operations avoids other business interruptions as well.

For example, maintaining green spaces as wildlife habitat can buffer infrastructure from severe weather, erosion or flooding. Restoring or improving habitats can also reduce legal risks from environmental damage.

Programs like the University of Illinois Chicago’s nationwide agreements for monarch butterflies and bumblebees help companies reduce regulatory delays and help conserve endangered and declining species at the same time.

For businesses, this can create positive connections with their employees and the communities where they operate. This, in turn, improves their reputations, which can help reduce project delays and encourage investment.

What happens when the Endangered Species Act Committee convenes may influence more than the future of a few species. It could affect broader actions concerning environmental stewardship, corporate responsibility and federal oversight.

If the committee focuses solely on removing protections for wildlife, it risks eroding public trust and could hinder efforts to foster conservation in the energy industry. If instead the committee considers how to increase cooperation among industry, conservation groups and federal agencies, it could have a lasting positive outcome.

Dan Salas does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Trump’s ‘God Squad’ pits energy vs. endangered species, but it’s a false choice – protecting wildlife can be good for business – https://theconversation.com/trumps-god-squad-pits-energy-vs-endangered-species-but-its-a-false-choice-protecting-wildlife-can-be-good-for-business-279433

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Kyle B. Enfield, Associate Professor of Medicine, University of Virginia

A variant of COVID-19 called BA.3.2, which has circulated under the radar since late 2024, is now spreading quickly across the United States.

As a pulmonary and critical care doctor, I see many patients who are at high risk for severe COVID-19 due to chronic lung disease, as well as patients living with long COVID. All of them ask me how worried they should be about new variants of the virus.

There’s no sign so far that BA.3.2, nicknamed Cicada, is any more dangerous or causes more severe disease than the variants that were circulating in the winter of 2025-26. But because it’s significantly different from them, the current COVID-19 vaccine may not be as effective against it.

Where did the BA.3.2 variant come from?

BA.3.2 is descended from the omicron variant, which emerged in late 2021.

Compared to the current predominant strains of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, BA.3.2 carries 70 to 75 genetic changes in its spike protein, the part of the virus that helps it get into cells. The spike protein is also the part of the virus that vaccines rely on to coax people’s immune systems into recognizing the virus.

Researchers first identified BA.3.2 in November 2024 in Africa. It started its global trek in 2025 and had made it to 23 countries as of February 2026.

The first U.S. case was detected in a traveler coming into the U.S. in June 2025. Since then, it has been detected in patients and the wastewater systems of 29 states.

Wastewater monitoring is one of the best early methods of detecting strain shift, though the number of states submitting wastewater data to the CDC has declined since around 2022, after the height of the pandemic.

What makes BA.3.2 variant different?

All viruses change over time – and the type of virus that causes COVID-19 does so especially quickly. Every time the virus copies itself inside a cell, its DNA mutates. Most of these changes disappear, but occasionally one gives the virus an advantage over other variants, allowing that version to spread.

These changes make it harder for the immune system to recognize the virus.

Think of it like showing up to your 25th high school reunion and seeing people who have put on weight, dyed their hair and started wearing tinted contacts. You will recognize them, but it might take longer. Had you seen them every month or so for those 25 years, you would recognize them right away.

Similarly, changes to a virus’ DNA also affect how well vaccines work. Vaccines prime people’s immune systems by reminding them of what the virus looks like. Scientists design vaccines based on the most common versions of a virus circulating at a given time.

Current COVID-19 vaccines are made to protect against strains from the JN.1 lineage of the virus, which have been the most common strains in the U.S. since January 2024. However, BA.3.2 is the new kid in the block − it’s almost a complete stranger to residents of the U.S. It is different enough from the JN.1 strains that the vaccine may not do as good a job of priming the immune system against it, allowing it to evade detection.

This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t get a vaccine – a large body of evidence shows that they reduce hospitalizations and deaths from COVID-19. But a poorly matched vaccine simply won’t recognize the new variant as quickly, which means it takes longer for the immune system to mount its defense.

What dangers does the BA.3.2 variant pose?

Because people’s immune systems aren’t as good at detecting BA.3.2, this variant may infect people more widely, potentially leading to a spike in COVID-19 cases.

But even though BA.3.2 is spreading quickly, there’s no indication that it’s any more dangerous or that it causes more severe disease than the COVID-19 variants that have circulated widely over the past few years.

However, especially given that current vaccines may not be as effective against it, protection remains important. That’s particularly true for people with chronic health conditions, who can experience severe illness from a COVID-19 infection.

And while the number of people who develop long COVID has declined as the virus has changed since early in the pandemic, it still occurs in about 3 in 100 cases.

Protecting yourself and your community

People can take these commonsense steps to avoid getting or spreading COVID-19:

• First, wash your hands after using the bathroom, before preparing food or eating, and after being in contact with a sick person. Hand-washing decreases the chance of a respiratory infection by 16% to 21%.

• Second, if you feel unwell, stay home – not just to take care of yourself, but to prevent spreading disease. You may be hesitant to miss work or school, but the person sitting next to you might have a condition, such as cancer or chronic lung disease, that puts them at risk for severe infection, or they might live with someone who does.

• Third, get outside. Reducing your time in crowded environments reduces your chance of exposure.

• Finally, if you have concerns about your risk of developing a severe infection due to your own health conditions, talk to a trusted clinician who can offer advice that’s specific to your circumstances.

Kyle B. Enfield does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. COVID-19 variant BA.3.2 is spreading quickly across US – a doctor explains what you need to know – https://theconversation.com/covid-19-variant-ba-3-2-is-spreading-quickly-across-us-a-doctor-explains-what-you-need-to-know-279447

Source: The Conversation – USA – By John Shattuck, Professor of Practice in Diplomacy, Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy, Tufts University

On Feb. 24, The Conversation hosted a webinar titled, “What Americans can learn from other nonviolent civil activism movements.”

Executive editor and general manager Beth Daley interviewed John Shattuck, professor of practice at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, and Oliver Kaplan, associate professor at Josef Korbel School of Global and Public Affairs at the University of Denver and a visiting scholar at Stanford University.

Shattuck is the former president of Central European University in Hungary, where he defended academic freedom against a rising authoritarian government. Kaplan is the author of “Resisting War: How Communities Protect Themselves.” This interview has been condensed and edited for print.

Beth Daley: What is an authoritarian regime, and what are their characteristics?

John Shattuck: The authoritarian, often referred to as a “king,” is the ideal role from the point of view of the king, but certainly not from the point of view of the people. Authoritarian characteristics include centralized unlimited power, the opposite of democracy; no accountability and no rule of law; no independent courts; no checks and balances on how the king operates; rule by fear and coercion, and when necessary, in order to carry out the king’s orders, rule by by force. There are no individual rights or civil liberties except those the king decides to allow those who are loyal to him to have, at least until he decides to take them away.

That’s a nutshell informal description of an authoritarian regime. A special threat today is that an authoritarian can emerge from a democratic election, and, indeed, a democratic election can be used to turn a weak democracy into an authoritarian regime. But when this happens, it opens the door to challenge the authoritarian in a subsequent election if civic activism can defend the electoral process by which the authoritarian was elected.

BD: What are we seeing and not seeing in the U.S. that other countries have gone through in terms of authoritarian government?

Oliver Kaplan: I think we are heading toward an autocracy, if not there already. In their 2026 report, the Varieties of Democracy Project writes that the U.S. is no longer a liberal democracy and is moving into “competitive authoritarianism,” marked by executive overreach and erosion of judicial and legislative checks. The report notes that U.S. democracy is being dismantled at a speed that is “unprecedented in modern history.”

We are seeing shifts in terms of concentration of power to the executive branch and a disregard of the rule of law, things like ignoring court orders and difficulty with holding the executive branch accountable. We are also seeing the militarization of law enforcement, monitoring of U.S. citizens, and what some refer to as the dual state – that the state is working for some people while causing more challenges for or oppressing other people.

One of the things we’re not seeing at full force yet is a complete shutdown of civic space. We’re able to hold this kind of conversation, and people are still able to dialogue and go out on the street. There are some efforts at curtailing free speech, and I think there’s some self-censorship possibly happening. But there’s still this open space and a powerful mass movement growing in this country.

BD: John, you were on the front lines, particularly in Hungary as the head of Central European University. What did you see there that has parallels today to the U.S.?

JS: There’s certainly a parallel between Hungary and the U.S., even though the countries are very different in size, history and background. What I saw in Hungary when I became president of Central European University in 2009 was a weak, new democracy that was only established in 1990 after 70 years of fascism and communism.

I was in Hungary from 2009 to 2016 and, despite the differences, I could begin to see some parallels. Many people had grievances in Hungary about how their economy was operating, particularly after the global financial crisis that affected Hungary more than any other Eastern European country. Then there was an urban-rural divide, the urban elite versus the rural majority in the country.

Along came a cynical populist-nationalist politician, Viktor Orbán. Orban started manipulating these grievances, and did so to significantly divide Hungarian society. He attacked many of the institutions of democracy, which were increasingly unpopular because of people’s grievances. He went after elites, and foreigners, and migrants, and the media. And he blamed all of them for the country’s problems. He then was able to ride these grievances into office.

Once in office, Orban amended the constitution and laws relating to the parliament. He undermined the independence of the media and the judiciary so as to centralize power. All of this happened while I was running an international university in Budapest, which remained independent because it received no funding from the Hungarian government. We were able to resist the increasingly authoritarian regime over issues of academic freedom. The government tried to shut down our programs of migration studies and gender studies, and tried to censor aspects of our history department.

These authoritarian attacks are similar to what we’ve seen happening in the U.S., and in fact, Viktor Orban was greatly admired by Donald Trump, and a lot of the playbook that Orban has followed was mirrored in Project 2025 in the U.S. under Trump.

BD: How do communities respond in different ways to authoritarian regimes?

OK: Pro-democracy movements and protection types of movements at the local level often co-occur. For example, in Colombia there have been various leftist movements and political parties that have pushed for greater democratic opening while communities mobilize to keep people safe and help them cope with repressive conditions. In places like Chile, El Salvador and Guatemala, communities built trust and support networks to provide aid, such as for people who needed food assistance. This provides space to independently operate and preserve the community.

The U.S. has parallels, such as innovating early warning networks to get advance notice of risks and threats, by communicating using the Signal app. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, villages set up radio networks, and in Ukraine they have sophisticated early warning networks to get word of airstrikes and drone attacks.

Fact-finding and countering stigma are important, and in the U.S. we’re seeing that in the form of the video recording and publicizing of harmful actions. This has played out similarly in Syria with fact-finding to protect nongovernment organizations.

There’s also accompaniment where outside actors come in to provide support to communities. Around the world, church organizations play important accompaniment roles. We’re seeing clergy in the U.S. step up and visit places that are at risk.

And then, there are protests, the most visible kind of action. In Minnesota, we’ve seen communities actually setting up community barricades, which has also happened in Mexico, Colombia and Northern Ireland. Communicating the nonviolent nature of these movements is important to avoid any pretext for additional crackdowns.

I think Americans have been taking similar actions to places around the world in part because there are some similar background conditions: repression and strong social capital networks. Those two things come together to produce these strategies.

BD: Could you speak more about the need to build a clear narrative and a positive one?

JS: There are two basic rules for how to resist authoritarianism that I’ve learned from experience: Build a diverse coalition and develop a unifying theme. You need a diverse coalition in order to appeal to a broad range of the public, and in order to do that, you need agreement on the goal and values of what you’re trying to accomplish. You need a clear and unifying narrative. The narrative often involves economic issues and issues of corruption, since there’s often a great deal of corruption in authoritarian regimes.

Hungary will have its next parliamentary election in April in which Orban will seek his fifth term as prime minister. The opposition has developed a broad coalition and a unifying theme, while Orban is using the centralized instruments of government and media that he controls to try to manipulate public opinion. The opposition coalition is headed by Peter Magyar, who was once a major supporter of Orban’s government. Magyar’s name can be magical in Hungary – sort of like a “Joe America” in the U.S.

With Magyar as its head, the opposition is aiming to peel off supporters of the regime. It’s campaigning on economic grounds, with a positive message and on moderate terms. And most importantly, it includes parties from the left, right and center.

Poland has succeeded in doing what the Hungarian opposition is attempting. It managed to vote out an authoritarian government by putting together a broad coalition to defend the independence of the Polish judiciary. That became a coalition to elect parliamentarians in 2023, and that succeeded in changing the government.

BD: How important is the preexisting social fabric of a community to the success of a protest movement?

JS: It’s important, but complicated. Hungary had a very weak civil society after 70 years of totalitarian fascism and communism. When I was there, the very word to “volunteer,” which we think of as the essence of community action and service, was seen to be a bad word in Hungarian because it was closely associated with collaborating with the regime.

In the U.S., we’re the opposite in a sense, although the U.S. is now slipping on this. We have a long history of volunteerism, we have all these civil society organizations, we have a tradition of barn raising, people getting together with their neighbors and doing things in their communities. This is very much a part of the American spirit and a core value.

But today, I would say a combination of consumerism and economic individualism coming out of decades of economic deregulation has caused our civil society to fray. But the authoritarian challenge that we face now, and the way in which we are beginning to respond to it, is in fact bringing communities back together again. I think what happened in Minneapolis is an example of that. And this may reflect a growing capacity to resist an authoritarian regime.

Former President, Central European University (2009-2016)

Oliver Kaplan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. What Americans can learn from other civil activism movements against authoritarian regimes – https://theconversation.com/what-americans-can-learn-from-other-civil-activism-movements-against-authoritarian-regimes-277344

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Nitin Sanket, Assistant Professor of Robotics Engineering, Worcester Polytechnic Institute

To help small aerial robots navigate in the dark and other low-visibility environments, my colleagues and I developed an ultrasound-based perception system inspired by bat echolocation.

Current robots rely heavily on cameras or light detection and ranging, known as lidar, or both. But these sensors fail in visually challenging conditions, such as smoke, fog, dust, snow or complete darkness.

I’m a scientific engineer who develops bio-inspired microrobots. To solve this challenge, my research team looked at nature’s experts at navigating in poor visibility: bats. They thrive in dark, damp and dusty caves and can detect obstacles as thin as a human hair using echolocation while weighing as little as two paper clips. They emit sound waves and listen to weak echoes reflected from objects.

However, enabling this sensing on aerial robots is extremely challenging because propellers generate a lot of noise. It is a bit like trying to listen to your friend while a jet engine is taking off next to you.

To overcome this issue, we present two key ideas. First, a physical acoustic shield inspired by bat’s ear cartilage reduces propeller noise around the acoustic sensors, which act like the robot’s ears. Second, a neural network called Saranga recovers weak echo signals from very noisy measurements by learning patterns over time, inspired by how bats process sound.

Together, these enable the robot to estimate obstacle locations in 3D and navigate safely using milliwatt-level sensing power.

Why it matters

These types of drones are very useful for search and rescue, especially in confined, dynamic and dangerous environments, because they are small and inexpensive. Search-and-rescue operations often happen in environments where visibility is very poor, such as forest fires, collapsed buildings, caves or dusty outdoor conditions. In these scenarios, traditional sensors like cameras and lidar often become unreliable.

Bats do not rely only on vision and instead use echolocation to perceive the world. Ultrasound sensing doesn’t depend on lighting conditions and works in smoke, dust and darkness.

Our work shows that it is possible to bring this capability to aerial robots despite strong onboard propeller noise. Sonar boosted by noise shielding and machine learning promises to enable a new class of small, low-cost robots that can operate in environments where current systems fail.

This research can enable highly functional, autonomous, tiny aerial robots for critical humanitarian applications, such as search and rescue, combating poaching and cave exploration. AI-enabled sonar navigation could lead to safer, faster and more cost-effective robots for time-sensitive operations where human or larger helicopter access is limited. This is a step toward being able to deploy swarms of aerial robots, much like groups of bats, to explore hazardous environments and search for survivors.

Breakthroughs in mathematical modeling, neural network design and sensor characterization will enable other low-power applications for these drones, such as environmental monitoring. Our work can reduce power by 1,000 times, weight by 10 times and cost by 100 times compared to current solutions.

What other research is being done

Most aerial navigation systems rely on cameras, depth sensors or lidar, which degrade in low visibility. Radar works in these conditions but is power-intensive for small drones. Prior work has explored ultrasound sensing mainly on ground robots, but applying it to aerial robots has been difficult due to propeller noise and weak signals.

What’s next

We are working on improving flying speed, sensing range and system size. We are also exploring new bio-inspired designs and combining ultrasound with other types of sensing.

Ultimately, our goal is to build reliable, low-power aerial robots that can operate reliably in dynamic environments and enable real-world deployment in search and rescue.

The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.

Nitin Sanket receives funding from the National Science Foundation under CMMI 2516439 (https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/show-award?AWD_ID=2516439).

– ref. Ultralightweight sonar plus AI lets tiny drones navigate like bats – https://theconversation.com/ultralightweight-sonar-plus-ai-lets-tiny-drones-navigate-like-bats-279287

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Debak Das, Assistant Professor, University of Denver

Operation Epic Fury – the latest round of military strikes against Iran – began when Iran was engaged in negotiations with the United States to renew restrictions on its nuclear program.

This is not the first time the United States has bombed Iran during nuclear negotiations.

In June 2025, while its representatives were in talks with Iran over that country’s ability to produce nuclear weapons, Washington launched Operation Midnight Hammer, targeting three Iranian nuclear facilities in Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.

Washington has been broader in its selection of targets in Iran this time around, even though one stated U.S. goal has been to ensure that Iran does not gain nuclear weapons capability.

Conducting military strikes against a country that is engaged in negotiations to reduce its nuclear capacity sets a dangerous precedent. As a scholar of the global nuclear order, I believe that the conflict has jeopardized all future diplomacy to limit the spread of nuclear weapons.

The U.S. military action during negotiations has also undermined Washington’s ability to conduct diplomacy to end the war. Iranian officials negotiating with mediators have expressed their concern that they “don’t want to be ‘fooled again,’” according to a report in Axios, and that any new set of negotiations might just be a ruse to conduct more attacks.

Breaking trust

The key components of any negotiations are trust and good faith.

Parties coming to a negotiating table to discuss their nuclear programs must trust that those across the table are acting in good faith. Past negotiations on nuclear arms control and risk-reduction measures between entrenched enemies, such as the U.S. and the Soviet Union or even India and Pakistan, have seen trust as a key component of coming to the table.

Trust has its own diplomatic cachet. It allows negotiating states to be a little more vulnerable, thus facilitating the possibility of softened positions leading to landmark agreements.

In the 1960s, negotiations were held to establish a global agreement – the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons – to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Nations without nuclear weapons had to trust that countries with them would not use their atomic arsenals to gain military advantage over them as they committed to forswear the possession and development of these weapons. Today all but one of the nonnuclear countries of the world – South Sudan – are signatories to the treaty.

The consequences of Washington’s military strikes would be even more grave if a new nuclear deal between Iran and the United States was truly within reach in the negotiations in Geneva days before the conflict started. This is because the reported concessions from Iran were substantial enough to have warranted a pause in Washington’s military strategy.

A day before Operation Epic Fury began, Oman foreign minister Badr bin Hamad al Busaidi, the principal mediator in the talks, announced that Iran had agreed to zero stockpiling. That is, Tehran would give up its enriched uranium, would down-blend – nuclear-speak for diluting – all material that was previously highly enriched to a neutral level, and be subject to “full and comprehensive verification” by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

If true, these terms could have made any new agreement between the U.S. and Iran as consequential as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action negotiated between the United States and Iran under President Obama’s administration.

The violation of trust by the U.S. will be keenly observed by North Korea. In early March 2026, that country conducted tests of what it called “strategic cruise missiles” – missiles it suggests could have nuclear capability – stating that its ability to attack from under and above water was growing and that it was arming its navy with nuclear weapons.

Any possibility of bilateral negotiations between the United States and North Korea on its nuclear and missile programs will now be marked by the unreliability of the U.S. as a good faith negotiator.

Imperiled future

With its actions in Iran, the U.S. has lost credibility as a leading international interlocutor in service of global nonproliferation diplomacy.

Key to a nation’s credibility during negotiations is the reputation that it builds from its past actions. Both instances of the U.S. bombing Iran while negotiating with it will make it very unlikely that other countries will engage with Washington in future nuclear diplomacy.

Those countries that want to take part in nuclear diplomacy involving the U.S. will likely ask that other, trusted countries participate as well. They will also likely seek security guarantees before engaging in negotiations. This will mean that China and the European Union – countries, alliances or institutions that might help keep the United States accountable – will likely have to be a part of any such diplomacy.

Loss of trust in the United States’ good faith will likely continue across future U.S. administrations after the Trump presidency. This will be because of uncertainty over the credibility of international commitments made by the United States. An agreement made by one administration could be reneged on by the next.

Another area of concern is that in the future a country on the threshold of gaining nuclear weapons might not arrive at the negotiating table fully ready to give up all parts of its nuclear program. Even if a country does make concessions, it might choose to hold on to some part of its nuclear or missile program as a guarantee against a future American military strike.

The future of negotiations over nuclear proliferation may yet expand beyond that focus to ballistic missiles as well. Recall that Trump began the latest conflict saying that Iran’s ballistic missiles were an “imminent threat” to the U.S. and its bases abroad. Nuclear weapons programs and ballistic missile programs often go together. Countries with such missile programs that are not allied with the U.S. might also be future targets of bilateral diplomatic and military action.

The loss of trust and good faith has substantially reduced the ability of the U.S. to diplomatically address not only broader nuclear and missile nonproliferation concerns but also its own national security needs. Under these circumstances, military action might be the most tempting option for Washington to secure these goals – and that is dangerous.

Debak Das does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. War on Iran during nuclear negotiations undermines the US’s ability to talk peace around the world − and the effects won’t end when Trump leaves office – https://theconversation.com/war-on-iran-during-nuclear-negotiations-undermines-the-uss-ability-to-talk-peace-around-the-world-and-the-effects-wont-end-when-trump-leaves-office-279079

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Advik D. Vira, Graduate Student in Physics, Georgia Institute of Technology

The Earth and the Moon may look very different today, but they formed under similar conditions in space. In fact, a dominant hypothesis says that the early Earth was hit by a Mars-sized object, and it was this giant impact that spun off material to form the Moon. But unlike Earth, the Moon lacks plate tectonics and an atmosphere capable of reshaping its surface and recycling elements such as oxygen over billions of years.

As a result, the Moon preserves a record of the geological conditions that helped shape it and can give scientists insight into the world we live in today. Rocks that were formed during early volcanic activity on the Moon offer a window into events that occurred nearly 4 billion years ago. By uncovering the conditions under which the Moon’s rocks formed, scientists move closer to understanding the origins of our own planet.

In a study published March 2026 in the journal Nature Communications, our team of physicists and geoscientists investigated ilmenite, a mineral composed of iron, titanium and oxygen, in a Moon rock crystallized from an ancient lunar magma. We used cutting-edge electron microscopy to probe the chemical signature of titanium in this ilmenite, finding that about 15% of the titanium carries less of an electrical charge than expected.

Implications of trivalent titanium

In ilmenite, an atom of titanium typically loses four electrons when bonding with oxygen, resulting in a positive charge of 4+, known as the atom’s oxidation number. From the sample we studied, a rock collected during the Apollo 17 mission, we found that some of the titanium in ilmenite actually has a charge of only 3+, referred to as trivalent titanium. Our measurement of trivalent titanium confirms what geologists had long suspected: that some titanium in lunar ilmenite exists in a lower charge state.

Trivalent titanium occurs only when the amount of oxygen available for chemical reactions is low. Thus, the abundance of trivalent titanium in ilmenite could tell us about the relative availability of oxygen in the Moon’s interior when the rock formed, around 3.8 billion years ago.

A link to the Moon’s early chemistry

Since it is the ilmenite, not the study, that contained trivalent titanium, I would recast the previous sentence as follows: “Our team has closely studied only one Moon rock so far, but from published studies we have identified more than 500 analyses of lunar ilmenite that could contain trivalent titanium. Studying these samples could reveal new details about how the Moon’s chemistry varies across different locations and time periods.

While our work highlights a link based on prior studies, the relationship between trivalent titanium in ilmenite and oxygen availability has not yet been quantified with targeted experimental data.

By conducting experiments that explore that link, ilmenite could reveal more details about the Moon’s interior. We also expect this relationship to apply to other planets and asteroids that don’t contain much chemically available oxygen, relative to Earth.

What’s next?

These methods can be used to study many Moon rocks collected during the Apollo missions over 50 years ago, as well as future samples from upcoming Artemis missions, or rocks collected from the far side of the Moon, returned in 2024 by China’s Chang’e-6 mission.

One of our team members plans to use their new experimental lab to explore how oxygen availability in magma affects the abundance of trivalent titanium in ilmenite. With experiments like this that build off our findings, we could potentially use ilmenite to reconstruct the history of ancient magmas from the Moon.

We believe future studies of lunar rocks using advanced scientific methods are essential for revealing the chemical conditions present on the ancient Moon. They could offer clues not only to its own history but also to the earliest chapters of Earth’s past – records that have since been erased from Earth.

Advik D. Vira receives funding from the NASA Solar System Exploration Research Virtual Institute (SSERVI) under cooperative agreement number NNH22ZDA020C (CLEVER, Grant number: 80NSSC23M022).

Emily First receives funding from the Heising-Simons Foundation (grant # 2023-4485) and from a Macalester College faculty start-up fund.

– ref. New study measures titanium in Apollo rock to uncover Moon’s early chemistry – https://theconversation.com/new-study-measures-titanium-in-apollo-rock-to-uncover-moons-early-chemistry-278721