Category: Analysis

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Brendan Paul Burns, Associate Professor, School of Biotech & Biomolecular Science, UNSW Sydney

On the shores of the west coast of Australia lies a window to our past: the stromatolites and microbial mats of Gathaagudu (Shark Bay).

To the untrained eye they look like a collection of rocks and slime – but they are in fact teeming with microbial life. And these stromatolites are living “relics” of ancient ecosystems that thrived on Earth billions of years ago.

If you wade past, it feels like you’re walking back through time. In fact, the first bubbles of oxygen that filled the atmosphere on early Earth likely came from ancient stromatolites. You could say we owe our very existence to these piles of rocks.

So, what other secrets of our past could these ecosystems tell us? Through decades of research, we know how early life has woven its path through these “living rocks”. But most recently our team embarked on the greatest genealogy search of them all: searching for our great microbial ancestors, the Asgard archaea.

And in a new paper, published today in the journal Current Biology, we report how this search led to the discovery of a key clue that could help explain how complex life evolved on Earth.

The cells that comprise complex life

Asgard archaea were originally named after Norse gods. This fascinating group of microbes sits on the cusp of one of the most significant events in the evolution of life: the origin of the complex cells that make up plants and animals, known as eukaryotes.

Evidence suggests Asgard archaea are the closest relatives of eukaryotes. And that on an early Earth it was the “marriage” of an ancient Asgard archaeon and a bacterium that led to the first eukaryotes.

They formed an ancient partnership. They shared resources and physically interacted, leading to the first complex cells. Like a Romeo and Juliet tale of two distant families coming together, Asgard archaea and bacteria decided it was time to break from traditional family values.

But we have never seen a model of how this may have occurred. Until now.

Holding up a mirror to the ancient past

Our team used the mats of Shark Bay as a “seed” to establish cultures of these ancient microbes. We are one of only four groups worldwide to achieve this, through years of research with a dedicated team of graduate students nurturing the Asgards like offspring.

But the Asgards were not alone. We found them together with a sulphate-loving bacterium. Could this be a model of how complex life may have started on a primitive Earth?

We began by sequencing the Asgards’ DNA to decipher exactly how these microbes tick at the genetic level. We also used artificial intelligence to model how proteins could have behaved in a world before eukaryotes. Evidence suggested these two microbes were sharing nutrients. In other words, they were cooperating.

But we wanted to delve deeper. What do our great microbial ancestors look like? Here we turned to electron cryotomography, a high-resolution imaging approach that allowed us to observe cells and structures at a nanometre scale.

And here we showed – for the first time – an Asgard archaeon and a bacterium directly interacting. Tiny nanotubes were connecting the two organisms – perhaps reflecting what their great-ancestors did on an early Earth that ultimately led to the explosion of complex life as we know it.

Weaving western science with Indigenous knowledge

This was a major discovery – one that originated in Gathaagudu, a World Heritage Site with significant environmental and cultural values.

Aboriginal people first inhabited Gathaagudu over 30,000 years ago. We wanted to recognise and celebrate the language of the Malgana people, one of the traditional language groups of Gathaagudu. We also wanted to connect western science with Indigenous Knowledge in a meaningful way.

To this end and working closely with the world’s foremost Malgana language expert, Kymberley Oakley, and Aboriginal elders, a name was granted for our novel Asgard archaeon from the language of the Malgana people: Nerearchaeum marumarumayae. The species name – marumarumayae – is derived from the Aboriginal language of the Malgana people, meaning “ancient home”, a reference to stromatolites being of ancient origin in Earth’s history.

Weaving Aboriginal language into the naming of our new microbe represents a fitting connection between unique Aboriginal culture in Australia and the ancient microbe discovered that calls the mats of Gathaagudu “home”.

Gathaagudu is under threat from global change, from increased heatwaves, cyclonic events and human activity. And among the values to preserve and conserve are the significant Aboriginal connections as well as the trails of life going back through evolutionary time.

With our study we have peered into our past. And maybe like the Montagues and Capulets of Shakespeare, we see distant families of microbes coming together to bridge the divide and ultimately form the early eukaryotes that eventually led to us: a fragile branch on the evolutionary tree of life.

Brendan Paul Burns receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

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

– ref. ‘First contact’ that may have led to complex life on Earth finally witnessed by scientists – https://theconversation.com/first-contact-that-may-have-led-to-complex-life-on-earth-finally-witnessed-by-scientists-280173

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Chris James, Senior Lecturer, Centre for Hypersonics, School of Mechanical and Mining Engineering, The University of Queensland

After successfully completing their mission to the Moon, the Artemis II crew is about to return to Earth.

The four astronauts set a new record for how far humans have travelled from Earth, reaching a maximum distance of 406,771 kilometres from our home planet.

Their journey back will culminate in a high-speed, hypersonic and extremely hot re-entry into Earth’s atmosphere before their spacecraft splashes down in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of California at roughly 8pm April 10 local time.

The re-entry will be the last challenge the crew will have to endure on their epic ten-day mission. It comes with many dangers – but their spacecraft is equipped with an array of technology to keep them safe.

A speedy re-entry

The Orion capsule carrying the Artemis II astronauts will be travelling at more than 11 km/s (40,000 km/h) when it reaches Earth’s atmosphere. This is 40 times faster than a passenger jet travels.

If we instead consider kinetic energy, which is the energy an object possesses due to its motion, upon re-entry the Orion capsule will have almost 2,000 times as much kinetic energy per kilogram of vehicle as a passenger jet.

Like any spacecraft returning home, it will have to slow down and reduce its kinetic energy to almost zero so parachutes can be deployed and it can land safely on Earth.

Spacecraft reduce their kinetic energy by performing a controlled re-entry through Earth’s upper atmosphere, where they use aerodynamic drag against the atmosphere as a brake to decelerate.

Unlike an aeroplane, which is generally designed to be aerodynamic and minimise drag forces to reduce fuel consumption, re-entering spacecraft do the opposite. They are designed to be as un-aerodynamic as possible to maximise drag and help them slow down.

This deceleration during re-entry can be extremely harsh.

Deceleration and acceleration are generally discussed in g-forces – or “g’s” for short. This is the deceleration or acceleration force divided by the standard acceleration we all feel from Earth’s gravity. A Formula One driver will experience over 5 g’s while cornering, which is close to the maximum g-forces a human can sustain without passing out.

Small, uncrewed re-entry capsules such as NASA’s OSIRIS-REx capsule which brought back samples from asteroid Bennu, just barrel into the atmosphere and rapidly decelerate. These entries occur very quickly, in less than a minute. But g-forces in that case can be upwards of 100 – fine for robotic vehicles, but not for humans.

Crewed vehicles such as NASA’s Orion capsule use lift forces to slow the entry down in time. This lowers the g-forces down to more manageable levels that humans can survive and makes re-entry last for several minutes.

A very hot re-entry

The Orion capsule will re-enter the atmosphere moving at more than 30 times the speed of sound.

A shock wave will envelop the spacecraft, creating air temperatures of 10,000°C or more – about twice the temperature of the surface of the Sun.

The extreme heat turns the air that crosses over the shock wave into an electrically charged plasma. This temporarily blocks radio signals, so the astronauts will be unable to communicate during the harshest parts of their descent.

Making sure it’s a safe re-entry

Spacecraft survive the extremely harsh re-entry environment through careful design of their trajectories to minimise heating as much as they can.

The craft also carries a thermal protection system. It’s effectively an insulating blanket which protects the spacecraft and its crew or cargo from the harsh hypersonic flow occurring outside.

The thermal protection system is tailored precisely for the vehicle and its mission. Materials that can take more heat are put on the surfaces where the environment is expected to be harshest, and thicknesses are precisely adjusted too.

These materials are designed to glow red hot and degrade during the entry – but they will survive. The red-hot glow also radiates heat back out to the atmosphere instead of allowing it to be absorbed by the spacecraft.

This precise design is how Artemis is to able to pass through air at 10,000°C while maintaining a maximum heat shield surface temperature of only around 3,000°C.

Most spacecraft are protected by materials called ablatives. These are generally made out of carbon fibre and a type of glue known as phenolic resin.

These ablative heat shields absorb energy and inject a relatively cool gas into the flow along the surface of the vehicle, helping to cool everything down.

The ablative heat shield material used on the Orion capsule is called AVCOAT. It is a version of the material which protected the Apollo capsule when it returned from the Moon in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

While the Artemis I mission – an uncrewed test flight – was a great success, the heat shield ablation during re-entry was much larger than expected. Large chunks of material separated from the heat shield in some places.

After lengthy inspections and analysis, engineers did decide to go ahead with the same type of heat shield on the Artemis II mission.

They believe Artemis I lost chunks of its heat shield due to a pressure buildup inside the material during the “skip” part of its entry, where the spacecraft exited the atmosphere to cool down before performing a second entry where it landed.

For Artemis II, the engineers have instead decided to modify the trajectory slightly to still use lift, but include a less defined “skip”.

It is amazing to see what NASA and the astronauts have achieved on this mission so far. But like many others, I’ll be relieved when I see them welcomed safely home on Earth.

Chris James receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Commonwealth Defence Science and Technology Group, the US Office of Naval Research, and the US Air Force Office of Scientific Research.

– ref. Artemis II crew will endure 3,000°C on re-entry. A hypersonics expert explains how they will survive – https://theconversation.com/artemis-ii-crew-will-endure-3-000-c-on-re-entry-a-hypersonics-expert-explains-how-they-will-survive-280042

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Jessica Genauer, Academic Director, Public Policy Institute, UNSW Sydney

Just hours after the leaders of the United States, Israel and Iran reached a temporary ceasefire, it was clear that each party had its own version of what had been agreed to.

Hundreds of people in Lebanon have been killed in Israeli airstrikes in the past 24 hours, immediately threatening to undermine the fragile agreement.

Iran had insisted hostilities in Lebanon cease as part of the deal, but Israel argued Lebanon was not included. The result is an ongoing proxy conflict alongside the main war, which has been paused for two weeks.

Given the US seems uninterested in addressing the intractable issues at the heart of tensions in the Middle East, this result was somewhat inevitable. It seems the most likely outcome now is the US will back out while claiming victory, leaving the region’s prewar status quo largely intact.

The importance of Lebanon

Lebanon has not been an official part of the war in the region, and is not a party to the ceasefire. So why is it so central to the conflict?

Since the Iranian revolution of 1979, the Iranian regime has funded and armed anti-Israel movements in the region including Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza and the Houthis in Yemen.

Throughout its history as a nation, Israel has at times occupied and held security “buffer zones” around its territory.

After the fall of leader Bashar al-Assad in 2024, Israeli forces conducted a military operation in southern Syria, occupying a demilitarised buffer zone in the southwest of the country.

Israel has diplomatic agreements with Egypt and Jordan, leaving the focus on Iran and the proxies it supports. The proxies closest to Israel, and therefore of most concern from the government’s perspective, are Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Since the October 7 attacks, the Israeli government has taken an offensive military approach to dealing with both groups. From the perspective of Israel, Hamas and Hezbollah are just as severe security threats as Iran.

While both proxy groups have been severely degraded since 2023, they are still operating.

Since the onset of the conflict with Iran, the Israeli government has taken the opportunity to extend a security buffer zone in southern Lebanon. Under President Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel is very unlikely to give up this ambition.

For Trump’s part, it is unclear whether he could persuade Netanyahu to abandon it, or if he even wants to try.

Will the ceasefire survive?

Unless the US can bring Israel into line and convince Netanyahu to stop its action in Lebanon, the ceasefire will fall apart.

Iran has insisted fighting in Lebanon must end as part of the agreement. This is the regime’s way of protecting and supporting its much-diminished proxies. As negotiations get underway for a more lasting deal, the issue of Lebanon will become a key sticking point.

This is in part because resisting Israel and the US is not just politically expedient for Iran; it is at the core of the Iranian regime’s identity and existence.

While deeper antagonism that drives tensions in the region remains unaddressed, there’s little prospect of lasting peace.

Trump seems set on a US withdrawal from the war with Iran. The US leaves behind a security environment that upholds the existing tensions in the region. Iran and Israel will continue to engage in the tit-for-tat violence that led us here.

A flawed exit strategy

A key issue with Trump’s approach in the Middle East is he has no real interest in resolving the core issue of Israel’s place in the region. He’s shown little grasp of the deeper historical roots at play.

What seems to be front of mind for Trump is the unpopularity of the war within the US. With Trump’s approval ratings at a record low and the conflict already dragging on longer than many expected, the president is looking for a way out.

This might be why Iran’s ten-point plan, which was previously “not good enough”, is now a “workable basis on which to negotiate”.

While there are competing versions of the ten points, they all include conditions the US could never reasonably accept, such as leaving control of the Strait of Hormuz in Iranian hands.

Iran also insists it wants to reserve the right to enrich uranium, something that would be contrary to the stated basis for this war in the first place: Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons.

By declaring the conditions suddenly right for a ceasefire, Trump is stating a reality he’d like to see, rather than describing tangible changes on the ground.

In practice, the US has already ceded ground to Iran, which has indicated it is not willing to compromise on anything. While Iran’s military capability to interfere in the region may be diminished for now, the will remains.

So with the ten points as a basis of negotiation, it is hard to see a path towards lasting peace in the next fortnight. Instead the US is likely to exit, leaving behind a lot of damage, but little materially changed.

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

– ref. Will the conflict in Lebanon destroy the US-Iran ceasefire? Maybe, but it was already shaky – https://theconversation.com/will-the-conflict-in-lebanon-destroy-the-us-iran-ceasefire-maybe-but-it-was-already-shaky-280259

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Samina Yasmeen, Director of Centre for Muslim States and Societies, The University of Western Australia

When news of the fragile ceasefire between the United States, Israel and Iran first broke, it came via a post on X by Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Shehbaz Sharif.

Securing such a big diplomatic win is highly significant for Pakistan, irrespective of how the agreement has since been tested.

Pakistan will remain central to ongoing peace negotiations, with talks between the parties being held in the country on April 10.

So how did Pakistan manage to bring the parties together? It harnessed long-running relationships, shared histories and security agreements to flex its diplomatic muscles.

Pakistan and Iran go back a long way

Pakistan and Iran have a long history as friends and allies. Sharing more than 900 kilometres of border, the countries have been involved in dispute mediation for one another since Pakistan’s creation in 1947.

During Iran’s monarchical period, which ended in 1979, Pakistan relied on Iran’s mediation in its disputes with Afghanistan, and active support in Pakistan’s wars with India in 1965 and 1971.

But the relationship has not been free of challenges. Pakistan’s Prime Minister Z A Bhutto, according to some sources on the ground, resented the Iranian Shah’s overbearing attitude.

The closeness has held since the Islamic regime took over. With nearly 20% of Pakistan’s population being comprised of Shia Muslims, the dominant form of Islam in Iran, there’s long been a close relationship between those Pakistani Muslims and the Iranian regime.

Iran has used these communities to spread their version of Islam and politics, but it has walked a fine line. The regime has ensured tensions do not exceed beyond certain point where the Pakistani government considers it to be a destabilising factor and a threat to Pakistan’s security.

Because of this shared history and the geographic proximity, the Iranian regime is at least willing to listen to Pakistan.

Eyeing regional and national security

This is particularly so because of Pakistan’s own security situation, especially in the event that a weakened or fragmented Iran would result in the emergence of multiple smaller states.

Pakistan’s geographically largest province, Balochistan, has been experiencing renewed militancy spearheaded by separatist group the Baloch Liberation Army. The militants have attacked multiple military targets, law enforcement agencies and public servants, especially those hailing from the Punjab province (the largest in terms of population and resources).

Read more:
Who are the Baloch Liberation Army? Pakistan train hijacking was fuelled by decades of neglect and violence

There has been a growing sense in Pakistan that a weakened or fragmented Iran could further strengthen the appeal of Baloch Liberation Army ideology. The Pakistani government doesn’t want a situation where calls for a greater Balochistan encompass areas on both sides of its border with Iran.

Another consideration is that Pakistan has a nuclear program. The Pakistani government may fear its nuclear arsenal being next in line for targeting by foreign countries, and therefore seek to de-escalate tensions across the region.

It’s also worth noting the potentially precarious position Pakistan finds itself in geographically. The spectre of being sandwiched between an Israeli-controlled Iran, and close Israel ally India, would be something to be avoided.

It’s likely the Iranian regime is aware of these concerns and appreciates that Pakistan’s mediation is grounded in the latter’s own security concerns. But from an Iranian perspective, that’s hardly a bad thing: it means exploring all possible scenarios to reach a ceasefire and a settlement.

Friends in MAGA places

Pakistan is highly credible with the Trump regime. This is primarily because of the dominant role the Pakistani military has played in shaping the country’s foreign policy. This influence has existed for almost 80 years, but has ramped up recently.

In 2022, General Asim Munir took over as the Chief of Army Staff. He was promoted to the rank of Field Marshal in the wake of Pakistan-Indian “mini-war” in May 2025.

Currently occupying the position of Chief of Defence Forces with a guaranteed command of the military for the next five years with the possibility of extension until 2035, he has emerged as the strongest army general to have ruled Pakistan in decades.

Munir has established a cordial relationship with US President Donald Trump. He visited the administration twice, including a meeting in the Oval Office. This was before Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese had secured even a telephone phone call with the president.

Munir has also guided Pakistan’s Gulf policy, particularly the signing of a Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement with Saudi Arabia in September 2025. The agreement builds on the decades of a defence relationship between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. It includes the clear articulation that any attack on one is considered an attack on both.

Though Pakistan is careful to stress that it does not extend a nuclear umbrella to Saudi Arabia, the agreement signals regional deterrence and ability of the two states collaborating against opponents.

The agreement was followed by a Strategic Defense Agreement between Saudi Arabia and the US during the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s visit to Washington in November 2025.

Effectively, therefore, a tripartite quasi alliance has emerged between the US, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

And then there’s China

At the same time, Pakistan also maintains strong military, economic, and political relations with China. Beijing has been keen to de-escalate the situation in the Gulf due to China’s reliance on oil supplies from the region.

This interest was categorically expressed during the visit by Pakistan’s Foreign Minister, Ishaq Dar, to China on March 31.

Coming soon after Pakistan’s quadrilateral meetings with Saudi, Egyptian and Turkish foreign ministers, the negotiations established Pakistan’s credentials as a state that has the backing of significant Muslim majority states. Combined with the support of China, Pakistan was in prime position to explore solutions to the conflict, without Trump losing face.

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

– ref. In mediating the US-Iran peace talks, Pakistan is flexing its geopolitical muscles – https://theconversation.com/in-mediating-the-us-iran-peace-talks-pakistan-is-flexing-its-geopolitical-muscles-280255

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Rodrigo Praino, Professor & Director, Jeff Bleich Centre for Democracy and Disruptive Technologies, Flinders University

Around 153 BCE, Cato the Elder, one of Rome’s most prominent senators, began ending every single one of his speeches with the same words: “Carthago delenda est”, or “Carthage must be destroyed”.

His relentless campaign to destroy Carthage has been described as the first recorded incitement to genocide.

The genocide actually happened: Rome destroyed Carthage and its entire civilisation.

Fast forward to today and the commander-in-chief of the most powerful military in the world, the president of the United States, has declared a “whole civilisation will die tonight, never to be brought back again”, in reference to Iran.

Donald Trump’s words were even stronger than Cato’s. Fortunately, the follow-up was not and the episode ultimately ended in a two-week ceasefire between US-Israel and Iran.

Read more:
The US-Israel ceasefire with Iran presses pause on a costly war, but can peace last?

Is this language unprecedented?

Put simply, yes. Since the beginning of the war with Iran, Trump’s language has been consistently aggressive and extreme.

But the “death of a civilisation” comment crossed a threshold that is striking even measured against his own record.

It came shortly after another expletive-laden social media post.

Trump’s words are unprecedented both in form and in substance.

While US presidents have used plenty of profanities and expletives in private conversations, with Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon probably winning any foul-language competition anywhere in the world, Trump is believed to be the only president to have ever deliberately used “fuck” in public.

In substance, no modern US president has ever threatened or incited genocide.

Trump’s infamous “a whole civilisation will die tonight” comment, though, can only be interpreted as an open threat to all 93 million Iranian citizens.

The closest parallel anywhere in the modern world may actually be the Iranian chants “death to America” and “death to Israel”, which have featured prominently in pro-regime rallies since the 1979 revolution.

But even there, the late Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in 2019 the chants weren’t aimed at the US or the American people themselves, but at America’s rulers.

Is this language illegal?

Trump’s language, and that of other members of his administration, is deeply concerning and disturbing.

This includes statements by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth that US forces would deny quarter to the enemy and that the US does not fight with “stupid rules of engagement”.

If these words turned into action, they would certainly constitute war crimes.

If Trump really meant he was willing to use the US military against Iran’s civilian population, this action would fall squarely within the definition of genocide provided by Article II of the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide:

acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.

In other words, any action taken in the spirit of that post would constitute genocide and blatant violation of international law.

More broadly, the legality of the whole US attack on Iran is deeply contentious: most international and US law experts seem to agree the war violates the UN Charter.

There are also serious questions pertaining US constitutional law. The US Constitution does not grant the president the power to declare war – this power belongs to Congress.

Presidents should therefore seek congressional approval before waging war. At the time of writing, the war has been going on for 41 days and no Congressional approval has been obtained.

What can be done about this?

Probably nothing. The US political system does not include an easy way to remove a sitting president.

In the few hours between the infamous statement and the ceasefire declaration, several US political leaders talked about invoking the 25th Amendment.

Under that provision, the vice president and a majority of the cabinet can remove a president from office when they believe the president “is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office”.

It is unlikely JD Vance and most of the cabinet would be willing to make this case.

The only other avenue would be impeachment by the House of Representatives followed by removal by the Senate. Trump was impeached twice during his first term and acquitted by the Republican majority in the Senate both times.

Currently, Republicans control both chambers, making this option also very unlikely.

Will this have lasting consequences?

Definitely. As political scientist Joseph S. Nye Jr – who identified the concept of soft power – famously explained, soft power is “the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments. It arises from the attractiveness of a country’s culture, political ideals, and policies”.

The US has enjoyed significant soft power throughout the Cold War and beyond.

Now 93 million Iranians have been threatened with the destruction of their entire civilisation by the president of the US, we must ask how far American soft power can realistically go in Iran and around the world moving forward.

In ancient Rome, Cato the Elder died three years before Rome destroyed Carthage. He never saw his words become action.

Hopefully neither Trump nor anyone else will ever see the destruction of Iranian civilisation. But Trump is definitely overseeing the instantaneous destruction of American soft power.

Rodrigo Praino receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Department of Defence.

– ref. ‘A whole civilisation will die tonight’: Trump’s genocide threat against Iran was another new low for America – https://theconversation.com/a-whole-civilisation-will-die-tonight-trumps-genocide-threat-against-iran-was-another-new-low-for-america-280152