Category: English

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Stephen L. Levy, Associate Professor of Physics and Applied Physics and Astronomy, Binghamton University, State University of New York

Curious Kids is a series for children of all ages. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to CuriousKidsUS@theconversation.com.

---

How do atoms form? – Joshua, age 7, Shoreview, Minnesota

---

Richard Feynman, a famous theoretical physicist who won the Nobel Prize, said that if he could pass on only one piece of scientific information to future generations, it would be that all things are made of atoms.

Understanding how atoms form is a fundamental and important question, since they make up everything with mass.

The question of where atoms come from requires a lot of physics to be answered completely – and even then, physicists like me only have good guesses to explain how some atoms are formed.

What is an atom?

An atom consists of a heavy center, called the nucleus, made of particles called protons and neutrons. An atom has lighter particles called electrons that you can think of as orbiting around the nucleus.

The electrons each carry one unit of negative charge, the protons each carry one unit of positive charge, and the neutrons have no charge. An atom has the same number of protons as electrons, so it is neutral − it has no overall charge.

Now, most of the atoms in the universe are the two simplest kinds: hydrogen, which has one proton, zero neutrons and one electron; and helium, which has two protons, two neutrons and two electrons. Of course, on Earth there are lots of atoms besides these that are just as common, such as carbon and oxygen, but I’ll talk about those soon.

An element is what scientists call a group of atoms that are all the same, because they all have the same number of protons.

When did the first atoms form?

Most of the universe’s hydrogen and helium atoms formed around 400,000 years after the Big Bang, which is the name for when scientists think the universe began, about 14 billion years ago.

Why did they form at that time? Astronomers know from observing distant exploding stars that the size of the universe has been getting bigger since the Big Bang. When the hydrogen and helium atoms first formed, the universe was about 1,000 times smaller than it is now.

And based on their understanding of physics, scientists believe that the universe was much hotter when it was smaller.

Before this time, the electrons had too much energy to settle into orbits around the hydrogen and helium nuclei. So, the hydrogen and helium atoms could form only once the universe cooled down to something like 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit (2,760 degrees Celsius). For historical reasons, this process is misleadingly called recombination − combination would be more descriptive.

The helium and deuterium − a heavier form of hydrogen − nuclei formed even earlier, just a few minutes after the Big Bang, when the temperature was above 1 billion F (556 million C). Protons and neutrons can collide and form nuclei like these only at very high temperatures.

Scientists believe that almost all the ordinary matter in the universe is made of about 90% hydrogen atoms and 8% helium atoms.

How do more massive atoms form?

So, the hydrogen and helium atoms formed during recombination, when the cooler temperature allowed electrons to fall into orbits. But you, I and almost everything on Earth is made of many more massive atoms than just hydrogen and helium. How were these atoms made?

The surprising answer is that more massive atoms are made in stars. To make atoms with several protons and neutrons stuck together in the nucleus requires the type of high-energy collisions that occur in very hot places. The energy needed to form a heavier nucleus needs to be large enough to overcome the repulsive electric force that positive charges, like two protons, feel with each other.

Protons and neutrons also have another property – kind of like a different type of charge – that is strong enough to bind them together once they are able to get very close together. This property is called the strong force, and the process that sticks these particles together is called fusion.

Scientists believe that most of the elements from carbon up to iron are fused in stars heavier than our Sun, where the temperature can exceed 1 billion F (556 million C) – the same temperature that the universe was when it was just a few minutes old.

But even in hot stars, elements heavier than iron and nickel won’t form. These require extra energy, because the heavier elements can more easily break into pieces.

In a dramatic event called a supernova, the inner core of a heavy star suddenly collapses after it runs out of fuel to burn. During the powerful explosion this collapse triggers, elements that are heavier than iron can form and get ejected out into the universe.

Astronomers are still figuring out the details of other fantastic stellar events that form larger atoms. For example, colliding neutron stars can release enormous amounts of energy – and elements such as gold – on their way to forming black holes.

Understanding how atoms are made just requires learning a little general relativity, plus some nuclear, particle and atomic physics. But to complicate matters, there is other stuff in the universe that doesn’t appear to be made from normal atoms at all, called dark matter. Scientists are investigating what dark matter is and how it might form.

---

Hello, curious kids! Do you have a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to CuriousKidsUS@theconversation.com. Please tell us your name, age and the city where you live.

And since curiosity has no age limit – adults, let us know what you’re wondering, too. We won’t be able to answer every question, but we will do our best.

Stephen L. Levy receives funding from the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. He is affiliated with CyteQuest, Inc.

– ref. How do atoms form? A physicist explains where the atoms that make up everything around come from – https://theconversation.com/how-do-atoms-form-a-physicist-explains-where-the-atoms-that-make-up-everything-around-come-from-256172

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Eleanor Paynter, Assistant Professor of Italian, Migration, and Global Media Studies, University of Oregon

For the past several months, the Trump administration has been trying to deport immigrants to countries they are not from – despite an April 2025 federal ruling that had blocked the White House from doing so.

A divided Supreme Court decided on June 23, in a brief emergency order, that the Trump administration can, for now, legally deport immigrants to countries they were not born in – known as “third countries” – without giving them time to contest their destination. The third countries that President Donald Trump has recently prioritized, including El Salvador, South Sudan and Libya, are known for being dangerous places with weak rule of law and routine human rights violations.

The 6-3 decision did not specify a legal rationale for the ruling. The court’s three liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, all dissented.

“Apparently, the Court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in farflung locales more palatable than the remote possibility that a District Court exceeded its powers when it ordered the government provide notice to the targeted migrants,” Sotomayor wrote in a 19-page dissent, joined by Kagan and Brown Jackson.

Understanding this legal case

The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court at the end of May to allow the rapid deportation of eight men who were convicted of crimes to South Sudan. Only one of those immigrants is from South Sudan, a politically unstable country in northeastern Africa. The rest are from Cuba, Mexico, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam.

Brian Murphy, a federal judge in Massachusetts, had blocked those immigrants’ deportation to South Sudan on May 21, saying that this move violated his April 2025 court order. In that ruling, he stated that people being deported to third countries should have time to contest their destination if it might put them in danger.

The flight to South Sudan was rerouted to an American military base in the East African country of Djibouti, where the men are reportedly living in a converted shipping container while they wait to hear whether they will be deported to South Sudan.

Murphy also ruled in April that the Trump administration cannot send other immigrants to Libya if they are not foreign nationals of that North African country.

I study how restrictive immigration policies make people’s journeys into a new country dangerous and can harm their well-being. In that research, I have interviewed African migrants who have traversed the Sahara Desert, Libya and the Mediterranean Sea to reach Europe, where they seek asylum.

The White House has not explained why it wants to send immigrants to South Sudan or Libya.

Libya’s government has denied any direct coordination with the U.S. on this issue, and South Sudan’s government has said that any immigrants deported there with criminal records would be sent to their own countries.

But a May federal court filing said that Trump administration officials have tried to negotiate deportation arrangements with Libya and South Sudan that give the governments money or other benefits for taking in immigrants from the U.S.

South Sudan’s shaky footing

Migrants can legally be deported to another nation when their country of origin refuses to repatriate them – though this practice is rare.

Former President Joe Biden, for example, deported Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans to Mexico if it was politically or logistically difficult to repatriate them.

But the Trump administration is the first to insist on expedited removal of immigrants to countries outside of Latin America.

South Sudan became a country in 2011, when it split from Sudan after a decades-long war. Since then, South Sudan has been led by a single president – Salva Kiir – who has been described by international critics as authoritarian, meaning he tries to centralize his own power and limit other people’s political rights. In March 2025, Kiir oversaw the arrest of vice president and opposition leader Riek Machar.

Fighting between the government and opposition forces has prompted more than 2.3 million South Sudanese to flee to neighboring countries since 2013.

In 2025 alone, the country’s civil conflict has prompted more than 130,000 people to become internally displaced, meaning they were forced to leave their homes and live elsewhere within the country.

In March, Uganda deployed its troops to South Sudan to support the president, prompting concern of a full-scale civil war between forces backing Kiir and opposition forces. The United Nations then extended a U.S.-sponsored arms embargo in May to prevent weapons from reaching the region.

The conflict has also blocked the distribution of lifesaving aid, including food and other basic supplies, to reach people in South Sudan. About 57% of the country’s estimated 11 million people do not get enough food.

In March, the U.S. State Department ordered nonemergency U.S. government employees to leave South Sudan.

The State Department has also documented “significant human rights issues” in South Sudan, including threats to freedom of expression, as well as arbitrary arrests and detentions.

Libya’s danger for migrants

The Trump administration is also trying to send immigrants to Libya, which has not had a stable government since the U.S. and other countries supported the overthrow of dictator Muammar Gadhafi in 2011. Libya is currently ruled by two rival governments: the internationally recognized Government of National Unity in the country’s western region and the Government of National Stability in the east.

The U.S. has not had an embassy in Libya since 2014 due to unpredictable and unstable security there.

Armed militias control sections of Libya, and in some cases, they are also embedded as part of the governments.

Libya is a significant destination for migrants from countries throughout Africa and the Middle East who want to work in, or just pass through, Libya on their way north to Europe.

It is also a dangerous place for migrants. A 2023 U.N. fact-finding mission in Libya documented what migrants have long maintained in interviews with advocacy groups – they are regularly held for ransom by human traffickers, enslaved, and arrested and tortured in detention centers partly funded by Europe.

A mass grave found in 2021 near the village of Tarhouna contained the bodies of hundreds of locals who had disappeared under militia rule. In February 2025, the U.N. confirmed the discovery of mass migrant graves, with bodies showing signs of gunshot wounds.

In a May 2025 court declaration, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that the injunction halting rapid third-country deportations threatens “a significant commercial deal to expand activities of a U.S. energy company in Libya.” In Libya, home to Africa’s largest oil reserves, U.S. companies are actively seeking to rekindle partnerships with the country’s national oil company.

In June, Trump included Libya on the list of countries banned from sending citizens to the U.S., citing the inability to “safely and reliably vet and screen” citizens from Libya and the other banned countries.

Other options for Trump administration

The U.S. is actively seeking additional countries it could send immigrants to in the future, even if they are not from those places.

Rubio issued a memo on June 14, about expanding the list of countries in the current travel ban against foreign nationals from 12 countries, including Libya. He noted that the 36 additional countries – mostly in Africa and including South Sudan – could mitigate the harsh policy by agreeing to accept immigrants from other countries who are deported from the U.S.

Eleanor Paynter 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. Supreme Court rules Trump can rapidly deport immigrants to Libya, South Sudan and other countries they aren’t from – https://theconversation.com/supreme-court-rules-trump-can-rapidly-deport-immigrants-to-libya-south-sudan-and-other-countries-they-arent-from-258155

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Donald Heflin, Executive Director of the Edward R. Murrow Center and Senior Fellow of Diplomatic Practice, The Fletcher School, Tufts University

Within hours of President Donald Trump unexpectedly announcing an upcoming ceasefire between Israel and Iran on June 23, 2025, both countries launched airstrikes against the other.

“We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the f–k they’re doing,” an angry and frustrated Trump told reporters outside the White House on June 24.

While Iran and Israel have tentatively agreed to the truce – and Trump reiterated on June 24 that the “ceasefire is in effect” – it is not clear whether this deal can hold. Some research shows that an estimated 80% of ceasefire deals worldwide fail.

Amy Lieberman, a politics and society editor at The Conversation U.S., spoke with former Ambassador Donald Heflin, an American career diplomat who serves as the executive director of the Edward R. Murrow Center at the Fletcher School, Tufts University, to understand how ceasefires typically work – and how the Israel-Iran deal stacks up against other agreements to end wars.

How do ceasefire deals typically happen?

There are classes taught on how to negotiate ceasefires, but it is ad hoc with each situation.

For example, in one scenario, one of the warring parties wants a ceasefire and has decided that the conflict isn’t going well. The second party might not want a ceasefire, but could agree that it is getting tired or the risks are too high, and agrees to work something out.

The next scenario, which leads to more success, is when both parties want a ceasefire. They decide that the loss of life and money has gone too far for both sides. One of the parties approaches the other through intermediaries to say it wants a ceasefire, and the other warring party agrees.

In a third situation – which is what we are seeing with the Iran-Israel deal – the outside world imposes a ceasefire. Trump likely told both Israel and Iran: Look, it’s enough. This is too dangerous for the rest of the world. We don’t care what you think. Time for a ceasefire.“

The U.S. has done this in the Middle East before, like after the Yom Kippur War in 1973 between Israel and a coalition of Arab countries led by Egypt and Syria. Israel was achieving big military victories, but the risk was pretty great for the world. The U.S. came in and said, “That’s enough, stop it now.” And it worked.

Does the US bring the warring parties to a table in this kind of situation, or simply pressure the countries to stop fighting?

It is more of the U.S. saying, “We are done.” When the U.S. does something like this, it is often going to have backup from the European Union and other countries like Qatar, saying, “The Americans are right. It is time for a ceasefire.”

It appears that this Israel-Iran deal does not have specific conditions attached to it. Is that typical of a ceasefire deal?

This deal doesn’t seem to have any specific details attached to it. Ceasefires work better when they have that. Lasting ceasefires need to address the concerns of the warring parties and give each side some of what it wants.

For instance, in the Ukraine and Russia war, we have not seen either one of those countries push for a ceasefire. Part of the problem is Crimea and eastern Ukraine, sections of land in Ukraine that Russia has annexed and claims as its own. Russia would be happy with a deal that puts it in charge of Crimea and Ukraine, but Ukraine won’t agree to that. The question of who controls specific areas of land has to be addressed in this conflict; otherwise, the ceasefire isn’t going to last.

Who is responsible for ensuring that both sides uphold a ceasefire?

Security guarantees are an important part of negotiating and maintaining long-term ceasefires. Big countries like the U.S. could say that if a warring party violates a ceasefire agreement, they are going to punish them.

In the 1990s, the U.S. and Europe assured Ukraine that if it gave up its nuclear arsenal, the U.S. would defend Ukraine if Russia ever invaded it. Russia has invaded Ukraine twice since then, in 2014 and 2022. The U.S. gave a more substantial response in the form of sending weapons and other war materials to Ukraine after the 2022 invasion, but there have been no real consequences for Russia.

That has created a problem for ceasefires in the future, because the U.S. didn’t deliver on its past security guarantees.

The further away you get from Europe, the less interested the West is in wars. But in those kinds of disputes, United Nations and other international peacekeeping troops can be sent in. Sometimes, that can work brilliantly in one place, like with the example of international peacekeeping troops called the multilateral Observer Mission stationed between Israel and Egypt helping maintain peace between those countries. But you can copy it to another place and it just doesn’t work as well.

How does this ceasefire fit within the history of other ceasefires?

It’s too early to tell. What matters is how the details get fleshed out.

Ideally, you can get representatives of the Israeli and Iranian governments to sit around a conference table to reach a detailed agreement. The Israelis might say, “We have got to have some kind of assurances that Iran is not going to use a nuclear weapon.” And the Iranians could say, “Assassinations of our military generals and scientists has got to stop.” That kind of conversation and agreement is what is missing, thus far, in this process.

Why is it so common for ceasefire deals to fail?

Some ceasefire deals don’t get to the underlying conditions of what really caused the problem and what made people start shooting this time around. If you don’t get to the core issues of a conflict, you are putting a Band-Aid on the situation. Putting a Band-Aid on someone when they are bleeding is a good move, but you ultimately might need more than that to stop the bleeding.

The outside world might be pretty happy with a ceasefire deal that seems to stop the fighting, but if the details are not ironed out, the experts would say, “This isn’t going to last.”

Donald Heflin 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. Ceasefires like the one between Iran and Israel often fail – but an agreement with specific conditions is more likely to hold – https://theconversation.com/ceasefires-like-the-one-between-iran-and-israel-often-fail-but-an-agreement-with-specific-conditions-is-more-likely-to-hold-259739

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Gibbs Knotts, Professor of Political Science, Coastal Carolina University

In the “one, big, beautiful bill,” President Donald Trump has called for substantial decreases in federal domestic spending. However, a schism emerged between Republican lawmakers during the budget debates in Congress.

Some Republicans in blue states called for a tax increase for the wealthiest Americans, prompting longtime anti-tax advocate Grover Norquist to call the increase an “incredibly destructive idea economically, and very foolish politically.”

As he has done since the 1980s, Norquist demonstrated his influence over the GOP. Since Trump’s second inauguration, he has appeared in several high-profile news stories about the budget, including a Washington Post article where he said, “Tax cuts are income to Americans and a loss to the bureaucracy.”

Ultimately, the tax increase was defeated, and the Trump budget proposal passed the House on May 22, 2025.

Norquist praised the leadership from Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise, saying taxpayers owe them “bigly for managing a narrow Republican House Majority that was united and committed to reducing taxes on the American people.”

As scholars of U.S. politics, we examined Norquist’s emergence, traced debates about the scope and size of the American government and assessed Norquist’s relevance in the Donald Trump era, where he continues to wield considerable sway in the Republican Party.

The conscience of a conservative

In 1960, a slim, 123-page book changed the trajectory of American conservative thought.

“The Conscience of a Conservative,” written by Barry Goldwater, laid out the premise that an expansive federal bureaucracy was the root evil of government.

Four years later, Ronald Reagan launched his political career with a speech supporting Goldwater. His words echoed Goldwater: “No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size … a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.”

Reagan ended the speech by noting, “You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.” Goldwater wouldn’t manifest that destiny, but Reagan, 16 years later, took this vision of fiscal conservatism to the White House.

By the 1980s, Goldwater’s limited government creed had become part of Republican dogma. Government wasn’t just bloated, according to Reagan. It was, as he noted, the problem. The Reagan presidency ushered in the doctrine of supply-side economics, which rests on the premise that tax cuts are key to stimulating economic growth.

Norquist’s emergence

Into this landscape stepped a young Norquist.

He had cut his teeth at the National Taxpayer’s Union, a fiscally conservative taxpayer advocacy group. Then, in 1981, he became the executive director of the College Republican National Committee.

In the first issue of CR Report, a college Republican newsletter, Norquist’s position as executive director was announced, and he provided a list of suggested readings. Among the titles he recommended were Goldwater’s “Conscience,” Milton Friedman’s “Capitalism and Freedom” and Friedrich Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom.”

In 1985, Norquist founded Americans for Tax Reform to support his tax reduction efforts. As Norquist noted, “The tax issue is one thing everyone agrees on.”

He and his organization effectively institutionalized a permanent tax revolt in Congress supported by his “Taxpayer Protection Pledge,” a promise made starting in 1986 to oppose all efforts to increase marginal tax rates or reduce deductions or credits.

The pledge became a litmus test for fiscally conservative GOP candidates and cemented the party’s anti-tax stance.

Feeling this pressure, GOP nominee George H.W. Bush delivered his famous line, “read my lips, no new taxes,” at the 1988 Republican National Convention. Those six words were repeatedly used by primary challenger Pat Buchanan and Bush’s opponent in the general election, Bill Clinton, to raise questions about Bush’s honesty – since he made a pledge that he was unable to keep.

With Clinton in the White House in 1994, Norquist helped House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich write the “Contract with America” to legislate fiscal conservatism. Weaponizing government shutdowns and setting a more confrontational tone, congressional Republicans successfully rolled back welfare programs, reduced the size of government and cut taxes.

In 1995, they came two votes shy in the Senate of approving an amendment to the Constitution that would have required the federal budget to be balanced – with no borrowing – every year.

Anti-tax conservatism in the 21st century

In 2001, Norquist told a reporter at The Nation: “My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”

This objective would have to wait during the George W. Bush presidency. Resulting in part from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the Bush administration saw dramatic expansions of federal power and spending in homeland security, defense and Medicare, as well as a large increase in the budget deficit.

The tea party movement, a fiscally conservative political group, was formed in response to these Bush-era increases and two signature programs of the Barack Obama administration: the massive stimulus package, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and his signature health care reform, the Affordable Care Act.

Norquist reveled in renewed attention to tax policies and the size of government, urging readers of The Guardian to “join the Tea Party movement.”

Norquist’s continuing legacy

For more than four decades, Norquist has been a relentless advocate for fiscal conservatism. He is the living embodiment of an ideological thread that stretches from Goldwater to Reagan to Gingrich to current GOP leadership.

The ongoing debates about the Trump budget are just the latest example of Norquist’s influence. He continues to play an active role in debates about the federal budget and still has considerable sway with Republicans.

However, Norquist’s uncompromising stance on taxes has coincided with increases in federal spending, surging budget deficits and increased national debt.

That additional debt is accumulating because many Republicans have adopted his anti-tax position while simultaneously increasing defense budgets, maintaining or expanding entitlement spending and lowering taxes on the wealthiest Americans.

Nevertheless, Norquist continues to be the fiscal conscience of the Republican Party. Politicians come and go. Powerful ideas, and those who champion them, endure.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Grover Norquist’s lasting influence on the GOP and US economic policy – https://theconversation.com/grover-norquists-lasting-influence-on-the-gop-and-us-economic-policy-256978

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Gregory F. Treverton, Professor of Practice in International Relations, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

The Trump administration’s decision to bomb Iran dramatically marks the now nearly half-century of hostility between the United States and Iran, which began in 1979 with Iran’s takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and the taking of 52 diplomatic hostages.

It remains uncertain whether the Iran-Israel ceasefire will hold, given President Donald Trump’s seemingly impulsive policy decisions and an Israeli leader who critics say pursues war to stay in power.

Additional unpredictability can be seen in a weakened Iran government that is unpopular with its own people but must also bet that standing up to the U.S. and Israel will induce its people to rally around the flag, even if they don’t like who holds that flag.

As a U.S. international relations scholar, I think whatever comes next will be well informed by what has already happened in U.S.-Iran history. That includes an offer from Trump – who considers himself the consummate negotiator – to Iran to return to the negotiating table.

The shah’s last visit to Washington

The opening bracket in modern U.S.-Iran relations was the 1979 Islamic Revolution that overthrew Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi,“ whom a CIA covert action had restored to leadership a quarter-century earlier.

As a young National Security Council staffer, I stood on the South Lawn of the White House as the shah’s helicopter landed in 1977 for a state visit to his close ally, the United States.

The episode was perhaps a metaphor for the two countries’ relationship. I stood next to a colleague who had written for President Jimmy Carter remarks that included fulsome praise of the shah, but his crack to me was: “You’ll recognize the shah. He’s the one with blood under his fingernails.” Beneath a formal alliance, there was a good deal of cynicism on the U.S. part about the shah’s repressive regime and use of secret police to suppress opposition.

Pro- and anti-shah protesters were demonstrating at the bottom of the Ellipse, the park south of the White House grounds. The U.S. Park Police, understandably but unwisely, sought to separate them with tear gas, which then wafted over the proceedings on the South Lawn.

The impact of the hostage crisis

It’s impossible to overstate the effect of the 1979 hostage crisis, when Iranian students seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, holding 62 American hostages for 444 days.

The Carter administration negotiated the Algiers Accords, which led to the release of the hostages in January 1981. There have been persistent accounts, none ever fully validated, that the incoming Reagan administration dealt with Iran to delay the release until after the new president’s inauguration.

The crisis not only cost Carter his job, but it also cast an enduring shadow over the U.S.-Iran relationship, compounding Americans’ difficulty in understanding a regime that was not only theocratic but Muslim.

The 1980s witnessed a whipsaw of relations.

From 1980 to 1988, as Iran and Iraq fought a bloody war to a stalemate, the U.S. saw the power of both countries contained, but it did provide intelligence and logistical support to Iraq.

Then came the Iran-Contra Affair of 1985 to 1987. It was the Reagan administration’s most serious scandal, in which White House officials illegally sold sanctioned arms to Iran and secretly diverted the proceeds to the Nicaraguan Contras. In a moment straight out of comic opera, National Security Council aides brought a goodwill chocolate cake to Tehran during a secret diplomatic mission in May 1986.

In 1988, a U.S. ship struck an Iranian mine in the Persian Gulf. The U.S. retaliated by destroying oil platforms and damaging Iranian ships in “Operation Praying Mantis,” and tragically – and mistakenly – shot down Iran Air Flight 655, killing 290 civilians.

The 1990s and 2000s again displayed the limits of the relationship.

In 1995, President Bill Clinton imposed an oil and trade embargo against Iran, and Congress passed the Iran–Libya Sanctions Act in 1996, which imposed economic sanctions on companies doing business with Iran and Libya.

In 1998, Iranian President Mohammad Khatami called for a “dialogue of civilizations,” prompting cautious U.S. signals of engagement.

Then, in 2002, President George W. Bush labeled Iran part of the “axis of evil,” a sharp rhetorical escalation. For its part, Iran alleged U.S. drone incursions and covert operations. Limited diplomatic back channels emerged, but to no outcome.

In 2009, President Barack Obama reached out to Tehran amid post-election unrest in Iran, but two years later Iran threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial route for oil shipments to the West.

In 2015, the two countries were party to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, with Iran agreeing to limit its nuclear program under international oversight.

Two years later, though, President Trump withdrew from the nuclear deal and reimposed sweeping sanctions in a “maximum pressure” campaign.

In 2019 and 2020, a series of tit-for-tat escalations culminated in the Jan. 3, 2020, U.S. drone strike that assassinated senior Iranian General Qassem Soleimani. Iran retaliated with missile strikes on U.S. bases in the region.

U.S. sanctions continued in the Biden administration as Iran pursued deeper ties with Russia, China and nonstate proxies, especially Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen.

What lessons?

What can be learned from this tangled history?

First, that negotiations are possible between the two countries, but they are neither easy nor likely to produce more than limited outcomes. Indeed, high-level indirect talks mediated by Oman began in April 2025, though they were in suspension when the U.S. bombers struck.

Second, despite the Iran regime’s unpopularity, regime change in Iran is unlikely. Assassinating Ayatollah Ali Khameini would likely abet the “rally ‘round the flag” effect, as did the assassination of Soleimani.

Third, Iran has been careful in its responses even to Israeli aggression but especially in engaging the U.S. in military conflict, a caution the American B-2 bombings on June 21 can only underscore.

Iran had to retaliate, so the attack on the U.S. base in Qatar came as no surprise. But Iran was careful in retaliating, even notifying the U.S. in advance.

The dropping of U.S. bombs, followed by Iran’s careful retaliation, was the opportunity for Trump to make an offer Iran couldn’t refuse.

Gregory F. Treverton 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 happens next in US-Iran relations will be informed by the two countries’ shared history – https://theconversation.com/what-happens-next-in-us-iran-relations-will-be-informed-by-the-two-countries-shared-history-259607

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Andrea Stanton, Associate Professor of Islamic Studies & Faculty Affiliate, Center for Middle East Studies, University of Denver

After 12 days of trading deadly airstrikes, Israel and Iran confirmed on June 24, 2025, that a ceasefire is in effect, one day after President Donald Trump proclaimed the countries reached a deal to end fighting. Experts are wondering how long the ceasefire, which does not contain any specific conditions, will hold.

Meanwhile, Republicans and Democrats alike have debated whether the Trump administration’s decision to bomb Iran’s three nuclear facilities on June 22 constituted an unofficial declaration of war – since Trump has not asked Congress to formally declare war against Iran.

The United States’ involvement in the fighting between Iran and Israel, which Israel started on June 12, has also sparked concerned comparisons with the eight-year war the U.S. waged in Iraq, another Middle Eastern country.

The U.S. invaded Iraq more than 20 years ago in March 2003, claiming it had to disarm the Iraqi government of weapons of mass destruction and end the dictatorial rule of President Saddam Hussein. U.S. soldiers captured Saddam in December 2003, but the war dragged on through 2011.

A 15-month search by U.S. and United Nations inspectors revealed in 2004 that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction to seize.

The Trump administration, bolstered by the Israeli government, has claimed that Iran’s development of nuclear weapons represents an imminent, dangerous threat to Western countries and the rest of the world. Iran says that its nuclear development program is for civilian use. While the International Atomic Energy Agency, an independent organization that is part of the United Nations, monitors Iran and other countries’ nuclear development work, Iran has not complied with recent IAEA requests for information about its nuclear program.

Trump has also called for regime change in Iran, writing on his Truth Social media platform on June 22 that he wants to “Make Iran Great Again”, though he has since walked back that plan. The case of U.S. involvement in Iraq might offer some lessons in this current moment.

The start and cost of the Iraq War

The conflict between Western powers and Iraq dragged on until 2011. More than 4,600 American soldiers died in combat – and thousands more died by suicide after they returned home.

More than 288,000 Iraqis, including fighters and civilians, have died from war-related violence since the invasion.

The war cost the U.S. over $2 trillion.

And Iraq is still dealing with widespread political violence between rival religious-political groups and an unstable government.

Most of these problems stem directly or indirectly from the war. The 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq and the war that followed are defining events in the histories of both countries – and the region. Yet, for many young people in the United States, drawing a connection between the war and its present-day impact is becoming more difficult. For them, the war is an artifact of the past.

I am a Middle East historian and an Islamic studies scholar who teaches two undergraduate courses that cover the 2003 invasion and the Iraq War. My courses attract students who hope to work in politics, law, government and nonprofit groups, and whose personal backgrounds include a range of religious traditions, immigration histories and racial identities.

The stories of the invasion and subsequent war resonate with them in the same way that stories of other past events do – they’re eager to learn from them, but don’t see them as directly connected to their lives.

A generational shift

Since I started teaching courses related to the Iraq War in 2010, my students have shifted from millennials to Generation Z. The latter were born between the mid-1990s and early 2010s. There has also been a change in how these students understand major early 21st-century events, including the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

I teach this event by showing things like former President George W. Bush’s March 19, 2003, televised announcement of the invasion.

I also teach it through the flow of my lived experience. That includes remembering the Feb. 15, 2003, anti-war protests that took place in over 600 cities around the world as an effort to prevent what appeared to be an inevitable war. And I show students aspects of material culture, like the “Iraqi most wanted” deck of playing cards, distributed to deployed U.S. military personnel in Iraq, who used the cards for games and to help them identify key figures in the Iraq government.

The millennial students I taught around 2010 recalled the U.S. invasion of Iraq from their early teen years – a confusing but foundational moment in their personal timelines.

But for the Gen-Z students I teach today, the invasion sits firmly in the past, as a part of history.

Why this matters

Since the mid-2010s, I have not been able to expect students to enroll in my course with personal prior knowledge about the invasion and war that followed. In 2013, my students would tell me that their childhoods had been defined by a United States at war – even if those wars happened far from U.S. soil.

Millennial students considered the trifecta of 9/11, the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq to be defining events in their lives. The U.S. and its allies launched airstrikes against al-Qaida and Taliban targets in Afghanistan on Oct. 7, 2001, less than a month after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. This followed the Taliban refusing to hand over Osama bin Laden, the architect of 9/11.

By 2021, my students considered Bush’s actions with the same level of abstract curiosity that they had brought to the class’s earlier examination of the 1957 Eisenhower Doctrine, which said that a country could request help from U.S. military forces if it was being threatened by another country, and was used to justify U.S. military involvement in Lebanon in 1958.

On an educational level, this means that I now provide much more background information on the first the Gulf War, the 2000 presidential elections, the Bush presidency, the immediate U.S. responses to 9/11 and the Afghanistan invasion than I had to do before. All of these events help students better understand why the U.S. invaded Iraq and why Americans felt so strongly about the military action – whether they were for or against the invasion.

The Iraq invasion lost popularity among Americans within two years. In March 2003, 71% of Americans said that the U.S. made the right decision to use military force in Iraq.

That percentage dropped to 47% in 2005, following the revelation that there were no weapons of mass destruction. Yet those supporters continued to strongly endorse the invasion in later polls.

In 2018, just over half of Americans believed that the U.S. failed to achieve its goals, however those goals might have been defined in Iraq.

A new set of priorities

Older Americans age 65 and up are more likely than young people to prioritize foreign policy issues, including maintaining a U.S. military advantage.

Younger Americans – age 18 to 39 – say the top issues that require urgency are providing support to refugees and limiting U.S. military commitments abroad, according to a 2021 Pew research survey.

Generation Z members are also less likely than older Americans to think that the U.S. should act by itself in defending or protecting democracy around the world, according to a 2019 poll by the think tank Center for American Progress.

They also agree with the statement that the United States’ “wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan were a waste of time, lives, and taxpayer money and they did nothing to make us safer at home.” They prefer that the U.S. use economic and diplomatic means, rather than military intervention, to advance American interests around the world.

Israel’s conflict with Iran may not flare again and give way to more airstrikes and violence. If the countries resume fighting, however, their conflict threatens to draw in Lebanon, Qatar and other countries in the Middle East, as well as likely the U.S. – and to drag on for a long time.

This is an update from a story originally published on March 15, 2023.

Andrea Stanton 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. Israel-Iran war recalls the 2003 US invasion of Iraq – a war my undergraduate students see as a relic of the past – https://theconversation.com/israel-iran-war-recalls-the-2003-us-invasion-of-iraq-a-war-my-undergraduate-students-see-as-a-relic-of-the-past-259652

Source: – By Daniella McCahey, Assistant Professor of History, Texas Tech University

As Midwinter Day approaches in Antarctica – the longest and darkest day of the year – those spending the winter on the frozen continent will follow a tradition dating back more than a century to the earliest days of Antarctic exploration: They will celebrate having made it through the growing darkness and into a time when they know the Sun is on its way back.

The experience of spending a winter in Antarctica can be harrowing, even when living with modern conveniences such as hot running water and heated buildings. At the beginning of the current winter season, in March 2025, global news outlets reported that workers at the South African research station, SANAE IV, were “rocked” when one worker allegedly threatened and assaulted other members of the station’s nine-person winter crew. Psychologists intervened – remotely – and order was apparently restored.

The desolate and isolated environment of Antarctica can be hard on its inhabitants. As a historian of Antarctica, the events at SANAE IV represent a continuation of perceptions – and realities – that Antarctic environments can trigger deeply disturbing behavior and even drive people to madness.

Early views

The very earliest examples of Antarctic literature depict the continent affecting both mind and body. In 1797, for instance, more than two decades before the continent was first sighted by Europeans, the English poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge wrote “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner.” It tells a tale of a ship blown by storms into an endless maze of Antarctic ice, which they escape by following an albatross. For unexplained reasons, one man killed the albatross and faced a lifetime’s torment for doing so.

In 1838, Edgar Allan Poe published the story of “Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket,” who journeyed into the Southern Ocean. Even before arriving in Antarctica, the tale involves mutiny, cannibalism and a ship crewed by dead men. As the story ends, Pym and two others drift southward, encountering an enormous, apparently endless cataract of mist that parts before their boat, revealing a large ghostly figure.

H.P. Lovecraft’s 1936 story “At the Mountains of Madness” was almost certainly based on real stories of polar exploration. In it, the men of a fictitious Antarctic expedition encounter circumstances that “made us wish only to escape from this austral world of desolation and brooding madness as swiftly as we could.” One man even experiences an unnamed “final horror” that causes a severe mental breakdown.

The 1982 John Carpenter film “The Thing” also involves these themes, when men trapped at an Antarctic research station are being hunted by an alien that perfectly impersonates the base members it has killed. Paranoia and anxiety abound, with team members frantically radioing for help, and men imprisoned, left outside or even killed for the sake of the others.

Whether to gird themselves for what may come or just as a fun tradition, the winter-over crew at the United States’ South Pole Station watches this film every year after the last flight leaves before winter sets in.

Real tales

These stories of Antarctic “madness” have some basis in history. A long-told anecdote in modern Antarctic circles is of a man who stabbed, perhaps fatally, a colleague over a game of chess at Russia’s Vostok station in 1959.

More certain were reports in 2018, when Sergey Savitsky stabbed Oleg Beloguzov at the Russian Bellingshausen research station over multiple grievances, including the one most seized upon by the media: Beloguzov’s tendency to reveal the endings of books that Savitsky was reading. A criminal charge against him was dropped.

In 2017, staff at South Africa’s sub-Antarctic Marion Island station reported that a team member smashed up a colleague’s room with an ax over a romantic relationship.

Mental health

Concerns over mental health in Antarctica go much further back. In the so-called “Heroic Age” of Antarctic exploration, from about 1897 to about 1922, expedition leaders prioritized the mental health of the men on their expeditions. They knew their crews would be trapped inside with the same small group for months on end, in darkness and extreme cold.

American physician Frederick Cook, who accompanied the 1898-1899 Belgica expedition, the first group known to spend the winter within the Antarctic Circle, wrote in helpless terms of being “doomed” to the “mercy” of natural forces, and of his worries about the “unknowable cold and its soul-depressing effects” in the winter darkness. In his 2021 book about that expedition, writer Julian Sancton called the ship the “Madhouse at the End of the Earth.”

Cook’s fears became real. Most men complained of “general enfeeblement of strength, of insufficient heart action, of a mental lethargy, and of a universal feeling of discomfort.”

“When at all seriously afflicted,” Cook wrote, “the men felt that they would surely die” and exhibited a “spirit of abject hopelessness.”

And in the words of Australian physicist Louis Bernacchi, a member of the 1898-1900 Southern Cross expedition, “There is something particularly mystical and uncanny in the effect of the grey atmosphere of an Antarctic night, through whose uncertain medium the cold white landscape looms as impalpable as the frontiers of a demon world.”

A traumatic trip

A few years later, the Australasian Antarctic Expedition, which ran from 1911 to 1914, experienced several major tragedies, including two deaths during an exploring trip that left expedition leader Douglas Mawson starving and alone amid deeply crevassed terrain. The 100-mile walk to relative safety took him a month.

A lesser-known set of events on that same expedition involved wireless-telegraph operator Sidney Jeffryes, who arrived in Antarctica in 1913 on a resupply ship. Cape Denison, the expedition’s base, had some of the most severe environmental conditions anyone had encountered on the continent, including winds estimated at over 160 miles an hour.

Jeffryes, the only man in the crew who could operate the radio telegraph, began exhibiting signs of paranoia. He transmitted messages back to Australia saying that he was the only sane man in the group and claiming the others were plotting to kill him.

In Mawson’s account of the expedition, he blamed the conditions, writing:

“(T)here is no doubt that the continual and acute strain of sending and receiving messages under unprecedented conditions was such that he eventually had a ‘nervous breakdown.’”

Mawson hoped that the coming of spring and the possibility of outdoor exercise would help, but it did not. Shortly after his return to Australia in February 1914, Jeffryes was found wandering in the Australian bush and institutionalized. For many years, his role in Antarctic exploration was ignored, seeming a blot or embarrassment on the masculine ideal of Antarctic explorers.

Wider problems

Unfortunately, the general widespread focus on Antarctica as a place that causes disturbing behavior makes it easy to gloss over larger and more systemic problems.

In 2022, the United States Antarctic Program as well as the Australian Antarctic Division released reports that sexual assault and harassment are common at Antarctic bases and in more remote field camps. Scholars have generally not linked those events to the specifics of the cold, darkness and isolation, but rather to a continental culture of heroic masculinity.

As humans look to live in other extreme environments, such as space, Antarctica represents not only a cooperative international scientific community but also a place where, cut off from society as a whole, human behavior changes. The celebrations of Midwinter Day honor survival in a place of wonder that is also a place of horror, where the greatest threat is not what is outside, but what is inside your mind.

Daniella McCahey 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. At Antarctica’s midwinter, a look back at the frozen continent’s long history of dark behavior – https://theconversation.com/at-antarcticas-midwinter-a-look-back-at-the-frozen-continents-long-history-of-dark-behavior-253906

Source: – By Ben Livneh, Associate Professor of Hydrology, University of Colorado Boulder

Picture a wildfire raging across a forested mountainside. The smoke billows and the flames rise. An aircraft drops vibrant red flame retardant. It’s a dramatic, often dangerous scene. But the threat to water supplies is only just beginning.

After the smoke clears, the soil, which was once nestled beneath a canopy of trees and a spongy layer of leaves, is now exposed. Often, that soil is charred and sterile, with the heat making the ground almost water-repellent, like a freshly waxed car.

When the first rain arrives, the water rushes downhill. It carries with it a slurry of ash, soil and contaminants from the burned landscape. This torrent flows directly into streams and then rivers that provide drinking water for communities downstream.

As a new research paper my colleagues and I just published shows, this isn’t a short-term problem. The ghost of the fire can haunt these waterways for years.

This matters because forested watersheds are the primary water source for nearly two-thirds of municipalities in the United States. As wildfires in the western U.S. become larger and more frequent, the long-term security and safety of water supplies for downstream communities is increasingly at risk.

Charting the long tail of wildfire pollution

Scientists have long known that wildfires can affect water quality, but two key questions remained: Exactly how bad is the impact? And how long does it last?

To find out, my colleagues and I led a study, coordinated by engineer Carli Brucker. We undertook one of the most extensive analyses of post-wildfire water quality to date. The results were published June 23, 2025, in the journal Nature Communications Earth & Environment.

We gathered decades of water quality data from 245 burned watersheds across the western U.S. and compared them to nearly 300 similar, unburned watersheds.

By creating a computer model for each basin that accounted for its normal water quality variability, based on factors such as rainfall and temperature, we were able to isolate the impact of the wildfire. This allowed us to see how much the water quality deviated after the fire, year after year.

The results were stark. In the first year after a fire, the concentrations of some contaminants skyrocketed. We found that levels of sediment and turbidity – the cloudiness of the water – were 19 to 286 times higher than prefire levels. That much sediment can clog filters at water treatment plants and require expensive treatment and maintenance. Think of trying to use a coffee filter with muddy water – the water just won’t flow through.

Concentrations of organic carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus were three to 103 times greater in the burned basins. These dissolved remnants of burned plants and soil are particularly problematic. When they mix with the chlorine used to disinfect drinking water, they can form harmful chemicals called disinfection byproducts, some of which are linked to cancer.

More surprisingly, we found the impacts to be really persistent. While the most dramatic spikes in phosphorous, nitrate, organic carbon and sediment generally occurred in the first one to three years, some contaminants lingered for much longer.

We saw significantly elevated levels of nitrogen and sediment for up to eight years following a fire. Nitrogen and phosphorus act like fertilizer for algae. A surge of these nutrients can trigger algal blooms in reservoirs, which can produce toxins and create foul odors.

This extended timeline suggests that wildfires are fundamentally altering the landscape in ways that take a long time to heal. In our previous laboratory-based research, including a 2024 study, we simulated this process by burning soil and vegetation and then running water over them.

The stuff that leaches out is a cocktail of carbon, nutrients and other compounds that can exacerbate flood risks and degrade water quality in ways that require more expensive treatment at water treatment facilities. In extreme cases, the water quality may be so poor that communities can’t withdraw river water at all, and that can create water shortages.

After the Buffalo Creek Fire in 1996 and then the Hayman Fire in 2002, Denver’s water utility spent more than US$27 million over several years to treat the water, remove more than 1 million cubic yards of sediment and debris from a reservoir, and fix infrastructure. State Forest Service crews planted thousands of trees to help restore the surrounding forest’s water filtering capabilities.

A growing challenge for water treatment

This long-lasting impact poses a major challenge for water treatment plants that make river water safe to drink. Our study highlights that utilities can’t just plan for a few bad months after a fire. They need to be prepared for potentially eight or more years of degraded water quality.

We also found that where a fire burns matters. Watersheds with thicker forests or more urban areas that burned tended to have even worse water quality after a fire.

Since many municipalities draw water from more than one source, understanding which watersheds are likely to have the largest water quality problems after fires can help communities locate the most vulnerable parts of their water supply systems.

As temperatures rise and more people move into wildland areas in the American West, the risk of wildfires increases, and it is becoming clear that preparing for longer-term consequences is crucial. The health of forests and our communities’ drinking water are inseparably linked, with wildfires casting a shadow that lasts long after the smoke clears.

Ben Livneh receives funding from the Western Water Assessment NOAA grant #NA21OAR4310309, ‘Western Water Assessment: Building Resilience to Compound Hazards in the Inter-Mountain West’.

– ref. After the smoke clears, a wildfire’s legacy can haunt rivers for years, putting drinking water at risk – https://theconversation.com/after-the-smoke-clears-a-wildfires-legacy-can-haunt-rivers-for-years-putting-drinking-water-at-risk-259118

Source: – By Christelle Khalaf, Associate Director, Government Finance Research Center, University of Illinois Chicago

When new presidential administrations enter the White House, federal agencies often find their funding and priorities shifting, sometimes dramatically.

I’m a scholar who studies how policy and market shifts affect regional economies, labor markets and public systems, particularly in the context of critical infrastructure such as energy and water. I’ve seen how both of those types of changes – of funding levels and priorities – destabilize agencies and cut off long-term projects before they achieve their intended goals.

In one research project, with co-authors Dr. Deborah A. Carroll and Zach Perkins, I took a close look at one office within a federal agency, the Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. What we found serves as an example of how these changes have played out in the past, and it gives context to how the Trump administration’s changes are playing out now in that agency and across the federal government.

The office, known by researchers and its personnel as EERE, is mainly focused on funding research and development to advance energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies and reduce the costs of those technologies to consumers. Its key efforts involve low-emission transportation, renewable electricity generation and decreasing the carbon emissions of buildings and industry processes.

It makes grants to, and enters research and development agreements with, small businesses, industry, national laboratories, universities and state and local governments. Recipients are often required to contribute matching funds or other support to the project to complement the federal funding.

In general, Congress appropriates funding to the office as part of the yearly budget process. However, the office also receives sporadic influxes of additional funding to stimulate the economy or address concerns related to energy security and greenhouse gas emissions. Ultimately, the amount of funding EERE gets depends in part on overall economic conditions or national crises.

Boosting funding levels

Some of those supplemental allocations can be significant, and many last until the funds have been spent, even if that takes a number of years. Following the energy crisis in the early 2000s, Congress allocated EERE a total of about $7 billion in funding for research and development in energy efficiency, renewable energy and biofuels.

Then in 2009, following the Great Recession, Congress gave EERE $16.7 billion – most of which was to help low-income families pay to install efficient light sources or insulation to save them money. About $5.4 billion was for research and development.

In 2020, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress passed the Energy Act of 2020, mainly focusing on nuclear energy and carbon capture technologies but also providing over $500 million in research and development funding for EERE.

In 2021, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act allocated about $16.3 billion to EERE. And in 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act provided an additional $18 billion. As with other additional funding allocations, Congress made most of that money available until the total authorized amount has been spent.

But the future of these allocations is uncertain. A January 2025 executive order by President Donald Trump requested that all agencies immediately pause the disbursement of funds Congress approved in both laws.

In its 2026 budget, the Trump administration is proposing spending $900 million on EERE’s work – a 70% reduction from its 2025 allocation of $3.5 billion. This echoes a move during Trump’s first term when the White House proposed the office’s funding be cut by nearly 70% between the 2017 and 2018 budgets. However, at that time, Congress decided to keep the office’s budget largely intact. Congress will review and decide on this proposed budget as well.

Shifting priorities

How those varying amounts of money are spent also changes, often based on shifts in political leadership with different views about what types of technologies are most worth investing in, and about the most effective role of government in developing new technologies.

Our qualitative analysis has found that Republican administrations typically believe that very-early-stage research and development is an appropriate role for the federal government, but that as technologies move closer to commercialization, the private sector should take the lead.

In contrast, we found that Democratic administrations believe that promising innovations often fail to reach the market due to insufficient private sector support during the demonstration and deployment phases. So they tend to advocate for increased federal involvement to assist with the transition from research to market-ready technologies.

There is also a partisan difference in which technologies get financial support. Solar and wind energy technologies have historically received higher funding under Democratic administrations. In contrast, bioenergy and hydrogen technologies have received higher funding under Republican administrations.

Funding the future

EERE often funds projects that are considered too risky for private investors to fund alone. Expanding knowledge requires experimentation, so some EERE projects have achieved notable success, while others have not.

For instance, the office’s investments have played a pivotal role in both spreading electric vehicle technologies and reducing their cost to consumers. Beginning with a major funding boost from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and with further allocations in subsequent years, EERE helped fund breakthroughs in battery manufacturing, power electronics and electric drive systems.

These advancements contributed to a sharp rise in adoption: In 2012, there were just 100,000 electric vehicles registered in the U.S. By 2022, that number was above 3 million. And in 2014, hybrid, plug-in hybrid and battery electric vehicles accounted for 3% of all new light-duty vehicle sales. By 2024, that share had grown to 19%.

EERE’s investments in electric vehicles powered by hydrogen fuel cells, by contrast, have not done so well. Despite significant government support in the 2000s, their commercial availability remains largely limited to California, where most of the country’s hydrogen refueling stations are located.

A change in approach

Our analysis of the office’s operations finds that the amount of change in funding levels and priorities can create an environment that hinders thoughtful project selection. Programs that begin under one administration can’t be counted on to continue under subsequent presidents, and dollars allocated for the future may be repurposed down the road, leaving projects only partially finished.

Studies also find that rapidly increasing budgets can create misaligned incentives as public administrators scramble to use the funds during the authorization period. For example, some may prioritize grantees who can accept and spend money rapidly, regardless of the potential public benefit of their innovation.

Further, the shifting priorities complicate long-term planning for government officials, researchers and businesses. Sustaining innovation over a long period takes years of commitment. Studies have shown that inconsistent or volatile government funding can hinder overall technological progress and discourage private investment. One example is the exploration of algae-based biofuels in the 1980s, which was shut down in the 1990s due to shifting federal priorities. That stalled progress in the field and led to a loss of more than half of the genetic legacy collected through the program. In the late 2000s, the federal government resumed funding algae-based biofuel research.

Overall, research by us and others underscores the importance of sustained funding and institutional continuity to ensure the success of publicly funded research and development. That’s what other peer countries are doing: boosting long-term investments in clean energy with consistent priorities and predictable funding.

Following that model, in contrast to the current practice of ever-shifting priorities, would create more effective opportunities to develop, produce and deploy innovative energy technologies in the U.S., helping to maintain global competitiveness and reduce reliance on foreign manufacturing.

Christelle Khalaf received funding from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation to examine EERE R&D funding trends. She has also received funding from the Department of Energy for separate research.

– ref. Federal energy office illustrates the perils of fluctuating budgets and priorities – https://theconversation.com/federal-energy-office-illustrates-the-perils-of-fluctuating-budgets-and-priorities-255936

Source: – By Eve Bohnett, Assistant Scholar, Center for Landscape Conservation Planning, University of Florida

Snow leopards are known as the “ghosts of the mountains” for a reason. Imagine waiting for months in the harsh, rugged mountains of Asia, hoping to catch even a glimpse of one. These elusive big cats move silently across rocky slopes, their pale coats blending so seamlessly with snow and stone that even the most seasoned biologists seldom spot them in the wild.

Travel writer Peter Matthiessen spent two months in 1973 searching the Tibetan plateau for them and wrote a 300-page book about the effort. He never saw one. Forty years later, Peter’s son Alex retraced his father’s steps – and didn’t see one either.

Researchers have struggled to come up with a figure for the global population. In 2017, the International Union for Conservation of Nature reclassified the snow leopard from endangered to vulnerable, citing estimates of between 2,500 and 10,000 adults in the wild. However, the group also warned that numbers continue to decline in many areas due to habitat loss, poaching and human-wildlife conflict. Those who study these animals want to help protect the species and their habitat – if only we can determine exactly where they live and how many there are.

Traditional tracking methods – searching for footprints, droppings and other signs – have their limits. Instead of waiting for a lucky face-to-face encounter, conservationists from the Wildlife Conservation Society, led by experts including Stéphane Ostrowski and Sorosh Poya Faryabi, began deploying automated camera traps in Afghanistan. These devices snap photos whenever movement is detected, capturing thousands of images over months, all in hopes of obtaining a rare glimpse of a snow leopard.

But capturing images is only half the battle. The next, even harder task is telling one snow leopard apart from another.

At first glance, it might sound simple: Each snow leopard has a unique pattern of black rosettes on its coat, like a fingerprint or a face in a crowd. Yet in practice, identifying individuals by these patterns is slow, subjective and prone to error. Photos may be taken at odd angles, under poor lighting, or with parts of the animal obscured – making matches tricky.

A common mistake happens when photos from different cameras are marked as depicting different animals when they actually show the same individual, inflating population estimates. Worse, camera trap images can get mixed up or misfiled, splitting encounters of one cat across multiple batches and identities.

I am a data analyst working with Wildlife Conservation Society and other partners at Wild Me. My work and others’ has found that even trained experts can misidentify animals, failing to recognize repeat visitors at locations monitored by motion-sensing cameras and counting the same animal more than once. One study found that the snow leopard population was overestimated by more than 30% because of these human errors.

To avoid these pitfalls, researchers follow camera sorting guidelines: At least three clear pattern differences or similarities must be confirmed between two images to declare them the same or different cats. Images too blurry, too dark or taken from difficult angles may have to be discarded. Identification efforts range from easy cases with clear, full-body shots to ambiguous ones needing collaboration and debate. Despite these efforts, variability remains, and more experienced observers tend to be more accurate.

Now people trying to count snow leopards are getting help from artificial intelligence systems, in two ways.

Spotting the spots

Modern AI tools are revolutionizing how we process these large photo libraries. First, AI can rapidly sort through thousands of images, flagging those that contain snow leopards and ignoring irrelevant ones such as those that depict blue sheep, gray-and-white mountain terrain, or shadows.

AI can identify individual snow leopards by analyzing their unique rosette patterns, even when poses or lighting vary. Each snow leopard encounter is compared with a catalog of previously identified photos and assigned a known ID if there is a match, or entered as a new individual if not.

In a recent study, several colleagues and I evaluated two AI algorithms, both separately and in tandem.

The first algorithm, called HotSpotter, identifies individual snow leopards by comparing key visual features such as coat patterns, highlighting distinctive “hot spots” with a yellow marker.

The second is a newer method called pose invariant embeddings, which operates similar to facial recognition technology: It recognizes layers of abstract features in the data, identifying the same animal regardless of how it is positioned in the photo or what kind of lighting there may be.

We trained these systems using a curated dataset of photos of snow leopards from zoos in the U.S., Europe and Tajikistan, and with images from the wild, including in Afghanistan.

Alone, each model worked about 74% of the time, correctly identifying the cat from a large photo library. But when combined, the two systems together were correct 85% of the time.

These algorithms were integrated into Wildbook, an open-source, web-based software platform developed by the nonprofit organization Wild Me and now adopted by ConservationX. We deployed the combined system on a free website, Whiskerbook.org, where researchers can upload images, seek matches using the algorithms, and confirm those matches with side-by-side comparisons. This site is among a growing family of AI-powered wildlife platforms that are helping conservation biologists work more efficiently and more effectively at protecting species and their habitats.

Humans still needed

These AI systems aren’t error-proof. AI quickly narrows down candidates and flags likely matches, but expert validation ensures accuracy, especially with tricky or ambiguous photos.

Another study we conducted pitted AI-assisted groups of experts and novices against each other. Each was given a set of three to 10 images of 34 known captive snow leopards and asked to use the Whiskerbook platform to identify them. They were also asked to estimate how many individual animals were in the set of photos.

The experts accurately matched about 90% of the images and delivered population estimates within about 3% of the true number. In contrast, the novices identified only 73% of the cats and underestimated the total number, sometimes by 25% or more, incorrectly merging two individuals into one.

Both sets of results were better than when experts or novices did not use any software.

The takeaway is clear: Human expertise remains important, and combining it with AI support leads to the most accurate results. My colleagues and I hope that by using tools like Whiskerbook and the AI systems embedded in them, researchers will be able to more quickly and more confidently study these elusive animals.

With AI tools like Whiskerbook illuminating the mysteries of these mountain ghosts, we have another way to safeguard snow leopards – but success depends on continued commitment to protecting their fragile mountain homes.

Eve Bohnett receives funding from San Diego State Research Foundation and Wildlife Conservation Society. She is affiliated with University of Florida.

– ref. AI helps tell snow leopards apart, improving population counts for these majestic mountain predators – https://theconversation.com/ai-helps-tell-snow-leopards-apart-improving-population-counts-for-these-majestic-mountain-predators-258154