Category: English

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Emma Linford, Honorary research associate, English literature, University of Hull

Shrinking into her yellowing wedding gown with the decay of her wedding breakfast around her, Miss Havisham, from Charles Dickens’s 1861 novel, Great Expectations, is one of the best-known characters in English literature.

Jilted on her wedding day by her unscrupulous fiancé, Havisham can be understood by modern readers as a victim of “romance fraud”, where in a fraudster manipulates someone under the guise of courtship for their own financial gain. Although romance fraud is a 21st-century term, through the character of Havisham, Dickens clearly demonstrated its often-devastating effects.

In her youth, Havisham was manipulated by her fiancé, the conman Compeyson and her half-brother Arthur, in a plan to rob her of her fortune. Both the romance itself and wedding are a ploy and she is jilted at the altar, losing not only her wealth (which she had signed away prior to her nuptials) but also any hope of future romantic prospects due to the scandal that followed.

Alone, rich and looking for a companion, Havisham was particularly vulnerable to a criminal wanting to take advantage. Though she lost her fortune, Dickens makes it clear that the romantic betrayal is what had the biggest impact on her psychology.

The romantic duplicity shapes her relationships with both her adopted daughter, Estella, and Pip, the novel’s protagonist, making her cold and hostile toward them.

This article is part of Rethinking the Classics. The stories in this series offer insightful new ways to think about and interpret classic books, films and artworks. This is the canon – with a twist.

The psychological impact of romance fraud

Since being jilted, Havisham has become a recluse, “stuck” within the moment of her abandonment. She remains in the house with the clocks all stopped, perpetually wearing her wedding gown. Her decayed hopes of romance are reflected in the decayed objects which surround her. As Pip muses:

Avoiding her eyes … I took note of the surrounding objects in detail, and saw that her watch had stopped at twenty minutes to nine, and that a clock in the room had stopped at twenty minutes to nine. “Look at me,” said Miss Havisham. “You are not afraid of a woman who has never seen the sun since you were born?”

The clocks are all stopped at the time the promise of her future life ended – the moment that she received the letter from Compeyson which made the crime apparent.

Herbert (a relative of Miss Havisham and friend of Pip) recounts the story to Pip:

A certain man, who made love to Miss Havisham … Well! This man pursued Miss Havisham closely and professed to be devoted to her. I believe she had not shown much susceptibility up to that time; but all the susceptibility she possessed certainly came out then, and she passionately loved him.

This description mirrors many modern elements of romance fraud. Compeyson “made love” to her and she became “susceptible”. Like contemporary romance fraudsters, Compeyson inserted himself into Havisham’s life and manipulated and controlled her to believe that he loved her.

Romance fraud in Dickensian Britain

There was a lack of progression in fraudulent law during Dickens’ time. It wasn’t until the Fraud Act of 2006, that real change came about, making fraud by misrepresentation a criminal offence in the UK. Today, romance fraud is considered a “serious crime”.

Long before this most personal form of fraud became illegal, Dickens saw its prevalence and drew attention to it. Others followed in his path, such as Mary Elizabeth Braddon in Lady Audrey’s Secret (1862), Arthur Conan Doyle in A Case of Identity (1891) and Agatha Christie in Death on the Nile (1937).

Havisham can be viewed in two ways, either as a victim or a fool. It is hard to determine how Dickens wanted her to be interpreted. Was she the stereotypical hysterical Victorian woman, as seen in other novels such as The Woman in White by Wilkie Collins (1860) or the character of Bertha Rochester in Jane Eyre (1847)?

I don’t think so. As he was with so many other social issues, I believe that Dickens was ahead of his time and was actively trying to raise the profile of the crime of romance fraud and the impact it has on his victims.

Beyond the canon

As part of the Rethinking the Classics series, we’re asking our experts to recommend a book or artwork that tackles similar themes to the canonical work in question, but isn’t (yet) considered a classic itself. Here is Emma Linford’s suggestion:

If you’re gripped by Dickens’s depiction of fraudsters and criminals, you may also enjoy Dickens’s Villains: Melodrama, Character, Popular Culture by Juliet John (2003). In it, John explores the complex villains and anti-heroes of Dickens’ novels. She looks at what inspired his writing, as well as the dramaturgical characteristics of his work.

This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something, The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

Emma Linford 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. Great Expectations by Charles Dickens is an early exploration of ‘romance fraud’ – https://theconversation.com/great-expectations-by-charles-dickens-is-an-early-exploration-of-romance-fraud-241820

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Aditi Upmanyu, PhD candidate in English Literature, University of Oxford

In his biography of Mary Wollstonecraft, written after her death, her husband William Godwin remarked of her travel writing: “If ever there was a book calculated to make a man fall in love with its author, this appears to me to be the book.”

Today, however, Wollstonecraft is best known for a different work: A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792). While this landmark text helped lay the foundations of western feminist thought, focusing solely on it risks narrowing our view of a writer who was far more radical and prolific than this single book suggests.

Wollstonecraft wrote across genres – from fiction, travel and children’s books to literary criticism, translations and political essays. Tracing this wide-ranging authorship reveals that her lifelong concerns – women’s education, gender inequality and resistance to political authority did not start or end with A Vindication of the Rights of Woman.

The novelist

Wollstonecraft believed in the political power of storytelling. Writing in The Cambridge Companion to Mary Wollstonecraft, literature professor Claudia L. Johnson observes that “novels are the very bookends of Wollstonecraft’s life as a writer”.

In the preface to Mary: A Fiction (1788), Wollstonecraft declares her intention to reveal the “mind of a woman who has thinking powers”. The novel traces the fictional Mary’s emotional and intellectual life through intense relationships with both a man and a woman. The novel emphasises female intimacy and friendship – at times bordering on the homoerotic – and rejects the plot of conventional domestic fulfilment.

This reimagination of domesticity becomes even more polemical in the unfinished novel Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman (1798), where Wollstonecraft explores marital oppression, parental neglect, sexual violence and moral rigidity.

Maria is forcibly separated from her infant daughter and imprisoned in a “madhouse”, where she suffers further abuse and torture. The novel includes a graphic narration of sexual exploitation through Jemima, a working-class asylum attendant of illegitimate origins who has endured rape, prostitution and abortion. Maria and Jemima’s friendship introduces radical class solidarity forged through shared suffering.

The novel presents a bleak vision in which women’s most meaningful relationships lie beyond heteronormative family structures.

The travel writer

Wollstonecraft’s Letters Written During a Short Residence in Sweden, Norway and Denmark (1798) was the most popular of her works in her own lifetime.

It was written during an intensely turbulent period, marked by her abandonment by her first lover, Gilbert Imlay, after which she made two suicide attempts. The event left her a single, unwed mother to her daughter Fanny.

Letters departs from Wollstonecraft’s usual rational tone. Instead, this book explores emotional intensity and imagination. She writes at the outset: “I determined to let my remarks and reflections flow unrestrained.” It signposted a literary style that privileges feeling and self-exploration.

But beyond personal reflection, Letters also traces her inner growth alongside her observations of society as she travels across Scandinavian terrain. She reflects on landscape, commerce and social organisation, and through them considers broader questions of civilisation and progress. Here emerges a distinctive, female romantic imagination, grounded in sensibility and subjective experience.

Wollstonecraft’s merging of the personal and the political, so central to her writing, finds its fullest expression in this work. The Letters significantly influenced Romantic poets such as Robert Southey and Samuel Taylor Coleridge.

The children’s author

A deep intellectual investment in women’s education runs throughout Wollstonecraft’s career, evident even in the self-explanatory title of her early work, Thoughts on the Education of Daughters (1787).

This commitment takes a fictional form in Original Stories from Real Life (1791), a children’s book featuring illustrations by the poet William Blake. It traces the moral and intellectual development of two young girls under the guidance of a maternal governess. Wollstonecraft drew on her own year-long experience as a governess to the aristocratic Kingsborough family in Ireland between 1786 and 1787.

Influenced by enlightenment, the book presents learning as both structured instruction and experience shaped by nature and society. For Wollstonecraft, education cultivates judgement, self-discipline and moral awareness.

Her interest in childhood care and its formative role in later years is further reflected in three unfinished works: Lessons, Hints and Fragments of Letters on the Management of Infants. The works were all published posthumously in a compilation by Godwin in 1798. These works explore the issues of women’s health and nutrition, and rethink maternity as an acquired practice, rather than innate feelings women automatically possess.

An autodidact herself, Wollstonecraft saw the improvement of women’s education as essential to their development as rational citizens. Thus, pedagogy becomes the cornerstone of broader social reform, linking the cultivation of the mind to the possibility of equality between the sexes.

The reviewer, correspondent and translator

Wollstonecraft wrote extensively for Joseph Johnson’s progressive journal, the Analytical Review, contributing reviews of contemporary poetry and novels.

These reviews reveal Wollstonecraft as an active participant in contemporary literary culture. This sustained engagement with the ideas of her time helped shape her own trajectory as a writer.

Her reviews were public yet often anonymous, but her letters offer a more intimate record of her voice. Wollstonecraft’s prolific correspondence suggests a life lived, in part, through letters. She wrote frequently to her sisters, her husband Godwin and fellow women writers such as Amelia Opie and Mary Hays. These letters reveal the complexity and contradictions of her character, and her reflections on motherhood, morality and intellectual life.

Wollstonecraft also participated in a wider transnational literary culture, translating works primarily from French, German and Dutch. Her own writings continued to circulate in translation across Europe after her death, distinctly contributing to the development of feminist thought well beyond England.

This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

Aditi Upmanyu 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. The many literary lives of Mary Wollstonecraft – author of novels, travel writing and children’s books – https://theconversation.com/the-many-literary-lives-of-mary-wollstonecraft-author-of-novels-travel-writing-and-childrens-books-279885

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Helen Millman, Postdoctoral Researcher, Polar Science, University of Exeter

Imagine your favourite sunny beach. Anywhere will do. You look out and see the ocean stretching to the horizon. To a glaciologist, that view is not just water; it’s melted ice.

Our new study shows that the best case sea-level rise scenarios may now be out of reach.

Around 20,000 years ago, during the most recent ice age, the Earth was about 5°C cooler than today. Vast ice sheets, comparable in scale to Greenland and Antarctica, covered Canada, northern Europe, and other regions. Those ice sheets formed as water evaporated from the oceans, fell as snow, and accumulated year after year on land.

Locked away as ice, that water was removed from the ocean, lowering sea level by around 130m and reshaping the planet’s coastlines. You could have walked from Britain to mainland Europe or from Siberia to North America as much of today’s continental shelf was dry land.

Between 20,000 and 10,000 years ago, global temperatures increased and those ice sheets melted. Sea level rose, flooding coastal plains and river valleys, and leading to modern coastlines. The lesson from Earth’s recent history is simple: When global temperature changes, sea level changes, and coastlines change with it.

The triple threat

Sea level rise has three main causes. First, as the ocean warms, seawater expands, increasing its volume. Second, hundreds of thousands of mountain glaciers worldwide are melting, adding water to the sea. Third, the great ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica are losing mass. All three matter, but they do not contribute equally, and their importance is changing.

Since around 1850, the burning of fossil fuels has raised greenhouse gas concentrations to levels not seen for more than three million years. As a result, global temperatures have increased by nearly 1.5°C and global mean sea level has risen by more than 20cm. Just under half of this rise came from thermal expansion of warming oceans. A similar amount comes from the melting of about 300,000 glaciers worldwide, but with a rising contribution from the great ice sheets.

What is striking is how fast this change has happened. Around half of the total sea level rise since 1850 has occurred in just the past 30 years. During this time, Greenland and Antarctica have begun to contribute more to sea-level rise than all other glaciers combined, and together now exceed the contribution from ocean warming. Mass loss from Antarctica alone is around six times greater than it was three decades ago.

This shift matters because glaciers and ice sheets are not equal. If every small glacier on Earth were to melt completely, global sea level would rise by only about 24cm. If the polar ice sheets were to melt, sea level would rise by more than 65m, almost 300 times more.

Ice sheets usually respond slowly to warming air and ocean temperatures. But some regions are far more vulnerable than others. In these hotspots, retreat can trigger dynamic processes that accelerate ice loss, destabilising neighbouring regions and speeding up sea level rise.

Researchers like us are starting to see just this, particularly in the Amundsen Sea sector of West Antarctica and the margins of the Greenland ice sheet. Mass loss from these ice sheets commits the planet to metres of sea level rise – and once retreat begins it may be impossible to stop.

The reality gap

The pace of change still depends on us, but the starting point keeps shifting. Observations show that current sea level rise is already tracking along the mid-to-high projections provided by the UN’s climate science advisory group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), placing the lowest, most manageable outcomes out of reach. Sea levels rising by more than 0.5m by 2100 are now increasingly likely, with consequences that include large-scale displacement and the abandonment of many coastal regions at immense and avoidable cost.

This does not mean the outcome is fixed. The world stops warming almost immediately after reaching net zero. Rapid decarbonisation would slow ice loss, buying time for coastal cities, communities, ports, wetlands and beaches to adapt.

Yet a clear gap remains between where the scientific consensus says emissions need to go to avoid rapid rise, and where current government commitments, known as nationally determined contributions are taking us. Many estimates say that we are currently on a path toward roughly 3°C of warming. For context, the threshold for the irreversible loss of the Greenland ice sheet is estimated to be as low as 1.7°C to 2.3°C. We are flirting with a temperature that would commit the planet to several metres of long-term rise from Greenland.

Now return to that beach. The shoreline is not fixed. It is a product of past warming and it is already being reshaped by the warming we have caused. The question is no longer whether sea level rise can be kept low, but how high it will go, how quickly it will rise, and how much damage we are prepared to accept.
The longer action is delayed, the fewer good options remain, and the more of that familiar coastline is lost to the tide.

Helen Millman is on the advisory council of the Conservative Environment Network.

Martin Siegert receives funding from the UK Natural Environment Research Council.

Richard Alley 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. Why delaying climate action now means higher seas by 2100 – new research – https://theconversation.com/why-delaying-climate-action-now-means-higher-seas-by-2100-new-research-272290

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Margherita de Candia, Lecturer in Comparative Politics, King’s College London

The Italian prime minister and leader of the far-right Brothers of Italy party, Giorgia Meloni, has made fostering ties with foreign leaders a central part of her political strategy. A few years before winning Italy’s 2022 general elections, she started cultivating ties with the US and European conservative world as part of a broader political rebranding effort aimed at projecting a more moderate image at home and gaining legitimacy abroad.

She subsequently became a familiar face within Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” (Maga) movement. Meloni shares similar views to Maga on migration, sovereignty and national identity. She also aligns with the movement on a constellation of other themes ranging from fighting against “wokeism” and defending the traditional family to the rejection of liberalism, globalism and environmentalism.

After Trump was elected as US president for the second time in late 2024, Meloni’s ties with the American far-right suddenly became a matter of foreign policy. But her relationship with Trump has turned out to be a more demanding balancing act than Meloni may have anticipated. And now their alliance – at least for the time being – appears to be over.

On April 13 Meloni described Trump’s recent social media attack on Pope Leo, who had criticised the US and Israel’s war on Iran, as “unacceptable”. This prompted a rebuke from Trump, who said Meloni “lacked courage” for not joining the war. The conditions for this breakdown have been in place for some time.

Trump and Meloni’s alliance

Trump and Meloni’s shared far-right traits should not hide some key differences between the two leaders. In foreign policy, Meloni has adopted a pro-Nato position and is a staunch supporter of Ukraine. These positions have aided Meloni in what has been called her quest for “respectability”, but they clash with Trump’s lack of support for Ukraine and belligerent position towards Nato.

Politically, Meloni has also faced constraints that have moderated her leadership. Externally, the EU’s institutional and financial straitjacket has required Meloni to work collaboratively with the bloc. This requirement has limited Meloni’s room for manoeuvre in her dealings with Trump and clashes with the US president’s rejection of multilateralism.

Internally, the logic of coalition politics – in particular the moderating presence of the pro-European Forza Italia party in her government – and the fact that centrist voters represent a decisive constituency in Italy have both acted as a further centripetal force on Meloni’s agenda.

Despite these divergences, Meloni’s ideological closeness to Trump did initially translate into diplomatic gains that helped boost her profile with fellow EU leaders. She was the first EU leader to meet with Trump after the imposition of his global trade tariff regime in 2025.

Meloni also managed to organise a trilateral meeting in Rome with the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, and the US vice-president, J.D. Vance. Following the meting, Vance called Meloni a “bridge” between the two sides of the Atlantic.

Still, beyond the legitimacy gains for Meloni and her party, the material advantages Italy has extracted from her relationship with Trump have been limited. Italy was not spared trade tariffs, for instance. Nor did it manage to obtain a discount on Trump’s demand for Nato members to raise military spending to 5% of their GDP.

The scarcity of tangible policy gains from her ties with Trump may be one reason for Meloni’s decision to distance herself from the US president. But Italian domestic politics are another important factor.

The indirect effects of Trump’s policies are likely to have played a key role in the recent defeat Meloni suffered in a referendum on judicial reform. This referendum, which came one month into Trump’s war in Iran, morphed into a vote on the Meloni government.

The Iran war has caused energy prices across Europe to rise and has generated fears among Italians of possible security repercussions. With a recent survey indicating 79% of Italians now hold a negative opinion on Trump, it seems that voters used the referendum to signal their discontent to Meloni ahead of general elections in 2027.

Opposition parties, both on the left and right, hailed the result as a sign that voters are looking for change. And Roberto Vannacci, a former general turned politician, is capitalising on voters’ increased unease with the impact of Trump’s policies. He has criticised Meloni for what he sees as her Washington-first alignment and soft approach to key far-right issues.

Trump’s attack on the Pope – indefensible for Meloni as someone who has defined herself as a Christian and whose party draws on a vast Catholic electorate – gave the Italian prime minister the exit she needed to signal her distance from Trump’s recent actions to voters.

Meloni’s agenda remains far-right in its orientation, aligning with Trump’s in many ways from identity politics and migration to his stance on the green transition. How these ideological similarities are received by Italian voters over the coming year is likely to play a crucial role in determining Meloni’s political future.

Margherita de Candia 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. Why Italy’s Giorgia Meloni broke with Donald Trump – https://theconversation.com/why-italys-giorgia-meloni-broke-with-donald-trump-280956

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jonathan Este, Senior International Affairs Editor, Associate Editor, The Conversation

This is the text from The Conversation UK’s World Affairs Briefing email. Sign up here to receive weekly analysis of the latest developments in international relations, direct to your inbox.

Napoleon Bonaparte is said to have commented in connection with his invasion of Russia that “geography is destiny”. Take a look at a live maritime tracker to see how Napoleon’s aphorism is playing out in the Middle East today. There are presently hundreds of vessels either side of the Strait of Hormuz, idling in either the Persian Gulf or the Gulf of Oman. But nothing is passing though.

In normal times, 20% of the world’s oil flows through this waterway. But since the US and Israel began to launch attacks at the end of February, Iran has effectively closed down the Strait, both by depositing mines and by threatening to board any ships trying to pass without their permission.

The US has countered with its own blockade. And both sides have demonstrated how serious they are in recent days by threatening, boarding or forcing vessels to reroute.

That Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz should have come as no surprise to anyone. The leaders of the Islamic Republic have threatened to do so every time they have felt under threat over more than four decades. Christian Emery, an expert in US-Iran relations and Persian Gulf security at University College London, believes this is why no previous US president has chosen to launch a full-scale attack on Iran.

As we’ve already seen, the ability of Iran to hugely disrupt the global economy by shutting down the Strait was obvious: “The only person who seems not to have understood this is Donald Trump,” Emery concludes.

Read more:
Has the Strait of Hormuz emerged as Iran’s most powerful form of deterrence?

So now there appears to be a deadlock. It’s an unwinnable war, write Bamo Nouri and Inderjeet Parmar, experts in international security at City St George’s, University of London. The US and Israel may enjoy massive military superiority over Iran, but this is beside the point, Nouri and Parmar believe.

While both the US president, Donald Trump, and Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, need to be able to demonstrate to their voters that they have emerged triumphant, Iran isn’t looking to win. It is looking to endure – while making sure that the cost of this conflict becomes unsustainable. And not just for the US and Israel, but for pretty much everybody else besides.

We’re already seeing that. Oil prices have surged and reserves are coming under strain. Supply chains are disrupted. And political friction is stressing relationships, not just between the US and its Nato allies, but – more ominously – with China, which typically buys between 80% and 90% of Iran’s oil exports and said this week that the Strait must be opened without delay.

Iran, our experts conclude, “does not need to win. It only needs to prevent its adversaries from achieving their aims. So far, it has done exactly that.”

Read more:
Middle East conflict looks increasingly like a war nobody can win

There’s a principle in classical game theory which explains why Iran’s position is so strong. It’s known as Rubinstein bargaining, writes Renaud Foucart, an economist at Lancaster University. As Foucart explains it, this holds that in a conflict the respective strength of adversaries each depends on two things: “how badly off it would be without a resolution, and how impatient it is to get things resolved”.

As we’ve heard, all the pressure is on the US, while the leverage is mainly in Iran’s hands. “The US’s position is much weaker than first thought because of a stretch of water the world can’t do without,” he concludes.

Read more:
The Strait of Hormuz shows how everything is now about leverage

On Tuesday, as we waited to see what might happen if the 14-day deadline imposed by Trump on April 8 expired without Tehran opening the Strait, it was clear that both the US and Iran, to varying degrees, were looking for an off-ramp. The blockade is financially ruinous for Iran – whether it is losing US$500 million (£370 million) a day, as Trump claims, we don’t know. But the shutting down of its oil exports is hitting an already parlous economy and this week the social security minister said 2 million people had lost their jobs since the beginning of the war.

For Trump, it’s soaring prices at the gas pumps and the prospect of rising inflation angering voters ahead of November’s midterm elections. The war is very unpopular with Americans – and, significantly, it’s beginning to fracture the Maga coalition which brought Trump to power in the 2024 election.

But there are ways both sides can find off-ramps, writes David Galbreath of the University of Bath. The key thing is to find a settlement that the leaders of both sides can sell as a “win”.

For Iran, this could be an easing of sanctions and access to some of the many billions of dollars of frozen assets held overseas. It could be a recognition of its right to enrich uranium to the level needed for medical uses – particularly given the recent assertion by the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, that such a solution would “safeguard its [Iran’s] national sovereignty”.

We know a little about what Iran is prepared to offer because a great deal of it was on the table in February when the US and Israel launched their strikes. But one of the stumbling blocks for the US president appears to be that Iran’s proposals may too closely resemble the deal struck in 2015 by his predecessor, Barack Obama.

But Galbreath concludes that as things stand, some combination of opening the Strait of Hormuz, acceptance of limits on uranium enrichment and agreeing to stringent inspections could be made to appear a “win” for Trump. This could be a starting point, writes Galbreath, in what is known in conflict resolution as “sequenced de‑escalation”. It could deliver an initial settlement and allow negotiators on both sides to get to work and hammer out the details. Obama’s treaty took 20 months to agree. It’s early days yet.

Read more:
Middle East conflict: how the US and Iran could step back from the brink

One stumbling block is likely to be that there appears to be something of a power struggle raging at the top of Iranian politics. This was seen very clearly last weekend, when Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, announced that the Strait of Hormuz was completely open, only to be swiftly overruled by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which said it would decide when and how the Strait would be opened.

Since then, a new figure has emerged at the head of the IRGC: a longtime guards member and hardline former commander of its elite Quds force, Ahmad Vahidi. And it seems that with Iran’s freshly minted supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, badly injured after the attack that killed his father on February 28, Vahidi is now calling the shots in Iran. Andreas Krieg, an expert in Middle East politics at King’s College London explains the power struggle that has led to Vahidi assuming control.

Read more:
Who is calling the shots in Iran?

Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.

– ref. Strait of Hormuz: Iran’s ‘nuclear deterrent’ – https://theconversation.com/strait-of-hormuz-irans-nuclear-deterrent-281376