The Conversation – Global Perspectives – Page 2

February 1, 2026

Why Trump’s new pick for Fed chair hit gold and silver markets – for good reasons

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Henry Maher, Lecturer in Politics, Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney

After months of speculation, US President Donald Trump confirmed he will be nominating Kevin Warsh as the next chair of the US Federal Reserve. The appointment has been closely watched in the context of Trump’s ongoing conflict with the Fed and its current chairman Jerome Powell.

The immediate reaction to the announcement was a significant crash in gold and silver markets. After months of record highs and stretched valuations, spot prices for gold and silver dropped 9% and 28% respectively after the announcement. The US stock market also fell, with major indexes all reporting modest losses.

However, in the context of concerns over Trump’s interference with the Fed, the market crash can ironically be understood as an early vote of confidence in Warsh’s independence and suitability for the role.

Understanding why requires the context of Trump’s ongoing conflict with the Federal Reserve, and the importance of central bank independence to our current global financial system.

Trump’s war with the Fed

The last year has seen Trump in an unprecedented conflict with the Federal Reserve.

Trump appointed current Chairman Jerome Powell back in 2017. However, the relationship quickly soured when Powell did not cut interest rates as quickly as Trump wanted. In characteristically colourful language, Trump has since called Powell a “clown” with “some real mental problems”, adding “I’d love to fire his ass”.

The war of words descended into legal threats. Trump’s Justice Department announced an investigation into Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook over alleged fraud in historical mortgage documents. Then last month, in a shocking escalation the Justice Department opened a criminal investigation into Powell relating to overspending in renovations of the Federal Reserve offices.

Both sets of allegations are widely viewed as baseless. However, Trump has tried to use the investigation as grounds to fire Cook. The case is currently before the Supreme Court.

Powell has hit back strongly at Trump, saying the legal threats were

a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the President.

Powell received support from 14 international central bank chiefs, who noted “the independence of central banks is a cornerstone of price, financial and economic stability”.

Historically, presidential interference with the Fed was a major cause of the stagflation crisis in the 1970s. More recently, both Argentina and Turkey have experienced significant financial crises caused by interference with central bank independence.

Who is Kevin Warsh?

Kevin Warsh is a former banker and Federal Reserve governor, who previously served as economic advisor to both President George W Bush and President Trump.

Originally Trump seemed likely to favour the current director of Trump’s National Economic Council, Kevin Hassett, for the job. However, Hassett was widely viewed as being too influenced by Trump, intensifying fears about Fed independence.

Warsh appears more independent and brings a reputation as an inflation “hawk”.

What is an inflation hawk?

The Federal Reserve is responsible for setting US interest rates. Put simply, lower interest rates can increase economic growth and employment, but risk creating inflation. Higher interest rates can control inflation, but at the cost of higher unemployment and lower growth.

Getting the balance right is the central role of the Federal Reserve. Central bank independence is essential to ensure this delicate task is guided by the best evidence and long-term needs of the economy, rather than the short-term political goals.

An inflation “hawk” refers to a central banker who prioritises fighting inflation, compared to a “dove” who prioritises growth and jobs.

From Warsh’s previous time at the Federal Reserve, he established a strong reputation as an inflation hawk. Even in the aftermath of the global financial crisis of 2008, Warsh was more worried about inflation than jobs.

Given Trump’s past conflict with Powell around cutting interest rates, Warsh might seem a curious choice of candidate.

More recently though, Warsh has moderated his views, echoing Trump’s criticism of the Fed and demands for lower interest rates. Whether this support will continue, or if his hawkish tendencies return leading to future conflict with Trump, remains to be seen.

The market reaction

The crash in gold and silver, and decline in stock markets, suggests investors view interest rate cuts as less likely under Warsh than alternative candidates.

Gold and silver prices typically rise in response to instability or fears of inflation.

The previous record highs were driven by many factors, including global instability, concerns over Fed independence, and a speculative bubble.

That Warsh’s appointment has triggered a market correction in precious metals means investors expect lower inflation, and greater financial stability. The US dollar trading higher also supports this view.

The credibility of the Fed is at stake

The past month has seen much discussion of the changing world order. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney recently decried the end of the international rules-based order and called for a break from “American hegemony”.

The global dominance of the US dollar is a crucial plank of US economic hegemony. Though Trump clearly remains sceptical of central bank independence, his appointment of Warsh suggests he recognises the importance of retaining the credibility of the US currency and Federal Reserve.

Whether that recognition can continue to temper Trump’s instinct to interfere with the setting of interest rates remains to be seen.

Henry Maher 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 Trump’s new pick for Fed chair hit gold and silver markets – for good reasons – https://theconversation.com/why-trumps-new-pick-for-fed-chair-hit-gold-and-silver-markets-for-good-reasons-273233

January 31, 2026

Funny, tender, goofy – Catherine O’Hara lit up the screen every time she showed up

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Ben McCann, Associate Professor of French Studies, Adelaide University

Catherine O’Hara, the beloved actor and comedian who has died aged 71, occupied that rare position in contemporary screen culture: a comic actor, a cult figure and a mainstream star.

Her work spanned more than 50 years, from improv sketch comedy to Hollywood features and off-beat TV classics.

She was celebrated for her unmatched comic timing and chameleon-like character work. Her roles were often absurdist and quirky, but they hid a razor-sharp humour.

Born and raised in Toronto in a close-knit Irish Catholic family, O’Hara was one of seven siblings. She once remarked humour was part of her everyday life; storytelling, impressions and lively conversation helped hone her comedic instincts.

After high school, she worked at Toronto’s Second City Theatre, a famed breeding ground for comedy talent, and sharpened her deadpan improvisational skills.

Big break

O’Hara’s break came with Second City Television (SCTV), a sketch comedy series that rivalled Saturday Night Live in creativity and influence. Alongside contemporaries Eugene Levy, John Candy, Rick Moranis and Martin Short, she defined her distinctly smart, absurdist comedic voice.

O’Hara was not merely a performer on SCTV; she was also a writer, winning an Emmy Award for her contributions. This dual role shaped her career-long sensitivity to rhythm, language and character construction.

Unlike sketch performers who rely on repetition or catchphrases, O’Hara’s humour emerged with a different comedic logic. Audiences laughed not because the character was “funny”, but because the character took herself so seriously.

Though briefly cast on Saturday Night Live in the early 1980s, O’Hara chose to stay with SCTV when it was renewed, a decision she later described as key in letting her creative career flourish where it belonged.

The transition to film

By the mid-1980s, O’Hara was establishing herself as a screen presence. She appeared in Martin Scorsese’s offbeat black comedy After Hours (1985), and showcased her comic range in Heartburn (1986).

In 1988, she landed what would become one of her most beloved film roles: Delia Deetz in Tim Burton’s left-field Beetlejuice (1988).

Delia – a pretentious, New York art-scene social climber – allowed O’Hara to combine physical comedy and imbecilic dialogue (“A little gasoline … blowtorch … no problem”).

Burton once noted

Catherine’s so good, maybe too good. She works on levels that people don’t even know. I think she scares people because she operates at such high levels.

She went on to play Kate McCallister, the beleaguered mother in the holiday blockbusters Home Alone (1990) and Home Alone 2: Lost in New York (1992). Audiences loved the fact that this rather thinly written role became the films’ beating heart.

Working with Christopher Guest

Another distinctive phase of O’Hara’s career was her work with writer-director Christopher Guest on a series of largely improvised mockumentaries that have become cult classics.

Three standouts were Waiting for Guffman (1996), where she plays a desperate local performer in a small-town theatre troupe, and A Mighty Wind (2003), where she teamed up with old pal Levy as an ageing folk duo.

Her best turn came in Best in Show (2000), in which she and Levy played a couple competing in a national dog show. Her character Cookie Fleck remains one of the finest examples of improvised comedy on film.

Her relentless monologues about former lovers are objectively inappropriate, yet O’Hara delivers them with such earnest enthusiasm that they become strangely compelling.

Her gift for improvisation glittered in these films: these eccentric characters were often laugh-out-loud funny – but O’Hara never mocked them.

Late success

She returned to TV in Six Feet Under (2001–05) and guest appearances on The Larry Sanders Show (1992–98) and Curb Your Enthusiasm (1999–2024). More recently, she appeared in prestige shows such as The Last of Us (2023–) and The Studio (2025–).

But it was the role of Moira Rose, the eccentric, ex-soap opera star in the Canadian sitcom Schitt’s Creek (2015–20), created by Eugene Levy and his son Dan, that would become O’Hara’s most significant late career move. And what a role it was!

Written for O’Hara’s unique talents, Moira was a larger-than-life character with a bizarre, unforgettable vocabulary, dramatic mood swings and a wardrobe that became nearly as famous as the character herself.

Feminist media scholars have noted the rarity of such complex roles for older women, particularly in comedy, making O’Hara’s performance culturally significant.

The show became a global streaming blockbuster during COVID lockdowns and O’Hara’s multi-award-winning performance became a social media phenomenon, spawning memes and viral clips.

There are so many standout moments – her drunken meltdown after losing her wigs, her audition for The Crows Have Eyes 3 and the show’s moving finale where she performs Danny Boy at Alexis’s graduation.

An enduring legacy

O’Hara had a remarkable ability to play flamboyant, self-absorbed characters who were often uproariously funny.

Many comedians and actors have cited O’Hara as an influence for her fearlessness, her ability to blend absurdity with emotional truth, and her steadfast commitment to character integrity. She influenced performers like Tina Fey, Maya Rudolph, Kate McKinnon and Phoebe Waller-Bridge.

O’Hara also refused to chase conventional stardom. Rather than choosing projects designed to flatten her eccentricities, O’Hara favoured collaborative environments that valued creativity over control.

For her, comedy was always an art of intelligence, empathy and generosity.

Ben McCann 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. Funny, tender, goofy – Catherine O’Hara lit up the screen every time she showed up – https://theconversation.com/funny-tender-goofy-catherine-ohara-lit-up-the-screen-every-time-she-showed-up-274816

January 31, 2026

Silver and gold hit record highs – then crashed. Before joining the rush, you need to know this

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Angel Zhong, Professor of Finance, RMIT University

The start of 2026 has seen gold and silver surge to record highs – only to crash on Friday.

Gold prices peaked above US$5,500 (A$7,900) per ounce for the first time on Thursday, well above previous highs. But by the end of Friday, it had dropped to around US$5068 (A$7,282).

Silver had been making gains even faster than gold. It hit more than US$120 (A$172) per ounce last week, marking one of its strongest runs in decades, before crashing on Friday to US$98.50 (A$141.50).

So what’s behind those surges and falls? And what should everyday investors know about the risks of investing in precious metals right now?

Why gold has been hitting new highs

Gold is the classic safe haven: an asset people buy to protect their savings when worried about financial risks.

With international political tensions rising, trade war threats, shifting signals about where interest rates are heading and a potential changing world order, investors are seeking assets that feel stable when everything else looks shaky.

Friday’s crash in gold and silver was sparked by financial markets reacting to early news of Donald Trump’s nomination of Kevin Warsh as chair of the US Federal Reserve. The US central bank plays a key role in global financial stability.

Central banks around the world have been buying gold at a rapid pace, reinforcing its reputation as a place to park value during periods of uncertainty.

But it’s not just big institutions moving the market. In Australia and overseas, retail investors – individuals buying and selling smaller amounts for themselves – have played a part too.

Those individuals have been increasingly treating gold, silver and other precious metals as a hedge against so much uncertainty, as well as a momentum play – trying to buy in to keep up with others.

As prices have trended upward, more everyday investors have bought in, especially through gold exchange-traded funds (ETFs), which make it simple to gain exposure without storing physical gold bullion.

What’s been driving silver’s surge

While gold was grabbing headlines for much of 2025, silver has been the real showstopper. Before Friday’s fall, the metal had surged more than 60% in just the past month, far outpacing gold’s still impressive run of around 30%.

Unlike gold, silver has a split personality. Industrial uses are driving up demand for silver. It’s critical for clean energy technologies including solar panels, electric vehicles (EVs), and semiconductors.

This dual appeal – as a safe haven, but also as an in-demand industrial commodity – is drawing investors who see multiple reasons for prices to keep climbing.

Every solar panel contains about 20 grams of silver. The solar industry consumes nearly 30% of total global demand for silver.

EVs also use 25–50 grams each, and AI data centres need silver for semiconductors.

The kicker? The silver market has run a supply deficit for five consecutive years. We’re consuming more than we’re mining, and most silver comes as a byproduct of other metals. You can’t simply open more silver mines.

Individual buyers have piled into silver

One of Australia’s most popular online investment platforms for retail investors is CommSec, with around 3 million customers.

Bloomberg tracking of CommSec trades shows how much retail purchases of silver ETFs in particular have spiked higher in the past year.

Over the past year, gold ETF trades on CommSec grew 47%, with cumulative net buying reaching A$158 million. That reflects gold’s established role in portfolios.

Yet despite attracting slightly lower total investment overall at A$104 million, silver trading activity exploded by far more: it’s been 1,000% higher than the year before.

This means retail investors made far more frequent, smaller trades in silver. This is classic momentum-chasing behaviour, as everyday investors piled into an asset showing dramatic price gains.

The pattern is unmistakable: while gold remains the anchor, silver has become the speculative play.

Its lower per-ounce price, industrial demand narrative, and social media buzz make it particularly accessible to retail investors seeking exposure to the precious metals rally, at a much lower price than gold.

The risks every investor needs to know

The data shows Australian retail investors have been buying as prices rise. But this “fear of missing out” approach comes with serious risks.

Volatility cuts both ways. From February 2025 to just before Friday’s sharp drop, the price of silver had surged 269%. But even before that fall, silver’s spectacular gain had come with 36% “annualised volatility” (which measures how much a stock price varies over one year). That was nearly double gold’s 20% volatility over the same period.

What does that mean in practice? As we’ve just seen, what goes up fast can come down quickly too.

Buying high is dangerous. When retail investors pile in after major price increases, they often end up buying near the top. Professional investors and central banks have been accumulating gold and silver for years, at much lower prices.

No income, higher risk. Unlike shares or bonds, metals don’t pay dividends or interest. Your entire return depends on prices rising further from already elevated levels. And as the past few days have shown, the potential for sharp drawdowns is substantial.

Keep it modest. Financial advisers typically recommend precious metals comprise 5–15% of a diversified portfolio. After such extraordinary price volatility, that guideline matters more than ever.

Disclaimer: This article provides general information only and is not intended as financial advice. All investments carry risk.

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

– ref. Silver and gold hit record highs – then crashed. Before joining the rush, you need to know this – https://theconversation.com/silver-and-gold-hit-record-highs-then-crashed-before-joining-the-rush-you-need-to-know-this-274622

January 30, 2026

Rafiki unbanned on appeal: why it’s an important moment for African film

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Gibson Ncube, Senior Lecturer, Stellenbosch University

The film Rafiki is a charming love story that plays out in urban Kenya. It follows two teenage girls whose close friendship slowly turns into first love. Directed by rising filmmaker Wanuri Kahiu, it was celebrated as groundbreaking by critics and at festivals when it was released in 2018. But back home in Kenya, where homosexuality is criminal, the film was banned.

On 23 January 2026, after a lengthy legal campaign by the filmmaker, the Kenyan Court of Appeals unbanned Rafiki for public screening in that country.

In 2018, the state-funded Kenya Film Classification Board had justified the ban because the film’s happy ending was perceived to be “promoting homosexuality”. The ban quickly became a symbol of the problems filmmakers face whenever they challenge traditional views on sex, gender and morality.

The unbanning marks more than the rehabilitation of a single film. It signals a subtle but significant shift in how African film might negotiate censorship in the years to come.

A young African woman with dreadlocks smiles at the camera, wearing a flowing green dress with a white pattern on it. — Wanuri Kahiu in 2025.
Bryan Berlin/ Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-NC-SA

My research as a scholar of African queer cinemas has focused on how such moments reveal the fragile yet transformative possibilities through which African film cultures negotiate visibility and legitimacy. And the right to imagine queer futures and freedom of speech on their own terms.

At first glance, the unbanning might appear modest. Kenya has not decriminalised same-sex relations, and legal restrictions on LGBTIQ+ lives remain firmly in place. Even so, Rafiki’s return is very important.

It marks the first time a Kenyan film previously prohibited for queer content has been permitted full public circulation. Other recently banned queer-themed films like I am Samuel remain banned.

Although largely symbolic, the gesture disrupts long-standing assumptions about what African films can show, who they can centre, and which lives can be made visible.

Censorship and representation

African film industries have historically operated under difficult systems of moral, religious, and political regulation. From colonial censorship boards to postcolonial classification authorities, film has been treated as requiring constant surveillance.

Sexuality, especially queer sexuality, has been one of the most heavily policed domains. Films tackling same-sex desire have often been banned, restricted to festival circuits, or forced into underground circulation. In South Africa, the film Inxeba/The Wound was effectively banned from mainstream cinemas. In Nigeria, the first independent queer film Ìfé was prohibited from cinemas.

Rafiki’s initial banning followed this pattern. Despite being selected for screening at the important Cannes Film Festival, it was deemed unsuitable for Kenyan audiences. An internationally celebrated Kenyan film could be screened overseas but not in Nairobi.

So the unbanning disrupts this asymmetry. It shows that national cinemas cannot indefinitely insulate themselves from transnational circuits. Overseas, African queer films increasingly gain visibility, prestige and market value.

Kenyan law appears, in this sense, to be more flexible and changing in response to international attention, cultural pressure and public image.

African audiences

One of the most significant implications of the unbanning concerns the question of audiences. Bans don’t just suppress content; they also actively shape who is imagined as the viewers. For decades, queer African films have been implicitly addressed to foreign audiences, festivals and academic readers, rather than to local publics.

Allowing Rafiki to screen at home challenges this idea. It opens a space, even if it’s a fragile one, for Kenyan audiences to encounter queer lives. Not as abstract political controversies but as intimate, everyday narratives. Rafiki tells a deliberately modest story, grounded in the innocence of first love and the textures of everyday life in the city.

This matters because being represented is not only about being visible. It’s also about producing audiences. More than depicting queer lives, films like Rafiki shape new viewing communities and new forms of recognition.

In this sense, the unbanning contributes to a slow reconfiguration of African film publics. It suggests that African audiences are not uniformly conservative or inherently hostile to queer narratives. Instead, they are plural and capable of engaging with complex stories about identity, love and desire.

These publics have been changing, thanks in part to streaming platforms and digital technologies. Even where films are banned from cinemas, viewers can still watch, share and debate them online. This shift is important as cinema spaces themselves are declining across many African countries.

African filmmakers

For African filmmakers, the unbanning carries both practical and symbolic importance. Practically, it signals the possibility that national classification regimes may become more negotiable and more responsive to legal challenges and public pressure. The 2018 High Court ruling that temporarily lifted the ban to allow limited screenings had already established an important precedent. The current unbanning consolidates that into institutional practice. It has set a legal precedent.

Symbolically, the decision offers a measure of protection to filmmakers who dare to take aesthetic and political risks. Rafiki was shot cautiously in order to evade state surveillance.

It teaches us that queer storytelling is no longer automatically incompatible with national cinema. This may encourage a new generation of African directors, screenwriters and producers to pursue narratives once seen as too dangerous, too marginal, or too commercially unviable.

But caution should not be thrown to the wind. The unbanning does not signal the end of censorship, nor does it guarantee a hospitable environment for filmmakers. Classification boards still retain broad powers, and political backlash remains likely.

A fragile opening …

The unbanning of Rafiki should not be overstated. Legal prohibitions against same-sex relations remain in force. Violence against queer communities persists, and cultural backlash is inevitable. Yet openings in cultural policy often precede legal and social change, not the other way around.

Cinema, precisely because it works through emotions and the visual, can create the conditions for new ethical and political sensibilities to emerge.

Rafiki’s return ultimately represents a possibility that African films can speak more openly about intimacy, vulnerability and difference. A possibility that African audiences can encounter these stories on their own terms.

Gibson Ncube receives funding from the National Research Foundation (South Africa).

– ref. Rafiki unbanned on appeal: why it’s an important moment for African film – https://theconversation.com/rafiki-unbanned-on-appeal-why-its-an-important-moment-for-african-film-274542

January 30, 2026

If Pope Leo joined Trump’s Board of Peace, it would compromise centuries of ‘positive neutrality’

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Darius von Guttner Sporzynski, Professor of History, Australian Catholic University

Pope Leo XIV is among the world leaders invited to join Donald Trump’s “Board of Peace”. Initially aimed at ending the conflict in Gaza, Trump says it will also resolve conflicts globally. The Vatican’s secretary of state has said the pope needs time to consider whether to take part.

Leo, the first pope from the United States, forcefully decried conditions in Gaza in a Christmas Eve address. He has told journalists the only solution to the conflict is a Palestinian state. But the Vatican has long described its foreign policy as “positive neutrality”.

Formal membership of state-sponsored commissions has usually been avoided by the Holy See, the central government of the Catholic Church – which has diplomatic relations with 184 countries, plus the European Union and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, as well as a permanent observer status at the United Nations.

Across nearly two millennia, popes have been deeply involved in peace efforts. They have mediated disputes, facilitated negotiations, opened humanitarian corridors and applied moral pressure to restrain violence. Yet they have almost always done so from the sidelines: carefully positioned close enough to influence outcomes, but far enough away to preserve credibility with all parties.

Papal peacemaking has worked best when the pope could speak to everyone, even those who rejected the political order of the day. Neutrality is not a rhetorical posture, but a practical asset: hard won and easily lost.

Can the papacy maintain independent authority in an increasingly polarised world?

Influence without command

The Holy See has no army, no coercive economic power and no capacity to enforce compliance. What it has possessed, in varying degrees across time, is moral authority, diplomatic reach and access to networks that cross borders, ideologies and regimes.

In late antiquity, popes intervened at moments of acute danger, relying on prestige and symbolic authority rather than force. Pope Leo I’s encounter with Attila the Hun in 452, near Mantua in northern Italy, illustrates this approach. The pope’s message of peace persuaded the ruler of the Huns not to destroy Rome.

The episode captured a durable pattern. Papal influence worked through persuasion, reputation and the claim to speak in the name of a higher moral order.

Raphael’s Meeting of Leo the Great and Attila, completed under Leo X (1513-1521)
Mvsei Vaticani

Between the 10th and 14th centuries, the Peace of God and Truce of God movements sought to limit who could be attacked, when fighting was permitted and how warfare should be conducted. These were not state treaties, but moral frameworks, designed to protect the vulnerable. The church established the right to asylum by proclaiming immunity from violence for those who could not defend themselves.

As medieval diplomacy matured, popes increasingly acted as mediators between rulers. Though the pope was never a neutral observer in a theological sense, he could function as a neutral broker in political terms: precisely because he was not a competing territorial power.

Mediation lowered the cost of compromise by allowing rulers to frame concessions as obedience to moral authority rather than weakness before an enemy.

Neutrality as modern strength

The early modern period expanded the ambition and limits of papal peacemaking. In 1493, Pope Alexander VI drew up boundaries for Spain and Portugal’s colonisation of non-Christian lands. Other European powers increasingly rejected the pope’s authority to allocate sovereignty beyond Christendom.

In 1518, Pope Leo X promoted a general peace among central European Christian rulers, resulting in the Treaty of London. But a century later, the region’s Thirty Years’ War was one of the longest and most destructive conflicts in European history. After it ended, European diplomacy became more overtly secular. While the pope could create peace architecture, he could not sustain it once political incentives shifted.

For 1,114 years, popes ruled as absolute monarchs over the Italian territories known as the Papal States, strategically located in central Italy. With their loss, completed in 1870, the pope gained a different kind of leverage.

In the late 19th century, the Holy See aligned itself with emerging legal approaches to peace, including arbitration and international adjudication. It endorsed mechanisms that restrained unilateral force. Neutrality was no longer a defensive posture, but an active diplomatic resource.

Moral authority in total war

The first world war tested the limits of that resource. Pope Benedict XV confronted industrialised mass conflict, in which moral appeals struggled to gain traction. His peace proposal of August 1 1917 outlined principles that would later become familiar: disarmament, arbitration, freedom of the seas and territorial restitution. Governments acknowledged the initiative, but largely rejected its premises.

Pope Benedict XV tried to intervene in World War II.
War of the Nations/Wikimedia Commons

While unsuccessful, Benedict XV’s intervention reinforced a papal vision of peace grounded in law and justice, rather than domination. It entrenched the Holy See’s role as a humanitarian actor, supporting prisoners of war, refugees and civilian relief – even when diplomatic leverage was minimal.

During the second world war, Pope Pius XII adopted a similar posture. His 1939 radio appeal warned war would destroy everything peace could preserve. Throughout the conflict, the Holy See relied on discreet diplomacy and humanitarian networks. Its capacity to mediate was constrained, but its credibility as a channel of communication endured.

In the early nuclear age, successive popes increasingly addressed the ethical implications of weapons capable of annihilation. The emphasis shifted toward global norms, restraint and the need for institutions capable of preventing catastrophe.

Speaking to the world

That shift became explicit in the United Nations era. When Pope Paul VI addressed the UN General Assembly on October 4 1965, his message was not tied to any state interest. “Never again war,” he urged, framing peace as a universal moral obligation rather than a diplomatic bargain.

This has defined much modern papal diplomacy. The Holy See acts through agenda-setting, moral language and support for multilateral norms. It rarely produces treaties directly, but shapes the terms in which peace and war are debated.

The Pope with a cardinal, both in white and red frocks. — ‘Never again war,’ Pope Paul VI (pictured left) urged the UN General Assembly, in 1965.
Picryl

At times, however, the papacy has returned to hands-on mediation. The Beagle Channel dispute between Argentina and Chile in 1978 brought the two states close to war. Both accepted papal mediation, culminating in the 1984 Treaty of Peace and Friendship. Its conditions were consent from both parties, trust in neutrality and a willingness to frame compromise as honourable rather than humiliating.

More recently, Pope Francis was involved in the restoration of diplomatic relations between the US and Cuba, announced on December 17 2014. Symbolic gestures, such as Francis kneeling before South Sudan’s rival leaders in April 2019, reinforced his role as a moral catalyst rather than a governing authority.

Why this invitation is different

Against this long history, Trump’s “Board of Peace” stands out. It is not an ad hoc mediation effort, nor a quiet facilitation role requested by all parties. It is a formally constituted, state-led body, with clear political ownership and governance ambitions. Membership would signal alignment with a specific national framework.

Accepting a seat on such a board might offer influence over humanitarian access, reconstruction priorities and the protection of civilians. It could give the Holy See a voice inside a process that will shape lives on the ground.

But the risks are equally real.

Formal participation could narrow the pope’s room to manoeuvre, making it harder to engage actors who distrust the board’s sponsor. It could blur the line between moral authority and political endorsement.

Joining a state-led board could increase short-term influence, but at the possible cost of long-term credibility. And once neutrality is perceived to be compromised, it is difficult to restore.

Darius von Guttner Sporzynski 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. If Pope Leo joined Trump’s Board of Peace, it would compromise centuries of ‘positive neutrality’ – https://theconversation.com/if-pope-leo-joined-trumps-board-of-peace-it-would-compromise-centuries-of-positive-neutrality-274283

January 30, 2026

US military action in Iran risks igniting a regional and global nuclear cascade

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Farah N. Jan, Senior Lecturer in International Relations, University of Pennsylvania

Iranian youths walk past a building covered with a giant billboard depicting an image of the destroyed USS Abraham Lincoln. Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto via Getty Images

The United States is seemingly moving toward a potential strike on Iran.

On Jan. 28, 2026, President Donald Trump sharply intensified his threats to the Islamic Republic, suggesting that if Tehran did not agree to a set of demands, he could mount an attack “with speed and violence.” To underline the threat, the Pentagon moved aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln – along with destroyers, bombers and fighter jets – to positions within striking distance of the country.

Foremost among the various demands the U.S. administration has put before Iran’s leader is a permanent end to the country’s uranium enrichment program. It has also called for limits to the development of ballistic missiles and a cutting off of Tehran’s support for proxy groups in the Middle East, including Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis.

Trump apparently sees in this moment an opportunity to squeeze an Iran weakened by a poor economy and massive protests that swept through the country in early January.

But as a scholar of Middle Eastern security politics and proliferation, I have concerns. Any U.S. military action now could have widespread unintended consequences later. And that includes the potential for accelerated global nuclear proliferation – regardless of whether the Iranian government is able to survive its current moment of crisis.

Iran’s threshold lesson

The fall of the Islamic Republic is far from certain, even if the U.S. uses military force. Iran is not a fragile state susceptible to quick collapse. With a population of 93 million and substantial state capacity, it has a layered coercive apparatus and security institutions built to survive crises. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the regime’s military wing, is commonly estimated in the low-to-high hundreds of thousands, and it commands or can mobilize auxiliary forces.

A group of people are seen by a fire. — Protesters in Iran on Jan. 8, 2026.
Anonymous/Getty Images

After 47 years of rule, the Islamic Republic’s institutions are deeply embedded in Iranian society. Moreover, any change in leadership would not likely produce a clean slate. Secretary of State Marco Rubio acknowledged as much, telling lawmakers on Jan. 28 that there was “no simple answer” to what would happen if the government fell. “No one knows who would take over,” he said. The exiled opposition is fragmented, disconnected from domestic realities and lacks the organizational capacity to govern such a large and divided country.

And in this uncertainty lies the danger. Iran is a “threshold state” — a country with the technical capacity to produce nuclear weapons but that has not crossed the final line of production.

A destabilized threshold state poses three risks: loss of centralized command over nuclear material and scientists, incentives for factions to monetize or export expertise, and acceleration logic — actors racing to secure deterrence before collapse.

History offers warnings. The collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s produced near-misses and concern over the whereabouts of missing nuclear material. Meanwhile, the activities of the A.Q. Khan network, centered around the so-called father of Pakistan’s atomic program, proved that expertise travels – in Khan’s case to North Korea, Libya and Iran.

What strikes teach

Whether or not regime change might follow, any U.S. military action carries profound implications for global proliferation.

Iran’s status as a threshold state has been a choice of strategic restraint. But when, in June 2025, Israel and the U.S struck Iran’s nuclear facilities, that attack – and the latest Trump threats – sent a clear message that threshold status provides no reliable security.

The message to other nations with nuclear aspirations is stark and builds on a number of hard nonproliferation lessons over the past three decades. Libya abandoned its nuclear program in 2003 in exchange for normalized relations with the West. Yet just eight years later, NATO airstrikes in support of Libyan rebels led to the capture and killing of longtime strongman Moammar Gaddafi.

Ukraine relinquished its nuclear arsenal in 1994 for security assurances from Russia, the U.S. and Britain. Yet 20 years later, in 2014, Russia annexed Crimea, before launching an outright invasion in 2022.

Now we can add Iran to the list: The country exercised restraint at the threshold level, and yet it was attacked by U.S. bombs in 2025 and now faces a potential follow-up strike.

The lesson is not lost on Mehdi Mohammadi, a senior Iranian adviser. Speaking on state TV on Jan. 27, he said Washington’s demands “translate into disarming yourself so we could strike you when we want.”

If abandoning a nuclear program leads to regime change, relinquishing weapons results in invasion, and remaining at the threshold invites military strikes, the logic goes, then security is only truly achieved through the possession of nuclear weapons – and not by negotiating them away or halting development before completion.

If Iranian leadership survives any U.S. attack, they will, I believe, almost certainly double down on Iran’s weapons program.

IAEA credibility

U.S. military threats or strikes in the pursuit of destroying a nation’s nuclear program also undermine the international architecture designed to prevent proliferation.

The International Atomic Energy Agency was, until the earlier Israel and U.S. strikes, functioning as designed – detecting, flagging and verifying. Its monitoring of Iran was proof that the inspection regime worked.

Military strikes – or the credible threat of them – remove inspectors, disrupt monitoring continuity and signal that compliance does not guarantee safety.

If following the rules offers no protection, why follow the rules? At stake is the credibility of the IAEA and faith in the whole system of international diplomacy and monitoring to tamp down nuclear concerns.

Men and women line the deck of a large ship. — The USS Abraham Lincoln in San Diego Bay on Dec. 20, 2024.
Kevin Carter/Getty Images

The domino effect

Every nation weighing its nuclear options is watching to see how this latest standoff between the U.S. and Iran plays out.

Iran’s regional rival, Saudi Arabia, has made no secret of its own nuclear ambitions, with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman publicly declaring that the kingdom would pursue nuclear weapons if Iran did.

Yet a U.S. strike on Iran would not reassure Washington’s Gulf allies. Rather, it could unsettle them. The June 2025 U.S. strikes on Iran were conducted to protect Israel, not Saudi Arabia or Iran. Gulf leaders may conclude that American military action flows to preferred partners, not necessarily to them. And if U.S. protection is selective rather than universal, a rational response could be to hedge independently.

Saudi Arabia’s deepening defense cooperation with nuclear power Pakistan, for example, represents a hedge against American unreliability and regional instability. The Gulf kingdom has invested heavily in Pakistani military capabilities and maintains what many analysts believe are understandings regarding Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.

Turkey, meanwhile, has chafed under NATO’s nuclear arrangements and has periodically signaled interest in an independent capability. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan questioned in 2019 why Turkey should not possess nuclear weapons when others in the region do. An attack on Iran, particularly one that Turkey opposes, could well accelerate Turkish hedging and potentially trigger a serious indigenous weapons program.

And the nuclear cascade would not likely stop at the Middle East. South Korea and Japan have remained non-nuclear largely because of confidence in American extended deterrence. Regional proliferation and the risk of a destabilized Iran exporting its know-how, scientists and technology would raise questions in Seoul and Tokyo about whether American guarantees can be trusted.

An emerging counter-order?

Arab Gulf monarchies certainly understand these risks, which goes some way toward explaining why they have lobbied the Trump administration against military action against Iran – despite Tehran being a major antagonism in Gulf states’ desire to “de-risk” the region.

The American-led regional security architecture is already under strain. It risks fraying further if Gulf partners diversify their security ties and hedge against U.S. unpredictability.

As a result, the Trump administration’s threats and potential strikes against Iran may, conversely, result not in increased American influence, but in diminished relevance as the region divides into competing spheres of influence.

And perhaps most alarming of all, I fear that it could teach every aspiring nuclear state that security is attainable only through the possession of the bomb.

Farah N. Jan 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. US military action in Iran risks igniting a regional and global nuclear cascade – https://theconversation.com/us-military-action-in-iran-risks-igniting-a-regional-and-global-nuclear-cascade-274599

January 29, 2026

With Iran weakened, Trump’s end goal may now be regime change. It’s an incredibly risky gamble

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Amin Saikal, Emeritus Professor of Middle Eastern Studies, Australian National University; The University of Western Australia; Victoria University

The United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran are once again on the brink of a major confrontation. This would have terrible ramifications for both countries, the region and the world.

All signs point in this direction, but the two sides also have an off-ramp: the possibility of reaching an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program and other disputed issues.

The Iranian regime has never been so besieged both internally and externally. It has just faced yet another widespread protest movement demanding the government’s ouster, while dealing with the threat of military action by the US, supported by its ally, Israel.

Even so, the regime remains resilient and defiant. It brutally crushed the recent protests at the cost of thousands of lives and mass arrests and has warned the US of an all-out war if it attacks.

At the same time, it has signalled a willingness to reach a deal with the US over its nuclear program to avoid such an outcome.

So, what happens next, and can war be avoided?

A regime in survival mode

The regime’s tenacity is embedded in its unique theocratic nature, in which societal subordination and confrontation with outside enemies are the modus operandi.

Since its inception 47 years ago, the regime has learned how to ensure its longevity. This requires having a strong and defendable state, armed with all the necessary repressive instruments of state power, along with an ideology that mixes the concept of Shia Islamic martyrdom with fierce Iranian nationalism.

Given this, the regime has operated within a jihadi (combative) and ijtihadi (pragmatist) framework for its survival.

It has prepared for both war and making deals. This is not the first time Iran’s clerical leaders have been put in a tight corner by their own people and outside adversaries. They have always found a way to work through challenges and threats to their existence.

Still, the current challenge is bigger than any they’ve faced before. Over the past month, US President Donald Trump has vowed to punish the regime for its repression of the Iranian people, and now for its refusal to reach a deal on its nuclear program.

Some believe his ultimate goal, though, is to create the conditions for regime change.

Regime change not a given

Trump must know that regime change in Iran will not happen easily. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his fellow clerics are ready to fight to the very end. They know that if the Islamic system they created goes down, everyone in the regime is most likely to perish with it.

The regime has built sufficient fanatical forces (namely, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Basij paramilitary force) and advanced missiles and drones to defend itself. It also has the ability to block the Strait of Hormuz, though which 20% of the world’s oil and 25% of its liquefied natural gas flows every day.

The regime also has the backing of China, Russia and North Korea, which means any US assault could quickly escalate into a broader regional war.

Although Trump has not favoured regime change in the past, he now seems as if he’s not ruling it out. (His ally, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long had this aim.)

But even though Trump now has a “massive armada” of ships and fighter jets in the region, the Iranian regime cannot be toppled by air and sea alone. And a ground invasion is not on Trump’s agenda, given the United States’ bitter experiences with ground offensives in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

The regime could only crumble if a sizeable part of its security forces defected to the opposition. So far, they have remained quite loyal and solidly behind the leadership – as the brutal crackdown to the recent protests shows.

A possible destabilising future

Even if the regime were to crumble from within by some chance, what would come next?

Iran is a large and complex country, with an ethnically mixed population. While Persians form a slim majority of the population, the country has significant minority groups, such as the Kurds, Azeris, Arabs and Balochis. They all have a history of movements for secession and autonomy.

With the exception of two short periods of experimenting with democracy in the early and mid-20th century, Iran has been governed by authoritarian rulers. In the event of a power vacuum, it remains prone to chaos and disintegration.

It is doubtful that Reza Pahlavi, the son of the last shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who ruled from 1941–79, will command sufficient public support and organisational strength to ensure a smooth transition to democracy. He has lived most of his life in exile in the US and has been closely identified with Israeli and American interests.

Netanyahu would be pleased to see a disintegrated Iran, as he has always wanted to prevent the formation of a united Muslim front against Israel. But the fall-out from a destabilised Iran would be problematic for the region.

These considerations are probably weighing on Trump’s mind, delaying his promise to the Iranian protesters that “help is on its way”.

Diplomacy is the better way forward. The time has come for the Iranian and American leadership to compromise and resurrect their July 2015 nuclear deal, from which Trump withdrew in 2018.

This should be urgently followed by Iran’s clerical rulers opening their iron fist and allowing the Iranian people to determine their future and that of their country within a democratic framework.

Otherwise, the volatility that has long dominated this oil-rich country, where between 30–40% of the population lives in poverty, will eventually devour the regime.

Amin Saikal 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. With Iran weakened, Trump’s end goal may now be regime change. It’s an incredibly risky gamble – https://theconversation.com/with-iran-weakened-trumps-end-goal-may-now-be-regime-change-its-an-incredibly-risky-gamble-274626

January 29, 2026

Weakening the soy moratorium in Brazil: a political choice that ignores the science

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Aline Soterroni, Pesquisadora associada do Departamento de Biologia, University of Oxford

In the first days of 2026, the Brazilian Association of Vegetable Oil Industries (ABIOVE), which represents the largest soybean traders in Brazil, announced its withdrawal from the Amazon soy moratorium.

Created in 2006, the moratorium is a voluntary commitment between companies, governments and civil society, establishing that signatory traders and industries will not purchase soy produced from areas deforested in the Amazon biome after July 2008.

The moratorium is widely recognised as one of the world’s most effective voluntary multisectoral agreements for decoupling direct deforestation from soy expansion in the Brazilian Amazon.

ABIOVE’s member companies account for a substantial share of Brazil’s soybean processing capacity and exports. As such, they play a central role both in the soy expansion and in the implementation of environmental commitments across the country.

Although the moratorium has not been formally terminated, its weakening by an actor as influential as ABIOVE may mark the beginning of the end of the most successful zero-deforestation agreement in history.

Fewer state tax benefits

A large body of research demonstrates unequivocally that the moratorium has not constrained soybean production in the Amazon biome. On the contrary, between 2009 and 2022, the area planted with soy increased by more than 300%, while deforestation fell by 69% in the municipalities monitored under the moratorium.

In addition, the agreement was responsible for establishing a sophisticated system for monitoring, traceability and independent auditing of the soybean supply chain in the Brazilian Amazon.

Despite all this evidence, some argue that the soy moratorium is no longer necessary. This view has recently gained political traction through manoeuvres by the government of the state of Mato Grosso, including the Decree 1,795, which seeks to regulate part of a state law (Law 12,709/2024) whose constitutionality is still being examined by Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court.

In practice, the Mato Grosso government aims to restrict state tax benefits for companies that adopt environmental criteria beyond those required by law, as is the case with the Amazon soy moratorium.

The core argument is that Brazil’s Forest Code – the country’s main environmental law regulating land use on private properties – alone is sufficient to ensure high socio-environmental standards in agricultural production. But is this really the case?

Full implementation of Brazil’s Forest Code

There is a scientific tool capable of addressing this question: mathematical and economic land-use modelling. According to a study I led, published in Global Change Biology, even the rigorous implementation of the Forest Code would prevent only about half of the deforestation projected to accommodate the expansion of agriculture and livestock production in Brazil up to 2050.

These findings indicate that, while full implementation of the Code is essential and urgent, it is not sufficient to guarantee deforestation-free agricultural production that is truly sustainable and aligned with increasingly demanding markets, such as that of the European Union.

It is also worthwhile to remember that achieving zero deforestation is central to Brazil fulfilling the commitments it has voluntarily undertaken, including the Paris Agreement and the Glasgow Leader’s Declaration on Forests and Land Use.

Better futures are possible

One of the most motivating aspects of my research area is the opportunity to explore better futures. What if the Amazon Soy moratorium were expanded from the Amazon to the Cerrado? Around a decade ago, in 2017, this was precisely the debate.

That year, the Cerrado Working Group was created with the aim of discussing an agreement that would eliminate the direct conversion of native vegetation for soybean production in the most biodiverse and threatened tropical savanna on Earth.

In another modelling study that I led, published in Science Advances, we simulated this plausible future, in which the Soy moratorium is adopted simultaneously in the Amazon and the Cerrado biomes.

The results show that even with a moratorium of this scale, Brazilian soybean production would continue to grow in order to meet domestic and international demand. By 2050, the reduction in planted area would be only about 2% compared with a scenario without an expanded moratorium.

With strategic land-use planning, the impact on production would therefore be minimal, while the environmental and social benefits would be immense. This scenario highlights Brazil’s potential for environmental leadership, demonstrating that large-scale commodity production can be reconciled with the conservation of natural resources.

Brazil is one the most megadiverse nations in the world, home to around 20% of all known species. This extraordinary biodiversity – together with ecosystem services such as pollination, climate regulation and rainfall patterns – underpins the country’s position as a major global producer and exporter of food.

Yet prolonged droughts, intense rainfall events and more frequent heatwaves are already affecting agricultural productivity, confirming scientific warnings about the vulnerability of Brazilian agriculture in an increasingly warming planet.

In the face of the intertwined climate and biodiversity crises, the debate should focus on policies and initiatives that complement Brazil’s Forest Code, such as expanding the Amazon Soy moratorium to the Cerrado, rather than on dismantling it.

Protecting native vegetation is an essential condition for the long-term viability of Brazilian agriculture and the most effective insurance against the impacts of climate change.

Approving legislation that trades standing forests, irreplaceable biodiversity, water security and climate regulation – while also jeopardising the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities – for soybeans largely used as animal feed is not just short-sighted land-use governance. It is, quite literally, casting pearls before swine. Not to mention the unnecessary reputational risk generated for the Brazilian agricultural sector.

Rather than hastily weakening one of the most successful environmental agreements ever implemented, companies and trade associations should strengthen safeguards, resist legislation that undermines environmental protection, and work alongside governments and civil society to build supply chains that are genuinely sustainable and free from deforestation. The science is clear. The choice, however, is political.

Aline Soterroni não presta consultoria, trabalha, possui ações ou recebe financiamento de qualquer empresa ou organização que poderia se beneficiar com a publicação deste artigo e não revelou nenhum vínculo relevante além de seu cargo acadêmico.

– ref. Weakening the soy moratorium in Brazil: a political choice that ignores the science – https://theconversation.com/weakening-the-soy-moratorium-in-brazil-a-political-choice-that-ignores-the-science-274677

January 29, 2026

Weakening the soy moratorium: a political choice that ignores the science

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Aline Soterroni, Pesquisadora associada do Departamento de Biologia, University of Oxford

The moratorium is widely recognised as one of the world’s most effective voluntary multisectoral agreements for decoupling direct deforestation from soy expansion in the Brazilian Amazon.

Fewer state tax benefits

In addition, the agreement was responsible for establishing a sophisticated system for monitoring, traceability and independent auditing of the soybean supply chain in the Brazilian Amazon.

Full implementation of Brazil’s Forest Code

Better futures are possible

In another modelling study that I led, published in Science Advances, we simulated this plausible future, in which the Soy moratorium is adopted simultaneously in the Amazon and the Cerrado biomes.

Protecting native vegetation is an essential condition for the long-term viability of Brazilian agriculture and the most effective insurance against the impacts of climate change.

– ref. Weakening the soy moratorium: a political choice that ignores the science – https://theconversation.com/weakening-the-soy-moratorium-a-political-choice-that-ignores-the-science-274677

January 29, 2026

Submarine mountains and long-distance waves stir the deepest parts of the ocean

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Jessica Kolbusz, Research Fellow, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Western Australia

NOAA Office of Ocean Exploration and Research, 2019 Southeastern U.S. Deep-sea Exploration

When most of us look out at the ocean, we see a mostly flat blue surface stretching to the horizon. It’s easy to imagine the sea beneath as calm and largely static – a massive, still abyss far removed from everyday experience.

But the ocean is layered, dynamic and constantly moving, from the surface down to the deepest seafloor. While waves, tides and currents near the coast are familiar and accessible, far less is known about what happens several kilometres below, where the ocean meets the seafloor.

Our new research, published in the journal Ocean Science, shows water near the the seafloor is in constant motion, even in the abyssal plains of the Pacific Ocean. This has important consequences for climate, ecosystems and how we understand the ocean as an interconnected system.

Enter the abyss

The central and eastern Pacific Ocean include some of Earth’s largest abyssal regions (places where the sea is more than 3,000 metres deep). Here, most of the seafloor lies four to six kilometres below the surface. It is shaped by vast abyssal plains, fracture zones and seamounts.

It is cold and dark, and the water and ecosystems here are under immense pressure from the ocean above.

Just above the seafloor, no matter the depth, sits a region known as the bottom mixed layer. This part of the ocean is relatively uniform in temperature, salinity and density because it is stirred through contact with the seafloor.

Rather than a thin boundary, this layer can extend from tens to hundreds of metres above the seabed. It plays a crucial role in the movement of heat, nutrients and sediments between the pelagic ocean and the seabed, including the beginning of the slow return of water from the bottom of the ocean toward the surface as part of global ocean circulation.

Observations focused on the bottom mixed layer are rare, but this is beginning to change. Most ocean measurements focus on the upper few kilometres, and deep observations are scarce, expensive and often decades apart.

In the Pacific especially, scientists have long known that cold Antarctic waters flow northward, along topographic features such as the Tonga-Kermadec Ridge and the Izu-Ogasawara and Japan Trenches.

But the finer details of how these waters interact with seafloor features in ways that intermittently stir and reshape the bottom layer of the ocean has remained largely unknown.

A bright pink, soft coral attached to a grey seafloor mount. — Deep sea ecosystems are under immense pressure from the ocean above.
NOAA Photo Library

Investigating the abyss

To investigate the Pacific abyssal ocean, my colleagues and I combined new surface-to-seafloor measurements collected during a trans-Pacific expedition with high-quality repeat data about the physical features of the ocean gathered over the past two decades.

These observations allowed us to examine temperature and pressure all the way down to the seafloor over a wide range of latitudes and longitudes.

We then compared multiple scientific methods for identifying the bottom mixed layer and used machine learning techniques to understand what factors best explain the variations in its thickness.

Rather than being a uniform layer, we found the bottom mixed layer in the abyssal Pacific varies dramatically. In some regions it was less than 100m thick; in others it exceeded 700m.

This variability is not random; it’s controlled by the seafloor depth and the interactions between waves generated by surface tides and rough landscapes on the seabed.

In other words, the deepest ocean is not quietly stagnant as is often imagined. It is continually stirred by remote forces, shaped by seafloor features, and dynamically connected to the rest of the ocean above.

Just as coastal waters are shaped by waves, currents and sediment movement, the abyssal ocean is shaped by its own set of drivers. However, it is operating over larger distances and longer timescales.

Underwater mounts on the seafloor covered in gold minerals. — Topographic features of the seafloor intermittently stir and reshape the bottom layer of the ocean.
NOAA Photo Library

Connected to the rest of the world

This matters for several reasons.

First, the bottom mixed layer influences how heat is stored and redistributed in the ocean, affecting long-term climate change. Some ocean and climate models still simplify seabed mixing, which can lead to errors in how future climate is projected.

Second, it plays a role in transporting sediment and seabed ecosystems. As interest grows in deep-sea mining and other activities on the high seas, understanding how the seafloor environment changes, and importantly how seafloor disturbances might spread, becomes increasingly important.

Our results highlight how little of the deep ocean we actually observe.

Large areas of the abyssal Pacific remain effectively unsampled, even as international agreements such as the new UN High Seas Treaty seek to manage and protect these regions.

The deep ocean is not a silent, static place. It is active, connected to the oceans above and changing. If we want to make informed decisions about the future of the high seas, we need to understand what’s happening at the very bottom in space and time.

Jessica Kolbusz receives funding from the marine research organisation Inkfish LLC. The funder was not involved in the study design, collection, analysis, interpretation of data, the writing of this article, or the decision to submit it for publication.

– ref. Submarine mountains and long-distance waves stir the deepest parts of the ocean – https://theconversation.com/submarine-mountains-and-long-distance-waves-stir-the-deepest-parts-of-the-ocean-274124