Category: The Conversation – Global Perspectives

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Mariam Farida, Lecturer in Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism Studies, Macquarie University

Just two days after the US and Israel killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in late February, Hezbollah opened a second front in the war by launching six rockets into Israel from Lebanon.

The rockets came as a surprise to many. Hezbollah, once one of Iran’s most powerful proxy fighting forces, had been severely weakened by Israel during 13 months of fighting from late 2023–24.

The militant group had also stopped firing rockets into Israel since signing a ceasefire agreement in November 2024.

According to the ceasefire, the Lebanese army was to take control of the territory south of the Litani River in southern Lebanon and prevent Hezbollah from rebuilding its infrastructure. Hezbollah was also expected to move its fighters north of the river, about 30 kilometres from the border with Israel.

The Lebanese government and the Lebanese army then launched an enthusiastic public campaign to show their commitment to the systematic disarmament of Hezbollah’s fighters and dismantling of its missile launches.

But this has proved to be a monumentally difficult task for both the government and army.

The Israeli army has continued to carry out airstrikes on Hezbollah military sites and targeted assassinations of Hezbollah fighters on a near-daily basis since the ceasefire.

Hezbollah has repeatedly refused to disarm and withdraw north of the Litani River if these strikes continue.

So, the ceasefire deal was already shaky. And when fighting resumed earlier this month, Israel decided it was time to “finish the job” in Lebanon.

This week, it launched another ground invasion to completely destroy Hezbollah’s remaining military infrastructure, “just as was done against Hamas in Rafah, Beit Hanoun and the terror tunnels in Gaza”, Israel’s defence minister, Israel Katz, said.

More than 1 million Lebanese people have already been displaced, leading to fears Israel will reoccupy southern Lebanon, as it did for 18 years from 1982 to 2000.

---

Read more:
Israel has invaded Lebanon six times in the past 50 years – a timeline of events

---

There are three possible scenarios for what could happen next.

1. A short-term or “limited” ground operation

Israel does not want a return to its 18-year occupation, when it was dragged into a guerrilla war with Hezbollah and other groups, and by some estimates lost hundreds of soldiers.

A limited ground operation lasting a few weeks would therefore be the most desirable scenario to minimise troop casualties on the ground.

But this carries risk, too. A limited operation would make it difficult for the Israeli army to successfully destroy Hezbollah’s infrastructure. Israel has attempted these types of limited operations in the past and so far failed to stop Hezbollah rockets. Hezbollah, too, is unlikely to want to de-escalate quickly.

As such, a limited ground operation seems unlikely.

2. A war of attrition that lasts for months

This is a more possible scenario since the Hezbollah–Israel conflict is closely linked to the US–Israel war on Iran.

It has become obvious that Iran is engaged in a war of attrition with its adversaries. The regime doesn’t need to “win” the war; it just needs to hold on long enough for the US and Israel to feel enough global and domestic pressure to stop. Then, the regime can claim “victory”.

In this scenario, Hezbollah is fully capable of mirroring this strategy. If it can withstand Israeli airstrikes, it can retaliate with the type of guerilla warfare it has successfully used in the past to drag Israel into a longer conflict.

There are already signs Hezbollah fighters are adopting these strategies.

3. Another major war that will lead to reoccupation

This is the most likely scenario with highest chance of regional ripple effects.

If Israel launches a much larger ground operation, it would be aimed at fundamentally reshaping the balance of power with Hezbollah and putting more pressure on the Lebanese government before engaging in any negotiations or diplomatic settlements.

This is typical of negotiating processes: one side uses excessive violence to try to establish “new facts on the ground” and gain more leverage before entering into talks.

However, this could result in major losses for the Israeli army, similar to those suffered during its 1982 invasion and subsequent occupation.

Another possible outcome is a power vacuum in Lebanon and the outbreak of another civil war.

A Lebanese civil war would have serious implications for the region, much as the last one did from 1975 to 1990. Then, Lebanon was torn apart by multiple armed militias with different (and often competing) agendas. Hezbollah emerged from the chaos, giving Iran a powerful proxy group to threaten Israel for decades to come.

There would most likely be a major surge of refugees across Lebanon’s borders, as well.

Lebanon is already a fragile and weak country, struggling to sustain some 250,000 Palestinian and 1.3 million Syrian refugees. Now, there are 1 million displaced Lebanese from the recent fighting.

This kind of disruption would no doubt spill over into Europe, with displaced people trying to seek refuge there, similar to the height of the Syrian civil war.

An Israeli reoccupation of southern Lebanon could also give Hezbollah a much-needed boost in legitimacy among the Lebanese people, if it is able to survive the war and targeted killings of its leaders.

Hezbollah will easily be able to frame its operations as a form of resistance or muqawama, much as it did in its early years. This could be viewed in several ways: resistance against occupation, resistance against oppressive regimes and resistance against the US and Israel.

Wherever this conflict goes, the Lebanese people – and beleaguered Lebanese state – will pay the highest price, trapped again in a geopolitical contest they didn’t start and feel powerless to stop.

Mariam Farida 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. As Israel invades again, Lebanon faces more turmoil and possible civil war. Here are 3 ways this could go – https://theconversation.com/as-israel-invades-again-lebanon-faces-more-turmoil-and-possible-civil-war-here-are-3-ways-this-could-go-278408

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Sharon Horwood, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, Deakin University

It’s called the infinite scroll – a design feature on social media, shopping, video and many other apps that continuously loads content as you reach the bottom of the page. Handy? Yes. Clever? Also yes. Devious? Very much so. The infinite scroll is likely the main reason you find it so hard to stop scrolling once you begin.

To understand why this design feature is so devious, we need to understand the psychology and behaviours it taps into.

First, the infinite scroll takes away a natural stopping point – where you might decide that’s enough social media for today. For example, Instagram feeds once stopped after all chronologically new posts from followed accounts had been viewed, and even told us we were “all caught up” for the day. Now, algorithmic feeds combined with the infinite scroll mean there’s no way to ever be caught up with it all.

The second reason you find it so hard to stop scrolling is the promise of something good that might be just about to pop up in your feed. The algorithm “knows” what you like. So, hand-in-hand with the infinite scroll, it keeps feeding you all those tasty tid-bits.

Putting it bluntly, these features help create an addiction of sorts. The promise of a little hit of dopamine when we see content we love. And addictions are hard to beat – but not impossible.

Here are some quick wins and longer-term solutions if you want to break free from the grip of the scroll.

The quick wins

Create a break

Your device might be the problem, but it can also be part of the solution. Start by using your phone’s screen time features – such as Android’s Digital Wellbeing or Apple’s Screen Time.

You can also install a more sophisticated third-party app that forces you to break the patterns of mindless scrolling behaviour.

Apps such as One Sec, ScreenZen, Opal and Freedom can short-circuit the automatic habits associated with scrolling in various ways. These include putting mandatory pauses before social media apps open, or applying colour filters (like grayscale) to make apps less appealing.

They can even hard-block apps for specific periods of time if you really need a tough love approach.

Remove social media apps

This one’s usually met with an audible gasp when I suggest it, but you might find you adapt to not having social media at your fingertips faster than you’d imagine. You’re not deleting your accounts – just making it harder to open them and scroll.

Schedule some scrolling time

If you can’t imagine life without scrolling, schedule time each day for just that activity. It could be in your lunch break or when you get home from work: give yourself the freedom to scroll for the amount of time you set (say, 15 minutes) and don’t feel guilty about it. Just remember you still have to close the apps and get on with your life as soon as the time is up.

The hard work

The above might limit your scrolling in the short term, but long-term benefits (and emotional freedom) will likely take a bit more work.

The “easy” tips often work for a little while, when you’re motivated to change and feeling optimistic. But time and the pressures of life can start to erode your convictions.

So, to gain true freedom from scrolling, think about social media and whether it’s a relationship that serves you well. If you feel like it’s controlling you far more than you are controlling it, here are some things to consider. Be warned, they might not be easy.

What’s the deeper reason?

Think deeply about why you’re scrolling so much in the first place. Is it a lack of willpower? Are you avoiding something or someone? Are you suppressing feelings that you would prefer not to acknowledge?

All of these things can be reasons why we seek distraction. You might be avoiding a big thing (the state of a relationship) or a small thing (cooking dinner), but either way, scrolling is the symptom, not the disease. So, consider if scrolling might be part of a bigger problem you need to deal with instead.

Who’s benefiting whom?

Consider how much you really “need” social media. Do you actively use it in a way that benefits you (for example, as a business platform) or did you sign up out of curiosity years ago and have never really questioned why you’re still using it?

If it’s the latter, apply a critical lens to the platforms you use and how they serve you. On average, Australians use six to seven different social media platforms regularly. Think about what you might gain from spending less time scrolling, but also think about whether your life would be worse without some of them.

If you can’t think of a really compelling reason as to why it would be worse, it might be time to say goodbye to a few.

These “hard” options will take time and effort, and require you to reflect on your habits. But, like with most things, the reward for effort is likely to be greater, and last longer.

Sharon Horwood 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. Can’t stop endlessly scrolling? Tips to help you take back control – https://theconversation.com/cant-stop-endlessly-scrolling-tips-to-help-you-take-back-control-278418

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Eylem Altuntas, Researcher, Speech & Language Development, The MARCS Institute for Brain, Behaviour and Development, Western Sydney University

Anyone who has spent time with a baby knows how unpredictable the first year can feel. One week a baby suddenly seems to “get” something new. The next week, that same response may disappear.

Parents often describe this as progress coming in bursts rather than in a straight line. These changes can be exciting to watch, but they can also raise questions. Did my baby forget? Did something go wrong?

Our new research, published in Language Learning and Development, suggests early language learning unfolds in much the same way. We found babies can pick up how speech sounds are made as early as four months old.

But this early ability does not simply grow stronger month by month. Instead, as babies move through the first year, the way they show what they know can change, even while learning continues quietly in the background.

Learning about speech

In earlier research, we showed babies as young as four months can learn patterns about how speech sounds are made.

After a short game involving two made-up “mini-languages”, four-month-olds could link what they had heard with what they later saw, even when the test was completely silent.

This told us babies were not just remembering individual sounds. They were picking up something more general about speech, such as whether sounds were made with the lips or with the tongue tip.

For many researchers, and for parents following this work, that raised a natural question: if babies can do this so early, what happens next?

Watching learning change over time

To find out, we followed the same babies over time and tested them again at seven and ten months. We also tested a separate group of ten-month-olds who had never seen the task before.

This allowed us to watch how learning changed within the same children, while also seeing how babies at the same age responded when everything was new.

The task itself was designed to be simple and engaging. Babies first learned links between made-up words and cartoon animals. For example, a word like “buviwa”, made using the lips, might always appear with a kangaroo, while a word like “dazolu”, made using the tongue tip, appeared with a kookaburra. Each “language” followed a clear pattern based on how its sounds were made.

Later, babies watched silent videos of a person speaking new words and then saw an animal image. Because the videos were silent, babies had to rely on what they had learned earlier, rather than matching sound and sight in the moment.

At four months, babies showed a clear response, paying closer attention when the talking face matched the animal they had learned. At seven months, this clear response was no longer there, which at first surprised us.

But at ten months, a different pattern emerged. Babies paid more attention when something did not match what they had learned. This response was especially clear in babies who were seeing the task for the first time, and became stronger when results from both ten-month-old groups were considered together.

Reorganising language systems

When we look at these findings together, the pattern starts to make sense.

Younger babies often prefer what feels familiar, while older babies tend to focus more on what is new or unexpected. Seven months appears to be a transitional period. Learning is still happening, but it is not expressed as a clear preference in either direction. Rather than signalling a loss of ability, the shift we see reflects a change in how babies respond as they mature.

This period of change fits with what is happening more broadly in babies’ lives. Between about seven and ten months, babies are becoming increasingly tuned to the sounds of the language they hear every day. They are also beginning to recognise common words and link sounds to meaning.

During this time, their language system is not just growing, it is reorganising. When that happens, learning can look uneven from the outside.

Many parents notice similar moments at home. A baby who once turned immediately toward a familiar voice may suddenly seem less responsive, only to show new signs of understanding weeks later.

These moments can be worrying, especially when progress is expected to be steady. Our findings suggest some of these changes may reflect learning in motion rather than learning lost.

Behaviour doesn’t always tell the full story

For parents, this work is a reminder that behaviour does not always tell the full story. If a baby doesn’t show a clear response at a particular age, it does not necessarily mean they have stopped learning or missed an important step.

For researchers and clinicians, the findings highlight the limits of relying on single tests at single ages. Early language learning is flexible and changing. To understand it properly, we need to look at how babies develop over time, not just how they perform at one moment.

Importantly, the results show babies don’t learn in a straight line, and quiet moments are not empty ones. Even when progress is hard to see, learning may still be unfolding, preparing the ground for what comes next.

Eylem Altuntas 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. Babies learn a lot in their first year. But their behaviour doesn’t always tell the full story – https://theconversation.com/babies-learn-a-lot-in-their-first-year-but-their-behaviour-doesnt-always-tell-the-full-story-274032

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

US President Donald Trump speaks in a way unlike any of his predecessors. His distinctive and highly recognisable style may even play a role in his appeal to his political base. Since the infamous Access Hollywood tapes, he has got away with saying things none of his predecessors would have ever dreamed of saying in public. This is particularly striking in a country that was shocked to learn in the 1970s that Richard Nixon used dirty words in the Oval Office.

Scholars have described Trump’s rhetorical style as “unbalanced vituperation”, stressing his constant use of demeaning language, false equivalences and exclusion.

Even more strikingly, a recent study found Trump’s use of violent vocabulary, especially language linked to war and crime, represents a radical departure from US political tradition.

Since the beginning of the war with Iran, Trump’s rhetoric has become even more combative and outrageous, marking an even sharper shift from the language used by his predecessors in similar occasions.

What effect does this have and what does it tell us about the commander-in-chief’s state of mind?

Demeaning opponents

Trump announced the death of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei by calling him a “wretched and vile man”. Later, in a Truth Social post, he called him “one of the most evil people in history” and referred to “his gang of bloodthirsty thugs”.

A few days later, he continued denigrating leaders of the Iranian regime, describing them as “deranged scumbags” whose killing was for him a “great honor”. He has also insulted Mojtaba Khamenei, who succeeded his father as Iran’s Supreme Leader, describing him as “unacceptable” and a “lightweight”. He also stated during an interview that he believes Mojtaba is alive but “damaged”.

Americans are no strangers to their presidents using strong language to describe adversaries. Ronald Reagan famously referred to the Soviet Union as an “evil empire”, and George W. Bush warned of an “Axis of Evil”.

Yet such rhetoric rarely extended to personal insults against individual foreign leaders. Leaders generally bring a mood to these speeches that recognises their words will be frightening for many people. It also acknowledges that in a war situation, lives will inevitably be lost.

George W. Bush, for example, simply stated that US forces “captured Saddam Hussein alive”. Barack Obama announced to the nation Osama bin Laden’s killing by addressing the mastermind of the worst terrorist attack on US soil simply as “Osama bin Laden, leader of al Qaeda, and a terrorist”.

Constant threats

Trump has also shown little restraint in issuing threats. At the beginning of the conflict he stated in an interview that they had not even started hitting Iran hard and that the “big wave” was coming soon. He later posted on Truth Social that he was ready to hit Iran “twenty times harder” and threatened to “make it virtually impossible for Iran to ever be built back, as a Nation, again”, adding that “death, fire and fury will reign [sic] upon them”. At one point, he even suggested that he might strike Iran’s Kharg Island oil export hub again “just for fun”.

This language is not only vitriolic. It also is in sharp contrast with the rhetoric of past US presidents who often emphasised restraint in the use of force and showed willingness to de-escalate military conflicts.

Previous presidents have been very clear about the strength of the US military, but they have also tried to focus on diplomacy and negotiation.

Obama, talking about Syria, famously remarked that “the United States military doesn’t do pinpricks”. Yet, moments later, he asked Congress to postpone a vote authorising the use of force while his administration pursued diplomatic options.

Nixon stated during the Vietnam war that “The peace we seek to win is not victory over any other people, but the peace that comes ‘with healing in its wings’; with compassion for those who have suffered; with understanding for those who have opposed us; with the opportunity for all the peoples of this Earth to choose their own destiny”.

Trump’s threats of escalation also raise concerns about the safety of civilians and the protection of critical infrastructure. He recently stated he “didn’t do anything to do with the energy lines, because having to rebuild that would take years”. This remark suggests some awareness of the consequences of such actions.

Even so, earlier presidents often distinguished explicitly between military targets and civilian populations. George H. W. Bush, during the Gulf War, declared “our quarrel is not with the people of Iraq. We do not wish for them to suffer”.

In 2023, George W. Bush warned Iraqi military and civilian personnel: “do not destroy oils wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people”.

Words matter

It is still unclear why Trump’s rhetoric is so violent and so far removed from the language of virtually every US president before him. A 2020 study found Trump’s foreign policy rhetoric often aims to create a sense of crisis to mobilise his domestic base – or distract from political troubles at home.

Some observers argue Trump has used, or even manufactured, national crises as a mechanism to expand executive power through emergency declarations. Whether this is the case in the current war with Iran remains to be seen.

But words certainly matter.

On December 19 1945, US President Harry S. Truman issued a special message to Congress recommending the Department of War and the Department of the Navy be merged into a single “Department of National Defense”. Between 1947 and 1949, Congress and the executive branch implemented this proposal. Many other countries went through a similar process in the postwar period, replacing the language of “war” from the name of their departments and ministries with the more restrained term “defence”.

Seventy-six years later, in 2025, Trump reversed that tradition with an executive order renaming the Department of Defense as the US Department of War.

This same executive order clearly states that the new name demonstrates a willingness to fight wars at a moment’s notice. And the reason is not only to defend, but to “secure what is ours”.

Viewed in light of the current war with Iran, those words provide some insight into the administration’s thinking. They also invite reflection on other words coming out of the administration and its supporters, including the “Gulf of America”, the idea of Canada as the “51st state”, and even the far-fetched “Trump 2028” chant.

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

– ref. Trump’s war language is aggressive and extreme. It also offers some insight into his thinking – https://theconversation.com/trumps-war-language-is-aggressive-and-extreme-it-also-offers-some-insight-into-his-thinking-278427

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

As the Middle East war enters its third week, there is no sign from either Iran or the United States and Israel that they will stop the fighting any time soon. It is getting more violent and nasty by the day.

The Iranian Islamic regime is fighting for its survival, while the US and Israel want to substantially degrade or destroy it.

The Iranian side lacks the US and Israeli firepower, yet it has proved to be more resilient than its adversaries may have expected. It has resolved to fight for as long as possible and inflict as much economic pain regionally and globally as is necessary.

So where do things go from here? What do the US and Israel want to achieve in the war, and how might it end?

Trump’s incoherent objectives

The US and Israel launched this “war of choice” against Iran on February 28. Trump evidently expected the formidable US air and naval power, as well as Israeli air power, would rapidly prevail.

At a minimum, Trump was anticipating the Iranian regime would then accept his demand for a favourable nuclear deal. But he was also suggesting broader aims aligned with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s objectives – to force Iran to forfeit its long-range ballistic missiles and sever its ties with regional proxies.

This would then open the way for Iran’s restless population to resume their protests, aiming to topple the regime and replace it with one acceptable to Washington and Jerusalem.

But this has not happened.

It is now abundantly clear the US and Israel started a war without a clear goal, strategy, timeline, end game or justification. There was also no adherence to international law.

The Trump administrations’s objectives have been confusing and contradictory, with different narratives being spun by the president and his main advisers.

They have included everything from freeing the oppressed Iranian people to removing a direct threat to America and destroying Iran’s nuclear program and missile capability. (Never mind Trump previously claimed he had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program in last year’s bombing campaign.)

Trump has also called for regime change, or as he put it, “a little excursion” to get rid of “some evil” leaders.

Trump has further claimed the human and economic cost of the war – including oil and gas shortages worldwide – will be temporary. But when the fighting will stop is anyone’s guess. Trump has insisted the war is already won, then said it will only end when he feels it in his “bones”.

In the meantime, the US has intensified its air bombardment of Iran, claiming to have hit 15,000 targets and destroyed every military site on Kharg Island in the Persian Gulf, the main terminal for exporting 90% of the country’s oil.

Trump is now reportedly considering sending US forces to occupy the island, while inviting US allies, as well as China, to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz to oil shipments.

Inviting China to such a coalition is a fanciful idea – it has good relations with Iran. Most other countries have thus far refused to commit.

Israel’s one clear goal

While Trump’s goals seem to change by the minute, Netanyahu has a more clear war objective. He wants to destroy not only the Islamic regime but also diminish the Iranian state, no matter the consequences for the Iranian people and territorial integrity.

He has also lately been vocal about his ambition for a Biblical notion of “greater Israel”, based on the Book of Genesis, spanning from the Euphrates River to the Nile River. The US ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, backed him on this in a recent interview with Tucker Carlson.

Although Netanyahu has been widely condemned for voicing these ambitions, he has not backed away from them.

Meanwhile, Israel has also just sent troops into southern Lebanon for what it calls “limited and targeted ground operations” against Hezbollah, though many fear this could lead to a prolonged occupation. Israel’s defence minister says residents will not be permitted to return until the safety of northern Israel is secured.

Iran’s strategy: hold on

Whatever one’s view of the Iranian regime, it has been more goal-oriented and strategic than its adversaries. It has also displayed a remarkable degree of entrenchment and durability.

The regime rapidly replaced the slain supreme leader with his son, Mojtaba Khamenei, though he has not yet been seen in public.

Despite all the internal and external pressure the regime is facing, the members of its heavily armed and well-structured security and bureaucratic apparatus have remained solidly loyal.

And though thousands joined street protests against the regime before they were quashed in January, other Iranians have united behind the regime. Many Iranians have historically been motivated to support the regime against external aggression, due to civilisational pride, a Shia tradition of martyrdom and a strong sense of nationalism.

On the battlefield, the regime is pursuing a strategy of asymmetrical warfare, with the aim of outlasting the US and Israel and inflicting as much damage as possible. This entails turning the war into a regional conflict to pressure the Arab states in the Persian Gulf to push the Trump administration for an end to the war – and perhaps reconsider their reliance on the US as a security provider.

The regime has managed to hold out so far, and rejected any negotiations.

Two possible outcomes

As the situation stands now, the scene is set for a long, bloody and destructive war. Each of the protagonists has painted itself into a corner and doesn’t know how to get out.

There are two possible ways the war could end.

The first is centred on hardware. Whichever side depletes its stocks of missiles and interceptors first could signal a desire to end the fighting.

The second possibility is that Trump claims he has degraded the regime sufficiently and declares a kind of victory. He has hinted at this already given the domestic opposition to the war (including some of his influential MAGA supporters), the growing economic costs of the war, and the impending midterm elections.

If this happens, the Islamic regime will also claim victory, given it has held on and remains intact.

Whatever the outcome, the Iranian and Lebanese civilians would have borne the brunt of this war, and the region will transition to another historical phase of uncertainty and instability in a highly polarised world.

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. As the war drags on, what does victory look like for the US, Israel and Iran? – https://theconversation.com/as-the-war-drags-on-what-does-victory-look-like-for-the-us-israel-and-iran-278520

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Shannon Bosch, Associate Professor (Law), Edith Cowan University

Afghanistan says at least 400 people have been killed in a Pakistani airstrike on a drug rehabilitation hospital in Kabul on Monday night, with potentially hundreds more wounded.

Pakistan has denied deliberately targeting the health-care facility. In a statement on X, the Pakistani Information and Broadcasting Ministry said the strikes “precisely targeted military installations and terrorist support infrastructure including technical equipment storage and ammunition storage of Afghan Taliban”.

Attacks on health-care facilities are surging worldwide.

On March 14, an Israeli airstrike hit a health-care facility in Lebanon, killing 12 doctors, nurses and paramedics. The strike brought the number of health-care workers killed in Lebanon in recent days to 31.

Since early March, the World Health Organization (WHO) has verified 27 attacks on health-care facilities in Lebanon alone, as Israeli strikes in Lebanon and joint US–Israeli operations in Iran have intensified.

The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the WHO condemned these attacks as violations of international law.

So, what laws protect medical facilities, staff and patients during conflict? And do they lose this protection if facilities are used to shelter combatants?

What the ‘laws of war’ say about protecting hospitals

International humanitarian law contains detailed rules to protect medical personnel, facilities and the sick and wounded during armed conflict.

Under these “laws of war”:

• medical personnel, including doctors, nurses and paramedics, must be respected and protected while performing their duties

• there are special protections for ambulances and transport used exclusively for medical purposes

• these protections extend to the wounded and sick in their care. This includes enemy fighters who require treatment and are no longer taking part in hostilities

• impartial humanitarian organisations must be allowed to provide medical assistance. Consent to their work cannot be refused arbitrarily

• medical facilities must display the distinctive protective emblems of the Red Cross, Red Crescent or Red Crystal. Medical personnel must carry identification and armlets displaying these emblems

• misusing these symbols to shield military operations is prohibited. Doing so may amount to perfidy, a type of deliberate deception which is a war crime under international law

• deliberately attacking medical personnel or facilities displaying these emblems can also constitute a war crime.

Where did these rules come from?

The laws protecting medical services in war emerged in response to the enormous suffering witnessed in 19th and 20th-century conflicts.

The first treaty protecting wounded soldiers and medical personnel dates back to 1864, when states adopted the original Geneva Convention.

Today, the 1949 Geneva Conventions, their Additional Protocols, together with a body of customary international law, form a near-universal legal framework binding all parties to conflict. This includes non-state armed groups.

These rules require warring parties to respect and protect medical personnel, facilities and the wounded and sick in all circumstances.

Why are attacks on health care increasing?

In January, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) reported attacks on medical facilities and personnel had reached unprecedented levels around the world. In 2025 alone, there were 1,348 attacks on health-care facilities, double the number reported in 2024.

The law itself has not changed. But warfare has. Recent conflicts in South Sudan, Ukraine, Gaza, Iran and Lebanon are taking place in densely populated urban environments. Armed groups operate within complex civilian settings, often near hospitals and clinics.

---

Read more:
Attacks on health care during war are becoming more common, creating devastating ripple effects

---

This has shifted the narrative used by some warring parties. What were once described as “mistaken attacks” are now frequently justified on grounds of military necessity. States often claim insurgents are exploiting hospitals or ambulances to gain military advantage.

Israel, for example, has accused Hezbollah and Hamas of using medical infrastructure for military purposes.

Can hospitals lose their protection if fighters are hiding inside?

Yes. Hospitals can lose their special protection if they are used, outside their humanitarian role, to harm the enemy.

However, the law sets a very high threshold for this.

Medical personnel may carry light weapons for self-defence. Armed guards may be present to protect the facility. The presence of wounded fighters receiving treatment does not change this – protections still apply.

Protection may be lost only if hospitals are used for activities such as:

• launching attacks

• serving as an observation post

• storing weapons

• acting as a command or liaison centre

• sheltering able-bodied combatants.

Even then, in cases of doubt hospitals must be presumed protected.

Importantly, verifying a hospital is being misused does not give parties a free licence to attack.

Before launching an attack on a compromised medical facility, international humanitarian law requires a warning to be issued, and reasonable time allowed for the misuse to stop.

If the warning is ignored, the attacking party must still comply with the core principles of international humanitarian law:

Proportionality

The expected military advantage must be weighed against the humanitarian consequences of the attack. This includes long-term impacts on health-care services. If the expected civilian harm would be excessive, the attack must be cancelled.

Precautions

All feasible precautions must be taken to minimise harm to patients and medical staff. This may include facilitating evacuations, planning for disruption to medical services, and helping restore health-care capacity after the attack.

Even when a facility loses protection, the wounded and sick must still be respected and protected.

---

Read more:
Health-care workers should not be a target. In Gaza, their detention and death affect the entire population

---

Are attacks on health care becoming normalised?

The UN Security Council, WHO, MSF and the OHCHR have expressed concern attacks on medical personnel and facilities – and the lack of accountability for them – are becoming dangerously normalised.

The legal framework protecting hospitals and health-care workers already exists.

States and armed groups must disseminate the law and train their military forces.

National legal systems are expected to investigate and prosecute those perpetrating war crimes against the wounded and sick, medical personnel and their facilities, or misusing protective emblems for military advantage.

In practice, however, investigating attacks during active conflict is extremely challenging. Territorial states are often unwilling or unable to pursue prosecutions.

Can we reverse this trend?

Open-source investigative groups such as Forensic Architecture, Bellingcat, Mnemonics and Airwars now play a growing role in preserving satellite imagery, geo-location data, and videos uploaded to social media. These allow independent fact-finding missions to conduct credible investigations. They may pursue accountability even when territorial states are unwilling or unable to do so.

Without such accountability, places meant to save lives during conflict may increasingly become targets themselves.

Shannon Bosch 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. Attacks on hospitals are surging in war zones. What do the laws of war say about protecting them? – https://theconversation.com/attacks-on-hospitals-are-surging-in-war-zones-what-do-the-laws-of-war-say-about-protecting-them-278414

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Kliti Grice, John Curtin Distinguished Professor of Organic and Isotope Geochemistry, Curtin University

A new study reveals all five fundamental nucleobases – the molecular “letters” of life – have been detected in samples from the asteroid Ryugu.

Asteroid particles offer a glimpse into the chemical ingredients that may have helped kindle life on Earth. The Ryugu samples were returned from space in 2020 by Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency’s (JAXA) Hayabusa2 mission.

In 2023, an international team reported they had found one of the nucleobases in these samples – uracil. Now, in a study published in Nature Astronomy today, a team of Japanese scientists has confirmed all five nucleobases are present in this pristine asteroid material.

This means these ingredients for life may have been widespread throughout the Solar System in its early years.

Why look for nucleobases?

Nucleobases are nitrogen-containing organic molecules that form the “letters” of genetic information in DNA and RNA. The five main nucleobases are adenine and guanine (known as purines), as well as cytosine, thymine and uracil (known as pyrimidines).

These molecules combine with sugars and phosphates to yield nucleotides – the building blocks of genetic material. Without nucleobases, the genetic code that allows organisms to grow, reproduce and evolve would not exist.

By studying purines and pyrimidines in Ryugu samples, scientists can reconstruct the chemical history of primitive asteroids. In turn, this gives us a better understanding of how the building blocks of life may have been formed and existed across the Solar System.

Hayabusa2 delivered a total of 5.4 grams of pristine asteroid material. Researchers have to use ultra-clean lab conditions to avoid contaminating it. They extracted organic molecules using water and hydrocholoric acid, and then purified them for further detection.

They found all five nucleobases in the two Ryugu samples they analysed, in roughly similar amounts.

Key components of genetic material – in space

The new results align with previous findings on space rocks. The Murchison meteorite that fell in Australia in 1969, and the Orgueil meteorite in France, 1864, have previously yielded a rich variety of organic molecules, including nucleobases.

Of course, meteorites that land on Earth can be contaminated by their journey and landing. But pristine samples from NASA’s mission to asteroid Bennu also yielded all five nucleobases in 2025.

Asteroids such as Ryugu, Bennu, and the parent body of the Orgueil meteorite are remnants of the early Solar System. They can preserve materials largely unchanged for about 4.5 billion years.

Interestingly, these asteroids show chemical differences. Murchison is enriched in purines, while Bennu and Orgueil contain more pyrimidines. It is thought this balance may be influenced by ammonia, a key molecule that can shape which nucleobases can form.

By peering into Ryugu’s relatively pristine samples and comparing them with meteorites like Murchison and Orgueil, researchers are tracing the cosmic journey of life’s probable molecular ingredients.

Their results suggest key components of genetic material may have formed in space and later delivered to the early Earth. In other words, the story of life on our planet may be deeply connected to the chemistry of such ancient asteroids.

A path for the ingredients of life

Together, these discoveries show that carbon-rich asteroids throughout the Solar System contain diverse prebiotic chemistry. However, the precise mixture of molecules – such as the balance between purines and pyrimidines – varies depending on the asteroid’s chemical environment and history.

Because the Ryugu samples were collected directly in space and protected from Earth’s contamination, they provide one of the clearest views of ancient Solar System chemistry.

The discovery of all five nucleobases on Ryugu suggests the molecular ingredients of life may have been already forming in space billions of years ago. Asteroids may have helped deliver those ingredients to the early Earth – making the origin of life part of a much larger cosmic chemical story.

Kliti Grice receives funding from the ARC.

– ref. All 5 fundamental units of life’s genetic code were just discovered in an asteroid sample – https://theconversation.com/all-5-fundamental-units-of-lifes-genetic-code-were-just-discovered-in-an-asteroid-sample-278099

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By James Dwyer, Lecturer, School of Social Sciences, University of Tasmania

As the US–Israeli war with Iran enters its third week, reports are emerging that Israel is potentially running out of air defence interceptors due to Iran’s retaliatory attacks.

The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) and Israeli foreign minister have denied the reports. The government did reportedly approve around US$826 million (A$1.17 billion) for “urgent and essential defence procurement” over the weekend, however.

It’s difficult to gauge just how many interceptors are remaining, as the IDF does not disclose this type of information. But the possibility of this occurring was not entirely unexpected before Israel and the US began bombing Iran more than two weeks ago.

What are these interceptors?

Israel has a sophisticated and layered air defence system, capable of repelling attacks from ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, aircraft, drones and artillery shells at multiple altitudes, both inside and outside the atmosphere.

The famous “Iron Dome” makes up just one of these layers – it intercepts short-range artillery shells and rockets.

While there are technological differences between all of these systems, they are comprised of three basic elements:

• the IDF personnel to operate them
• the radar systems to detect incoming attacks
• the interceptors themselves.

Israel has a new “Iron Beam” laser system that can be used to destroy missiles and drones, but the most common interceptors are surface-to-air missiles.

Ballistic missile defence interceptors, in particular, are incredibly complex and expensive weapons. The more capable they are, the more expensive they are to build. They are also limited in number. A sustained attack can quickly deplete even Israel’s stockpile.

Why might Israel be running low?

The 12-day war that Israel fought with Iran last year significantly depleted both its stockpile of anti-ballistic missiles, as well as that of its ally, the United States.

One Washington-based research centre calculated that Israel and the US intercepted 273 of 322 Iranian missiles they attempted to stop in the war, an 85% success rate.

Given a large number of these interceptors were used so recently, Israel and the US are unlikely to have fully replenished their stockpiles before launching the current war.

Another sign this is the case: the US is reportedly moving parts of its THAAD missile defence system from South Korea to the Middle East. This means the US will need to carry more of the defensive burden in the region, which could quickly deplete its own assets.

Ballistic missiles are also very difficult to intercept due to the speed and altitude they attain. Several interceptors are usually required to ensure each incoming missile is stopped. Iran is also using cluster munitions on some of its ballistic missiles, which further compounds the problem.

Iran has cheap, easy-to-replace drones, which it is using to try to overwhelm Israeli and American air defence systems, as well. These can also be launched from dispersed locations that are difficult to detect, making them harder to destroy on the ground than ballistic missiles.

Iran has so far launched more than 500 missiles and 2,000 drones since the war began.

Jet fighters can help defend against these drone attacks and have done so with great success, but the missiles they fire are also more expensive than the drones themselves. And other weapons platforms (such as the Iron Beam) are currently in limited supply.

The US and Israel are not the only ones reportedly running low on interceptors. The Persian Gulf states have also come under Iranian attack, and are burning through what defensive assets they have.

The Iranians have specifically targeted missile defence radars across the region, with reports they have successfully destroyed or damaged several systems.

All of this, of course, raises the question of why Israel and the US would start another conflict in the first place if their stockpiles were not fully replenished. There could be several potential reasons:

• they had managed to rebuild their stockpiles faster than anyone anticipated, though this is unlikely

• they were confident they could destroy a sufficient amount of Iran’s offensive weapons before they ran out of defensive munitions

• they believed Iran would want to end the war sooner than it has.

How long can Iran keep this up?

There’s no way of knowing what Iran’s strategy is, besides extending the war as long as possible and creating chaos in the region and with global energy markets.

Some have speculated Iran may be deliberately holding back its more advanced missile technologies to use after the US and Israeli interceptors are depleted. But other analysts say there is no evidence this is the case. This would also be a risky strategy on Iran’s part.

One thing is certain, though: the US and Israel do have finite numbers of interceptors at their disposal. Iran, too, will not be able to keep up the same level of attacks indefinitely.

While the economic impacts of the war are placing significant pressure on all parties – and the world more widely – Iran seems to be in a better position for a longer conflict, given the costs involved for the US and Israel and their reluctance to commit to a potentially even more disastrous ground invasion.

James Dwyer 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. Is Israel running low on missile interceptors? How long can it withstand Iran’s retaliatory attacks? – https://theconversation.com/is-israel-running-low-on-missile-interceptors-how-long-can-it-withstand-irans-retaliatory-attacks-278404

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Lyndsey Collins-Praino, Associate Professor, School of Biomedicine, Adelaide University

Parkinson’s disease is the fastest growing neurological disorder, with over 10 million cases worldwide. Up to 150,000 Australians currently live with the disease and 50 new cases are diagnosed each day.

The number of people living with Parkison’s is projected to more than triple between 2020 and 2050.

Yet despite the immense impact on those living with Parkinson’s and their loved ones, and the staggering cost to our economy – at least A$10 billion a year – there is still a lot we don’t know about how this disease presents and progresses.

A recent large-scale study of nearly 11,000 Australians living with Parkinson’s disease provides some critical insights into symptoms, risk factors and how these affect men and women differently. Let’s take a look.

First, what is Parkinson’s disease?

Parkinson’s is a progressive disease in which cells that produce the chemical messenger dopamine in a part of the brain called the “substantia nigra” begin to die. This is accompanied by multiple other brain changes.

It is usually considered a movement disorder. Common motor symptoms include a resting tremor, slowed movement (bradykinesia), muscle stiffness and balance issues.

But Parkinson’s also involves a variety of lesser known non-motor symptoms. These may include:

• mood changes
• difficulties with memory and cognition (including slower thinking, challenges with planning or multitasking and difficulty paying attention or concentrating)
• sleep disturbances
• autonomic dysfunction (such as constipation, low blood pressure and urinary problems).

While these are sometimes referred to as the “invisible” symptoms of Parkinson’s, they often have a greater negative impact on quality of life than motor symptoms.

So, what does the new research tell us?

The study used data collected as part of the Australian Parkinson’s Genetics Study led by the QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute. After a pilot study in 2020, it was launched as an ongoing, nationwide research project in 2022.

Some 10,929 Australians with Parkinson’s were surveyed and provided saliva samples for genetic analysis. This is the largest Parkinson’s cohort studied in Australia and the largest active cohort worldwide.

There were several key initial findings.

1. Non-motor symptoms are common

The study reinforced how common non-motor symptoms are, with loss of smell (52%), changes in memory (65%), pain (66%) and dizziness (66%) all commonly reported.

Notably, 96% of participants experienced sleep disturbances, such as insomnia and daytime sleepiness.

2. A better picture of risk factors

The study also provided insights into what can influence Parkinson’s risk.

This is important because we don’t completely understand what causes the dopamine producing cells in the substantia nigra to die in the first place.

Age is the primary risk factor for Parkinson’s. The new study found the average age for symptom onset was 64, and for diagnosis, 68.

3. Genes and environment both play a role

In the recent study, one in four people (25%) had a family history of Parkinson’s. But only 10–15% of Parkinson’s cases are caused by – or strongly linked to – mutations in specific genes.

It’s important to remember that families don’t only share genes but often their environment.

Multiple environmental factors, such as pesticide exposure and traumatic brain injury, also increase risk of Parkinson’s.

The majority (85–90%) of cases of Parkinson’s are likely due to complex interaction between genetic and environmental risk factors, and advancing age.

The study showed environmental exposures linked to Parkinson’s risk were common:

• 36% of people reported pesticide exposure
• 16% had a prior history of traumatic brain injury
• 33% had worked in high-risk occupations (such as agriculture, or petrochemicals or metal processing).

These exposures were significantly higher in men than in women.

4. Differences between the sexes

The disease is 1.5 times more common in men. In the new study, 63% of those surveyed were male.

Parkinson’s also presents and progresses differently in males and females.

The study found women were younger than men at time of symptom onset (63.7 versus 64.4 years) and diagnosis (67.6 versus 68.1 years), and more likely than men to experience pain (70% versus 63%) and falls (45% versus 41%).

Men experienced more memory changes than women (67% versus 61%) and impulsive behaviours, particularly sexual behaviour (56% versus 19%) – although most participants exhibited no or only mild impulsivity.

What we still don’t know

The large-scale study and its comprehensive survey shed valuable light on people living with Parkinson’s in Australia.

But it’s still only a sliver of the population. More than 186,000 people with Parkinson’s were invited to participate and just under 11,000 took part – a less than 6% response rate.

Of these participants, 93% had European ancestry. So this sample may not be fully representative of Parkinson’s disease.

The information we have about symptoms also relied on self-reports by the study’s participants, which are subjective and can be biased or less reliable than objective measurements of function. To address this, the researchers are planning to use smartphones and wearable devices to collect more comprehensive data.

Finally, while this provides a snapshot of the current cohort, it’s not clear how participants compare to people of a similar age without Parkinson’s, or how their symptoms may change over time.

These are important areas of future research for this ongoing study.

What all this means

Studies like this provide crucial insights into risk factors linked to Parkinson’s. They also help us better understand the symptoms people experience.

This is important because the way Parkinson’s presents varies from person to person. Not everyone will experience the same symptoms to the same extent.

Similarly, the way the disease progresses over time differs between people.

A better understanding of the factors that influence this can lead to earlier identification of who’s at risk and more personalised ways of managing this disease.

Lyndsey Collins-Praino receives funding from the National Health and Medical Council, the Medical Research Future Fund, the Australian Research Council and various philanthropic organisations. In addition to her academic role, she is affiliated with the Dementia Australia Research Foundation Scientific Panel, the MS Australia Research Management Council and the Hospital Research Foundation – Parkinson’s SA Board of Governors.

– ref. Largest ever Parkinson’s study shows how symptoms differ between men and women – https://theconversation.com/largest-ever-parkinsons-study-shows-how-symptoms-differ-between-men-and-women-277730

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Ry Holland, Research Fellow in Microbial Ecology, Monash University

Winter in Antarctica is long and dark. Temperatures remain well below freezing. In many places, the Sun sets in April and does not rise above the horizon again until August. Without sunlight, photosynthetic life such as plants, mosses and algae cannot make energy.

But that’s not to say all life stops.

In a new study published in The ISME Journal, my colleagues and I show that Antarctic microbes make energy from the air at temperatures as low as –20°C. This finding improves our understanding of how life survives at temperature extremes in Antarctica – and how climate change will affect this important process.

How to make energy from air

In 2017, scientists showed that a large number of Antarctic microbes can generate energy from atmospheric gases present at very low concentrations.

This process is called “aerotrophy”. By using enzymes that are very finely tuned to “sniff out” the hydrogen and carbon monoxide in the atmosphere, these microbes have found a way to make energy from the air itself – a huge advantage in Antarctica’s nutrient-poor desert soils.

What remained unknown until now was the temperature limits of this process. Could aerotrophy be a way to power the continent’s soil communities through the winter?

Taking the lab down south

Measuring how quickly these microbes consume such a small amount of fuel can be difficult.

From 2022–24, we collected surface soil samples from different areas across East Antarctica and analysed them in our lab.

We measured how quickly they can use the atmospheric gases. We also extracted all the DNA from the soil microbes and sequenced it. This tells us what microbes are present, what genes they have, and what they are capable of using as energy sources.

We showed aerotrophy happening in the lab at representative summer (4°C) and winter (–20°C) temperatures. This means hydrogen and carbon monoxide are a viable food source not just over the summer months, but year-round. What was even more surprising though, was the upper temperature limit.

Soil temperatures in Antarctica rarely rise above 20°C. Yet we found microbes in these soils that continued to generate energy from hydrogen up to a staggering 75°C. It seems as though microbes in Antarctic soils are well adapted to the continent’s cold temperatures, but not restricted to them. It’s a bit like seeing a penguin thrive in a tropical jungle.

We also wanted to see this process occurring in Antarctica itself, so two years ago we brought the lab down south. We collected fresh soil samples, sealed them in the glass vials, and took gas samples.

For the first time, it was clear that under real-world conditions these soil microbes were still munching their way through hydrogen.

The primary producers of Antarctica

DNA sequencing has showed us that the vast majority of microbes in Antarctic soils encode the genes to gain energy from hydrogen. Many of these bacteria also have genes to take carbon from the atmosphere.

These aerotrophs are “primary producers”, generating new biomass from the air itself.

In most land-based ecosystems, photosynthesis is thought to be the bottom of the food chain. Photosynthesis takes energy from sunlight and carbon from the atmosphere and turns it into yummy organic compounds.

It’s what makes plants grow. Plants are primary producers that are eaten by herbivores, which are then eaten by carnivores.

In Antarctica’s desert soils, photosynthesis is relatively rare. Instead, we hypothesise that aerotrophy fulfils the primary producer role in many places.

This makes sense because, unlike sunlight-dependent photosythesis, we now know that aerotrophy can happen year-round. Another benefit is that it doesn’t require liquid water, whereas photosynthesis does.

Hydrogen in a heating world

Aerotrophy clearly has an important role in Antarctic ecosystems. So next, we wanted to determine how global warming might affect this process.

Under low-emissions scenarios, we predict a 4% increase in how quickly aerotrophs use atmospheric hydrogen. Under very high-emissions scenarios, this increase rises to 35%. The numbers are similar for carbon monoxide.

Although hydrogen isn’t a greenhouse gas itself, it is important because it affects how long some greenhouse gases, including methane, hang around in the atmosphere.

Soils (including the microbes that live in them) are responsible for 82% of all hydrogen consumed on Earth globally. In other words, they are a hydrogen sink. This is a crucial component in the global hydrogen cycle.

There are a lot of factors that determine how microorganisms will respond to climate change. Temperature is just one of them. This study is an important piece of the puzzle as scientists figure out how resilient Antarctica’s unique microbal ecosystems are.

Ry Holland is a Research Fellow at Monash University funded by the Australian Research Council Special Research Initiative ‘Securing Antarctica’s Environmental Future’ (SAEF). Their field work has been supported by the Australian Antarctic Division and White Desert. They are affiliated with the Australian Society for Microbiology and the International Society for Microbial Ecology.

– ref. Microbes in Antarctica survive the freezing and dark winter by living on air – https://theconversation.com/microbes-in-antarctica-survive-the-freezing-and-dark-winter-by-living-on-air-276384