Category: The Conversation – Global Perspectives

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Shannon Brincat, Senior Lecturer in Politics and International Relations, University of the Sunshine Coast

In an extraordinary escalation of his bid to claim Greenland, US President Donald Trump has threatened eight European countries – Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Great Britain, France and Germany and the Netherlands – with a 10% tariff on all goods coming into the United States from February 1 until he is able to buy the semi-autonomous Danish territory. That tariff will then increase to 25% on June 1.

On the one hand, Greenland is potentially rich in raw materials and rare earth minerals, highly desirable for US tech giants who control key levers of power in Washington. On the other, Trump claims it is necessary for national security.

Greenland is part of a sovereign country, Denmark, and any offensive action against it would constitute an act of aggression.

In the past few days, a small number of European troops have arrived in Greenland to bolster its defences. Trump’s recalcitrant stance has sent shockwaves across Europe, which is now questioning the future of NATO.

So what might happen now?

The US needs a pretext of self-defence

Aggressive wars are illegal under international law. Under the UN Charter, the use of force is lawful only when

1. authorised by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII

2. as self-defence under Article 51 in response to an armed attack.

In this case, as the US’ claims have no backing from the UNSC, its use of force would require a pretext or provocation that would allow self-defence – in other words, an attack or imminent attack.

As I always tell my students in international law, these must be scrutinised carefully as there is long, chequered history behind such claims. The key problem are “false flags” by which states fabricate or manufacture a threat or attack to justify their own offensive operations.

A recent example of this is the illegal use of force in the US-led 2003 Iraq War. This was publicly sold on two claims that had no factual basis: that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and/or had close ties to al-Qaeda (and, by implication, the September 11 attacks). Even though these have been disproven, many continue to believe it.

The US wants to take over Greenland as a forward base, so we should be wary of false flags that may arise in this context. The US has justified its claim as preventing aggression from China and Russia, even though there is no evidence of their presence.

However, the potential of rivals in a region does not authorise the use of force against a third-party state. Any attack on Greenland would remain naked aggression.

What could Europe do?

There are several things Europe could do in response.

It could deploy forces, as already requested by Greenland. The Danish government has already expanded its military in Greenland and launched “Operation Arctic Endurance” in cooperation with allies including France, Germany, Norway and Sweden.

But sending 50-100 troops to Greenland is hardly a show of strength, with a handful of soldiers to cover areas the size of Switzerland.

Countries in NATO have an agreement for collective defence.
In the unlikely event of a US attack, the alliance would be sorely tested, especially given the US is a long-standing member. NATO has weathered inter-alliance disputes before, such as the 1956 Suez Crisis.

Many question whether NATO would dissolve, or if many members would leave. Certainly, it would weaken its reputation and paralyse it for some time.

Europe could threaten to close access to all military bases in Europe as this would dramatically hamper US capabilities not only in Europe but Russia, the Middle-East, and North Africa.

However, the biggest retaliatory threat Europe could muster is the Anti-Coercion Instrument (ACI) and selling off of US bonds, of which Europe holds substantial leverage (around 28% of foreign holdings). If other states, such as China, followed suit, the US economy would likely collapse because of the rapid devaluing of the dollar. However, this is the “nuclear option”, and risks self-harm to European financial power at the same time.

Overall, Europe is in a much weaker position – hampered not only by lack of military parity but energy dependency on the US. After the mysterious destruction of the Nord Stream Pipeline, Europe is energy dependent on the US – and everyone knows it.

Moreover, if Europe took action against the US in Greenland, it would then also have to shoulder the commitment to Ukraine in the war with Russia. It would be hard-pressed on two fronts.

What would Australia and other allies do?

It is doubtful many states would actively defend Greenland against the US. But not many states would actively support it either, and with that turning away from the US as “saviour”, world order would have profoundly shifted. It would likely signal the end of the liberal international order, taking any semblance of international law with it.

All other allies would be put on notice of a rogue ally. Emboldening Trump would be highly dangerous: Cuba and Iran have already been listed. More operations in Venezuela would be possible. But he has also made statements about sending troops to Mexico and threatening Colombia. Canada is already extremely worried, given Trump’s claims of making it “the 51st state” in early 2025. Where would it end?

Australia would be in the extremely difficult position of having to side with either the US, Europe, or take an independent stance.

It would also be worried about risking the AUKUS agreement – a treaty essential for Australian defence. Taiwan would be questioning the credibility of US protection. World public opinion, already dangerously low regarding Trump, would plummet further.

For these reasons, it highly like this is all just bluster from the US to coerce Greenland from Denmark. Some have explored how US security concerns could be met without annexing Greenland but this is not the point for Trump, who is seeking to appear as the “strong man” to his MAGA supporters.

What appears likely is that European powers will offer concessions so that Trump appears to “win” for his domestic base. It has been reported that EU officials will propose to use NATO to bolster Arctic security and give the US concessions on mineral extraction. This is classic appeasement. Emboldened, we could expect further aggressive US action elsewhere.

The long-term damage would be to US credibility, with all allies on notice of aberrant and erratic behaviour. Trump’s attempts to grasp at resources and forward defences highlights US decline more than anything else.

Europe seems likely to fare little better, revealed to be utterly dependent on the US and a distinct lack of principles for its members. The real loser is the West: fractured and eating itself.

Shannon Brincat 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. Trump has threatened European countries with higher tariffs if he doesn’t get Greenland. Will it work? – https://theconversation.com/trump-has-threatened-european-countries-with-higher-tariffs-if-he-doesnt-get-greenland-will-it-work-273698

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Nicola Redhouse, Lecturer, Publishing and Editing, The University of Melbourne

The founder and chief executive of Bloomsbury Publishing, responsible for blockbuster romantasy author Sarah J. Maas and literary heavyweights like George Saunders, has suggested AI “will probably help creativity” – including by helping authors defeat writer’s block.

“AI gets them going and writes the first paragraph, or first chapter, and gets them back in the zone,” he said.

We asked five creative writing experts, including authors who’ve published memoirs, novels and short stories, what they think. Would they use AI to break writer’s block?

Their answers – which ranged from “a hard no” to innovative reasons for “yes” – were illuminating, complicated and often surprising.

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. Would you use AI to break writer’s block? We asked 5 experts – https://theconversation.com/would-you-use-ai-to-break-writers-block-we-asked-5-experts-271627

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Bruce Wolpe, Non-resident Senior Fellow, United States Study Centre, University of Sydney

As Donald Trump celebrates the anniversary of his second inauguration as president of the United States and begins his sixth year in office, his greatest asset is power. He covets absolute power.

The greatest threat to how Trump completes his term is how he wields his power.

Indeed, in the most foolish act in foreign policy in Trump’s presidency, he has threatened punitive tariffs on Denmark and seven other NATO allies in Europe to force the sale of Greenland to the United States. They are outraged. This is a ridiculous ploy that will not deliver Greenland to Trump.

---

Read more:
Trump has threatened European countries with higher tariffs if he doesn’t get Greenland. Will it work?

---

Trump’s escalation in Denmark has already strengthened Putin’s iron resolve to get as much of Ukraine as he can. Prospects for ending the war in Ukraine are now near zero.

On top of Trump’s pending tariffs on Europe, if Trump seizes Greenland, the consequences will shake the world – including Australia. NATO will be terminated. Australia will face an existential question of whether, under those circumstances, it must terminate its alliance with the US.

We can see in a raft of polls at this one-year mark of Trump’s second term that voters across the country are expressing growing disquiet about his management of the economy and the affordability of housing and groceries, the raids by ICE agents as they seize and deport migrants as we saw last week in Minneapolis, and uncertainty about Trump’s foreign adventurism in the Americas and with Iran.

Trump is exercising this power because he can. This will jolt Republicans in Congress to break with Trump on this issue – the first such rift between Trump and his party since his re-election.

Welcome to Trump’s year six.

Trumpism in his second term

Following his election victory in 2024, Trump has been faithful to three of four pillars of Trumpism that made his base a movement that has changed America:

• nativism (favouring US-born citizens over immigrants)

• protectionism and tariffs

• America First nationalism (“Make America Great Again”).

To those ends, Trump is acting aggressively, with immigration agents arresting and deporting tens of thousands, and threats to deploy US troops in American cities to enforce these policies. Trump has imposed punitive tariffs against every trading partner – including Australia, which has a significant trade deficit with the United States. Trump demands foreign companies invest in the United States and build new factories.

But on the fourth Trumpism pillar – America-First isolationism as a driver of America’s foreign policy – Trump has redefined his foreign policy settings with grander ambitions.

Trump has rejected the history of the US waging wars to project American values: protecting Asia from communism in Korea and Vietnam; turning back brutal aggression in Kuwait; punishing the export of radical Islamic terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Trump has applied these lessons to Iran – so far. It is one thing to take out Iran’s nuclear capability. It is another to do regime change – a bridge too far back to the “forever wars” Trump despises.

Trump has buried America’s posture of globalism. He has withdrawn the US from virtually all the architecture, save the United Nations itself, erected after the second world war to ensure global security, stability and prosperity. He has ordered the US out of global organisations, and has cut billions in foreign aid.

The US attack on Venezuela was about much larger goals than arresting its leader. It was about power – controlling power over critical resources in the Americas, from Venezuela to Greenland and everything in between, from Mexico to Cuba to Canada.

Politics at home

Trump is paying a high price at home for his activism in wielding power abroad. Every day Trump spends projecting power outside the United States means he is not paying attention to the American people.

A recent poll shows 56% of US adults believe Trump has gone too far on Venezuela. 57% do not want the US to strike Iran. Even before Trump’s tariff announcement on Greenland, only 17% approved of Trump’s desire to acquire Greenland, and 71% rejected using military force to do it.

Trump’s overall polls are bad. His approval rating is 40% – nearly 10 points down since his inauguration – and disapproval is at 60%. AP-NORC also finds that “Trump hasn’t convinced the Americans that the economy is in good shape.”

CNN polling reports that 55% of those surveyed believe Trump’s policies “have hurt the economy” and that Trump is not doing enough to lower prices. Grocery prices are up sharply. The latest Wall Street Journal poll shows Trump is underwater by double digits on handling inflation, and that he is not focusing enough on the economy.

On immigration, the unrest in Minneapolis and other cities from the harsh methods employed by ICE agents is also taking a toll, with Trump’s approval on that issue lagging below 40%.

But even with all these red flags and warnings from the field, Trump is undeterred. He believes that as president, he can do anything he wants to do. Guardrails that have for decades protected America’s democracy have been cast aside.

Trump has not been blocked – yet – by an ultra-conservative Supreme Court or the pliant Republican Congress for the tariffs he is imposing, the government agencies he has shut down, the monies appropriated by Congress he has terminated, the hundreds of thousands of government employees he has fired, the military strikes he has ordered without advising, much less getting approval from, Congress.

Trump is seeking more control over the economy by seeking to prosecute the chair of the Federal Reserve Bank, an independent agency that sets monetary policy, and to pack its board with loyalists to Trump’s demands that interest rates be lowered.

Since his inauguration, Trump has instructed the Justice Department to prosecute those who attempted to bring him to justice in courtrooms and impeachment proceedings in Congress.

Trump’s musings on power

As Trump consolidates his power, Trump’s musings become imperatives. After months of expressing a desire to own it, Trump is now acting aggressively to conquer Greenland.

At home, Trump is now also musing – twice so far this month – over whether the US midterm elections will be cancelled. Trump knows the likelihood of the Democrats taking back control of the House of Representatives is high. That is precisely what he suffered in the 2018 congressional elections in his first term.

Trump told Reuters last week, “We shouldn’t even have an election,” because of all his great successes.

In January, Trump told Republicans in the House, “I won’t say cancel the election, they should cancel the election, because the fake news would say, ‘He wants the elections cancelled. He’s a dictator.’ They always call me a dictator.” He told them that if the Democrats take the House back they will “find a reason to impeach” him.

Any steps taken – such as declaring martial law to suspend the midterm elections – will be catastrophic. And that is an understatement.

Based on Trump’s restless mind and command of what he believes is absolute power, at stake this year are the future of democracy at home and alliances abroad.

Bruce Wolpe receives funding from the United States Studies Centre. He has worked with the Democrats in the US Congress and for Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

– ref. A year on from his second inauguration, Trump 2.0 has one defining word: power – https://theconversation.com/a-year-on-from-his-second-inauguration-trump-2-0-has-one-defining-word-power-273697

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Ben Mather, ARC Early Career Industry Fellow, School of Geography, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, The University of Melbourne

Our planet has experienced dramatic climate shifts throughout its history, oscillating between freezing “icehouse” periods and warm “greenhouse” states.

Scientists have long linked these climate changes to fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide. However, new research reveals the source of this carbon – and the driving forces behind it – are far more complex than previously thought.

In fact, the way tectonic plates move about Earth’s surface plays a major, previously underappreciated role in climate. Carbon doesn’t just emerge where tectonic plates meet. The places where tectonic plates pull away from each other are significant too.

Our new study, published today in the journal Communications, Earth and Environment sheds light on how exactly Earth’s plate tectonics have helped to shape global climate over the past 540 million years.

Peering deep within the carbon cycle

At the boundaries where Earth’s tectonic plates converge, we get chains of volcanoes known as volcanic arcs. Melting associated with these volcanoes unlocks carbon that’s been trapped inside rocks for thousands of years, bringing it to Earth’s surface.

Historically, it’s been thought these volcanic arcs were the primary culprits of injecting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Our findings challenge that view. Instead, we suggest that mid-ocean ridges and continental rifts – locations where the tectonic plates spread apart – have played a much more significant role in driving Earth’s carbon cycles throughout geological time.

This is because the world’s oceans sequester vast quantities of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. They store most of it within carbon-rich rocks on the seafloor. Over thousands of years, this process can produce hundreds of metres of carbon-rich sediment at the bottom of the ocean.

As these rocks then move about the Earth driven by tectonic plates, they may eventually intersect subduction zones – places where tectonic plates converge. This releases their carbon dioxide cargo back into the atmosphere.

This is known as the “deep carbon cycle”. To track the flow of carbon between Earth’s molten interior, oceanic plates and the atmosphere, we can use computer models of how the tectonic plates have migrated through geological time.

What we discovered

Using computer models to reconstruct how Earth moves carbon stored on tectonic plates, we were able to predict major greenhouse and icehouse climates over the last 540 million years.

During greenhouse periods – when Earth was warmer – more carbon was released than trapped within carbon-carrying rocks. In contrast, during icehouse climates, the carbon sequestration into Earth’s oceans dominated, lowering atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and triggering cooling.

One of the key takeaways from our study is the critical role of the deep-sea sediments in regulating atmospheric carbon dioxide. As Earth’s tectonic plates slowly move, they carry carbon-rich sediments, which are eventually returned into Earth’s interior through a process known as subduction.

We show that this process is a major factor in determining whether Earth is in a greenhouse or icehouse state.

A shift in understanding the role of volcanic arcs

Historically, the carbon emitted from volcanic arcs has been considered one of the largest sources of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

However, this process only became dominant in the last 120 million years thanks to planktic calcifiers. These little ocean critters belong to a family of phytoplankton whose main talent lies in converting dissolved carbon into calcite. They are responsible for sequestering vast amounts of atmospheric carbon into carbon-rich sediment deposited on the seafloor.

Planktic calcifiers only evolved about 200 million years ago, and spread through the world’s oceans about 150 million years ago. So, the high proportion of carbon spewed into the atmosphere along volcanic arcs in the past 120 million years is mostly due to the carbon-rich sediments these creatures created.

Before this, we found that carbon emissions from mid-ocean ridges and continental rifts – regions where tectonic plates diverge – actually contributed more significantly to atmospheric carbon dioxide.

A new perspective for the future

Our findings offer a new perspective on how Earth’s tectonic processes have shaped, and will continue to shape, our climate.

These results suggest Earth’s climate is not just driven by atmospheric carbon. Instead, the climate is influenced by the intricate balance between carbon emissions from Earth’s surface and how they get trapped in sediments on the seafloor.

This study also provides crucial insights for future climate models, especially in the context of current concerns over rising carbon dioxide levels.

We now know that Earth’s natural carbon cycle, influenced by the shifting tectonic plates beneath our feet, plays a vital role in regulating the planet’s climate.

Understanding this deep time perspective can help us better predict future climate scenarios and the ongoing effects of human activity.

Ben Mather receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Adriana Dutkiewicz receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Dietmar Müller receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Sabin Zahirovic has received funding from the Alfred Sloan Foundation’s Deep Carbon Observatory, the Australian Research Council, and BHP via the STELLAR industry collaborative project.

– ref. The way Earth’s surface moves has a bigger impact on shifting the climate than we knew – https://theconversation.com/the-way-earths-surface-moves-has-a-bigger-impact-on-shifting-the-climate-than-we-knew-272352

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Samuel Garrett, Research Associate, United States Studies Centre, University of Sydney

A year into US President Donald Trump’s second term, his record use of executive orders, impoundment of government spending, and military interventions in Venezuela and Iran have sparked criticisms from Democrats and even some Republicans. They say he is unconstitutionally sidelining Congress.

As Trump increasingly wields his power unilaterally, some have wondered what the point of Congress is now. Isn’t it supposed to act as a check on the president?

But the power of the modern presidency had already been growing for decades. Successive presidents from both parties have taken advantage of constitutional vagaries to increase the power of the executive branch. It’s a long-running institutional battle that has underwritten US political history.

The years-long erosion of Congress’ influence leaves the president with largely unchecked power. We’re now seeing the consequences.

A fraught relationship

Congress is made up of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Under the US Constitution, it’s the branch of the government tasked with making laws. It’s supposed to act as a check on the president and the courts.

It can pass legislation, raise taxes, control government spending, review and approve presidential nominees, advise and consent on treaties, conduct investigations, declare war, impeach officials, and even choose the president in a disputed election.

But the Constitution leaves open many questions about where the powers of Congress end and the powers of the president begin.

In a 2019 ruling on Trump’s tax returns, the judge commented:

disputes between Congress and the President are a recurring plot in our national story. And that is precisely what the Framers intended.

Relative power between the different branches of the US government has changed since independence as constitutional interpretations shifted. This includes whether the president or Congress takes the lead on making laws.

Although Congress holds legislative power, intense negotiations between Congress and the executive branch (led by the president) are now a common feature of US lawmaking. Modern political parties work closely with the president to design and pass new laws.

Redefining the presidency

By contrast, presidents in the 19th and early 20th centuries generally left Congress to lead policymaking. Party “czars” in Congress dominated the national legislative agenda.

Future president Woodrow Wilson noted in 1885 that Congress:

has entered more and more into the details of administration, until it has virtually taken into its own hands all the substantial powers of government.

Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt after him would later help to redefine the president not only as the head of the executive branch, but as head of their party and of the government.

In the 1970s, in the wake of the Watergate scandal and secret bombing of Cambodia, Congress sought to expand its oversight over what commentators suggested was becoming an “imperial presidency”.

This included the passage of the 1973 War Powers Resolution, designed to wrest back Congressional control of unauthorised military deployments.

Nevertheless, the Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama administrations all argued that Congressional authorisation was not required for operations in Kosovo, Iraq and Libya (though Bush still sought authorisation to secure public support).

In turn, the Trump administration argued its actions in Venezuela were a law-enforcement operation, to which the resolution does not apply.

Why presidents bypass Congress

Historically, presidents have sought to bypass Congress for reasons of personality or politics. Controversial decisions that would struggle to pass through Congress are often made using executive orders.

Obama’s 2011 “We Can’t Wait” initiative used executive orders to enact policy priorities without needing to go through a gridlocked Congress. One such policy was the 2012 creation of the DACA program for undocumented immigrants.

Franklin Roosevelt’s use of executive orders dwarfed that of his predecessors. He issued eight times as many orders in his 12-year tenure than were signed in the first 100 years of the United States’ existence.

The question of what constitutes a genuine threat to the preservation of the nation is especially pertinent now. More than 50 “national emergencies” are currently in effect in the United States.

This was the controversial basis of Trump’s tariff policy under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. It bypassed Congressional approval and is now being considered by the Supreme Court.

Recent presidents have also increasingly claimed executive privilege to block Congress’ subpoena power.

Institutional wrestling

Institutional wrestling is a feature of Congressional relations with the president, even when the same party controls the White House and both chambers of the legislature, as the Republican party does now.

While Roosevelt dominated Congress, his “court-packing plan” to take control of the US Supreme Court in 1937 proved a bridge too far, even for his own sweeping Democratic majorities. The Democrats controlled three quarters of both the House and Senate and yet refused to back his plan.

More recently, former Democrat Speaker Nancy Pelosi delivered many of Barack Obama’s early legislative achievements, but still clashed with the president in 2010 over congressional oversight.

As House minority leader, she rallied many Democrats against Obama’s US$1.1 trillion (A$1.6 trillion) budget proposal in 2014. Obama was forced to rely on Republican votes in 2015 to secure approval for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, despite his heavy lobbying of congressional Democrats.

Even today’s Congress, which has taken Trump’s direction at almost every turn, demonstrated its influence perhaps most notably by forcing the president into a backflip on the release of the Epstein files after a revolt within Trump’s supporters in the Republican party.

Given the extremely slim Republican majority in Congress, the general unity of the Republican party behind Trump has been a key source of his political strength. That may be lost if public opinion continues to turn against him.

Is Trump breaking the rules?

Trump and his administration have taken an expansive view of presidential power by regularly bypassing Congress.

But he’s not the first president to have pushed the already blurry limits of executive power to redefine what is or is not within the president’s remit. The extent to which presidents are even bound by law at all is a matter of long running academic debate.

Deliberate vagaries in US law and the Constitution mean the Supreme Court is ultimately the arbiter of what is legal.

The court is currently the most conservative in modern history and has taken a sweeping view of presidential power. The 2024 Supreme Court ruling that presidents enjoy extensive immunity suggests the president is, in fact, legally able to do almost anything.

Regardless, public opinion and perceptions of illegality continue to be one of the most important constraints on presidential action. Constituents can take a dim view of presidential behaviour, even if it’s not technically illegal.

Even if Trump can legally act with complete authority, it’s public opinion — not the letter of the law — that may continue to shape when, and if, he does so.

Samuel Garrett 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. Congress’ power has been diminishing for years, leaving Trump to act with impunity – https://theconversation.com/congress-power-has-been-diminishing-for-years-leaving-trump-to-act-with-impunity-273099

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Carlos Gutiérrez Hita, Profesor titular de Universidad. Economía industrial (transporte, energía, telecomunicaciones), Universidad Miguel Hernández

A tragic accident on the high-speed train line between Andalusia and Madrid has exposed the urgent need to upgrade Spain’s railway system.

At 19:45 on Sunday January 18, a modern Iryo high-speed train collided with a Renfe train at the switch (turnout) leading into Adamuz station in Córdoba province, Andalusia. The Iryo 6189 service, travelling from Málaga to Madrid, had registered for the track change, but the current information is that the last three carriages literally jumped over the diverted switch that gives access to the track adjacent to the platform, leaving the main track clear.

This caused the last three carriages to derail and collide with the Renfe Alvia 2384 service, which was travelling in the opposite direction from Madrid to Huelva. The collision was violent, though the combined speed of the two trains is still unknown.

Rail liberalisation in Spain

The Spanish passenger rail market was opened up to new competitors in May 2021, but until early 2023 the only trains permitted to run on the Andalusia-Madrid corridor were those operated by the state-owned company Renfe. The reason was that the blocking and safety system on these tracks had not been updated.

Following pressure from new operators OUIGO (owned by French state-owned company SNCF) and Iryo (owned by Trenitalia and its Spanish partners AirNostrum and Globalia), which were already active on the Madrid-Barcelona and Madrid-Levante routes, the Andalusian route was opened up to competitors. This increased the frequency of services and expanded the choice available to users.

The high-speed line from Madrid to Andalusia was inaugurated in 1992, making it the oldest in Spain. Although it has been improved and upgraded in several areas, its safety systems are in urgent need of renovation.

Signalling systems

Across the EU’s nearly 227,000km of railway tracks, there more than 25 different, non-interoperable train protection and signalling systems. These systems (the German LZB, the French Crocodile, the Italian BACC, the Spanish Asra, and so on) control and enable the safe movement of trains.

The German LZB (Linienzugbeeinflussung) signalling system remains in operation on the Andalusia-Madrid railway corridor, installed for the high-speed line. Although efficient, this system is surpassed by the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS), which is already installed on the newest lines.

The ERTMS specifications come from European Union Council Directive 96/48/EC. The aim is for this trans-European system to completely replace national systems and be fully deployed throughout the EU by 2050. The intermediate target is for it to be in use by 2030 on the 51,000km of train lines that make up the nine main corridors of Europe’s core rail network.

In Spain, the new ERTMS system currently exists alongside the old LZB system, which modern trains “read” with a technical workaround known as Specific Transmission Modules (STMs).

Possible causes of the accident

The causes of the accident are still unclear, but it is unlikely to be a fault with the train for several reasons: the trains involved are modern and new, with little wear and tear, and the last technical inspection of the Iryo 6189 train had been carried out four days earlier. Inspections cover many things, including the condition of the wheel flanges, possible stress fractures, the different types of brakes, and so on.

As far as we know, the infrastructure at the point of the accident is also new, meaning the track geometry (curves, straight sections, slopes, ramps) should be in perfect condition. This leaves the possibility that the switch point may not have functioned properly.

At all intermediate stations that are not high-capacity, there are passing tracks or sidings where trains can park and let other trains pass that may be coming behind them and not stopping at that station.

The Iryo train unit was changing tracks to park. One possible hypothesis is that the switch mechanism initially worked correctly due to the signal sent by the LZB reading STM system, but that, for some reason, the switch point moved to the “straight” position prematurely. This would have caused the right wheel of the Iryo unit to collide, jumping over to the adjacent track due to centrifugal force and speed, in the opposite direction to the switch, towards the Renfe unit, which was travelling in the opposite direction. The Renfe train was dragged from the cab down to a currently unknown number of carriages, as can be seen in the images released.

Another possibility is that there was an object on the track, but this would have caused the train to derail from the front.

A deteriorating network

Spain’s high-speed railways, once an emblem of reliability, modernity and vision for the future, have gradually deteriorated. Delays have gone from being rare and brief to lengthy, which has led Renfe to withdraw its commitment to punctuality and ticket refunds. Ongoing incidents affecting the infrastructure managed by the state-owned company ADIF – involving overhead lines, brakes and couplings (such as in the tunnel connecting Madrid’s Atocha and Chamartín stations) – have also undermined user confidence.

Additionally, political ups and downs have prevented the development of a single, agreed-upon plan for the viability, modernisation and structure of the network, which would provide a safe means of transport to meet the growing demand for rail services instead of air travel for distances of up to 800-1,000 kilometres.

The reality is that at this moment there are at least 39 dead, dozens injured and a starkly poor impression of the Spanish railway system. Political and technical leaders must take responsibility, regardless of their ideologies and survival strategies. At stake is a transport system used by a growing number of people in the business and tourism sectors alike, and a major component of the country’s infrastructure.

---

A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!

---

Carlos Gutiérrez Hita receives funding from the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities, and from the Valencian regional Ministry of Education, Culture, Universities and Employment.

– ref. Spain high-speed train crash: signalling vulnerabilities could be key to understanding the accident – https://theconversation.com/spain-high-speed-train-crash-signalling-vulnerabilities-could-be-key-to-understanding-the-accident-273865

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Richard Morris, Postdoctoral Fellow, Faculty of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Lincoln University, New Zealand

Cut the words “please” and “thank you” from your next ChatGPT query and, if you believe some of the talk online, you might think you are helping save the planet.

The idea sounds plausible because AI systems process text incrementally: longer prompts require slightly more computation and therefore use more energy. OpenAI’s chief executive Sam Altman has acknowledged it all adds to operating costs at the scale of billions of prompts.

At the same time, it is a stretch to suggest that treating ChatGPT politely comes at significant environmental cost. The effect of a few extra words is negligible compared with the energy required to operate the underlying data centre infrastructure.

What is more important, perhaps, is the persistence of the idea. It suggests that many people already sense AI is not as immaterial as it appears. That instinct is worth taking seriously.

Artificial intelligence depends on large data centres built around high-density computing infrastructure. These facilities draw substantial electricity, require continuous cooling, and are embedded in wider systems of energy supply, water and land use.

As AI use expands, so does this underlying footprint. The environmental question, then, is not how individual prompts are phrased, but how frequently and intensively these systems are used.

Why every AI query carries an energy cost

One structural difference between AI and most familiar digital services helps explain why this matters.

When a document is opened or a stored video is streamed, the main energy cost has already been incurred. The system is largely retrieving existing data.

By contrast, each time an AI model is queried it must perform a fresh computation to generate a response. In technical terms, each prompt triggers a fresh “inference” – a full computational pass through the model – and that energy cost is incurred every time.

This is why AI behaves less like conventional software and more like infrastructure. Use translates directly into energy demand.

The scale of that demand is no longer marginal. Research published in the journal Science estimates that data centres already account for a significant share of global electricity consumption, with demand rising rapidly as AI workloads grow.

The International Energy Agency has warned that electricity demand from data centres could double by the end of the decade under current growth trajectories.

Electricity is only one part of the picture. Data centres also require large volumes of water for cooling, and their construction and operation involve land, materials and long-lived assets. These impacts are experienced locally, even when the services provided are global.

AI’s hidden environmental footprint

New Zealand offers a clear illustration. Its high share of renewable electricity makes it attractive to data centre operators, but this does not make new demand impact-free.

Large data centres can place significant pressure on local grids and claims of renewable supply do not always correspond to new generation being added. Electricity used to run servers is electricity not available for other uses, particularly in dry years when hydro generation is constrained.

Viewed through a systems lens, AI introduces a new metabolic load into regions already under strain from climate change, population growth and competing resource demands.

Energy, water, land and infrastructure are tightly coupled. Changes in one part of the system propagate through the rest.

This matters for climate adaptation and long-term planning. Much adaptation work focuses on land and infrastructure: managing flood risk, protecting water quality, maintaining reliable energy supply and designing resilient settlements.

Yet AI infrastructure is often planned and assessed separately, as if it were merely a digital service rather than a persistent physical presence with ongoing resource demands.

Why the myth matters

From a systems perspective, new pressures do not simply accumulate. They can drive reorganisation.

In some cases, that reorganisation produces more coherent and resilient arrangements; in others, it amplifies existing vulnerabilities. Which outcome prevails depends largely on whether the pressure is recognised early and incorporated into system design or allowed to build unchecked.

This is where discussion of AI’s environmental footprint needs to mature. Focusing on small behavioural tweaks, such as how prompts are phrased, distracts from the real structural issues.

The more consequential questions concern how AI infrastructure is integrated into energy planning, how its water use is managed, how its location interacts with land-use priorities, and how its demand competes with other social needs.

None of this implies that AI should be rejected. AI already delivers value across research, health, logistics and many other domains.

But, like any infrastructure, it carries costs as well as benefits. Treating AI as immaterial software obscures those costs. Treating it as part of the physical systems we already manage brings them into view.

The popularity of the “please” myth is therefore less a mistake than a signal. People sense AI has a footprint, even if the language to describe it is still emerging.

Taking that signal seriously opens the door to a more grounded conversation about how AI fits into landscapes, energy systems and societies already navigating the limits of adaptation.

Richard Morris is the co-founder of Kirini Ltd, a nature-based solutions consultancy. He receives funding from Lincoln University.

– ref. Does adding ‘please’ and ‘thank you’ to your ChatGPT prompts really waste energy? – https://theconversation.com/does-adding-please-and-thank-you-to-your-chatgpt-prompts-really-waste-energy-272258

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Stephen Goldsmith, Tutor in Mental Health Nursing, Swinburne University of Technology

Beyond its monsters and 1980s nostalgia, Stranger Things resonates because it tells stories of struggles familiar to young people: trauma that lingers, identity that wavers, and friendships that buffer against fear.

And by turning inner struggles into visible monsters, Stranger Things can provide a lens to discuss trauma, identity and resilience.

Here are some of Stranger Things’ insights into adolescent development and mental health – and how adults can use the show to talk to teenagers about their own mental health.

Facing our fears

In the series, the Upside Down is a dark mirror of the Hawkins township – a shadow world where threats feed on secrecy and avoidance. It works as a metaphor for “unseen” unprocessed experiences, shame and anxious avoidance.

Avoidance often reduces fear in the short term, but it can maintain post traumatic stress symptoms over time and interfere with recovery. Avoidance and thought suppression have been shown to increase severity of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms.

One of the most effective ways to reduce trauma symptoms is exposure to feared memories, sensations or situations in safe, planned ways. Exposure-based treatment, including trauma-focused cognitive behaviour therapy (TF-CBT) and prolonged exposure produce meaningful reductions in PTSD symptoms for adolescents and adults.

Stranger Things dramatises this principle: the young people at the heart of the show must face their fears to overcome their power.

Teens can experience what we might call “Upside Down moments”: times when they feel overwhelmed, ashamed or tempted to withdraw. Adults can validate their feelings and then gently pivot toward exposure. This could be small, supported steps to face what’s difficult (a conversation, a memory, a classroom presentation), rather than escape.

Facing shame

Vecna’s attacks dramatise shame and self-criticism. His voice echoes characters’ darkest self-judgments: Max hears accusations about Billy’s death; Eleven relives failures to protect friends.

Shame and self criticism are strongly linked with adolescent distress and risk behaviours. Skills like reappraisal (rethinking a situation) and self-compassion reduce shame-proneness and improve emotion regulation.

The show externalises these inner battles, making coping strategies visible.

You can help young people by reminding them the harsh voice in their head isn’t who they are. It’s just a thought, like a bully they can fight. Ask, “What would you say to a friend in your shoes?” or “What’s one small step to feel more in control?”

Turn shame into something they can face, not something they are.

Grounding yourself

Max’s use of Kate Bush’s Running Up That Hill to break Vecna’s trance is a vivid example of sensory grounding. Teens can replicate this coping tool with music, movement or other sensory anchors during distress.

Music-based activities can support emotion regulation and grounding techniques are practical ways to reduce flashbacks and anxiety.

Adults can help teenagers “ground” by asking them to notice and name things around them, by counting down from five. This might look like naming five things they can see, four things they can touch, three things they can hear, two things they can smell, and one thing they can taste.

You might also like to work with young people to create a “Vecna playlist” as a sensory anchor – sounds, textures or scents a young person can use when anxiety spikes.

Impinging on daily life

Will experiences flashbacks and panic long after he escapes the Upside Down. In the show, these are dramatised as him vomiting slugs, sensing the Mind Flayer, and freezing during school events.

Will’s trauma persists beyond his reaching physical safety, mirroring post-traumatic symptoms.

Max embodies complicated grief and survivor guilt after her brother’s death. Her withdrawn demeanour, risk taking and fight-or-flight responses echo patterns seen in adolescents grappling with bereavement and trauma, where avoidance and rumination can amplify distress.

After Billy’s death, Max pulls away from her friends and starts taking risks, like skating alone at night. Her fight-or-flight response surges when Vecna targets her, showing how grief can spiral into something more complicated.

When grief becomes tangled like this, people often cope by avoiding reminders of their loss or getting stuck in painful, repetitive thoughts. Both patterns can make the hurt even harder to bear.

Like Will and Max, some teens experience persistent flashbacks, panic, avoidance or guilt. If symptoms impair daily life, adults should consider professional support. Trauma-focused CBT and exposure based therapies are evidence-based treatments for adolescent PTSD.

Friendship as a buffer

At its heart, Stranger Things is a friendship story.

The party’s loyalty and shared rituals provide a scaffold against isolation and fear. Rituals of D&D campaigns, walkie-talkie check-ins and bike rides create a safety net.

When Eleven loses her powers, friends rally to protect her. When Max is cursed, they mobilise with music and shared problem-solving.

Supportive peer relationships in early adolescence are linked with better mental and physical health. Peer support can improve coping, happiness and self-esteem and reduce loneliness and depressive symptoms among young adults.

Adults can point out how the characters in Stranger Things share burdens and protect one another.

Teachers and parents can help teens build belonging by supporting activities like clubs, group hobbies and gaming nights, alongside creating family rituals. Connection reduces perceived threat and buffers stress. In schools, interventions that strengthen positive interactions among students and staff can enhance belonging and wellbeing.

Stephen Goldsmith 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. How adults can use Stranger Things to talk to young people about their mental health – https://theconversation.com/how-adults-can-use-stranger-things-to-talk-to-young-people-about-their-mental-health-272809

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Richard Nedjat-Haiem, Ph.D. Candidate in Comparative Literature, University of California, Santa Barbara

Before Beyoncé, before Cher, before Madonna, there was Googoosh.

The 75-year-old Iranian megastar catapulted to stardom in Iran during the 1970s, only to be silenced by the Islamist regime that took power after the 1979 Islamic Revolution. In 2000, she was finally allowed to leave Iran to live in exile.

For Iranians – particularly those in the diaspora – Googoosh symbolizes an era of cosmopolitanism in late-Pahlavi Iran, the period from the mid-1950s until 1979 when Iran’s popular music, cinema, television and fashion embraced modernity and questioned social norms.

But as protests roil Iran and the nation’s clerical leaders find their grip on power slipping, the “Voice of Iran,” as Googoosh is known, hasn’t turned up the volume. Instead, she’s found herself putting her farewell tour on pause.

“Everyone is waiting for my last concert in LA,” Googoosh told reporters in December 2025, “but … I am not going to sing until my country is rescued.”

Googoosh’s refusal to sing is not a sign of hesitation but a conscious political gesture – one that draws its force from her singular position in Iran’s cultural history.

Over the past several years, I’ve studied Googoosh’s trajectory as a musical and cultural icon. For Iranians inside and outside the country, she’s been a canvas onto which they’ve projected nostalgia for pre-revolutionary Iran, memories of rupture and loss, and fantasies of resistance.

A star is born

Born Faegheh Atashin in 1950, Googoosh was raised in Tehran by Muslim Azeri parents who had fled Soviet Azerbaijan. Although civil authorities registered her under the Perso-Arabic name Faegheh, her stage name, “Googoosh” – actually a male Armenian name – endured.

She grew up onstage and onscreen. Her father, an acrobat, incorporated her into his act when she was just 3 years old; by the age of 4, she was the family’s primary breadwinner.

As she matured, Googoosh moved across music, cinema, fashion and dance, rising to prominence within a cultural landscape shaped by Western influences and aligned with the state’s modernizing ambitions. By the mid-1970s, she had become the most recognizable figure of Iran’s pre-revolutionary popular culture.

According to Iranian studies scholar Abbas Milani, Googoosh “embodied the frivolous joys, the reckless abandon, the exuberant era of social experimentation, the defiant desire to debunk tradition and its taboos, and the vigor and vitality of youth.”

Onscreen, she wore the newest styles and cuts. Young Iranians copied her hair and hemlines. She danced, posed and sang like a global star – alongside Persian, she recorded in English, French, Italian, Spanish, Arabic and Turkish – and, in the process, redefined what a female pop star could look like in Iran.

Exiled from the stage

Yet to some Islamist critics of the Pahlavi order, she symbolized “gharbzadegi,” also known as “Westoxication” – the belief that by embracing the West, Iranians were betraying the traditions of their people and bringing about moral decay.

In the year preceding the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Googoosh had a residency at a Los Angeles club. Yet while many artists fled Iran in the wake of the revolution to rebuild their careers, Googoosh returned, only to be swiftly punished for her past.

Authorities charged her in 1979 with “moral corruption.” A couple of years later, the new regime briefly incarcerated her, confiscated her passport and prohibited her from publicly performing.

Just like that, a central figure in the nation’s cultural life was removed from the spotlight. It would be 21 years before she would perform again.

Googoosh wasn’t alone; musicians and performers across the country encountered the same fate: Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Iran’s supreme leader from 1979 to 1989, saw music as a vice. The regime also categorically prohibited women from performing solo in public.

In December 2025, she published her memoir, “Googoosh: A Sinful Voice.” In it, she opens up about this period of her life – and her decision to return to Iran.

Even though she was at the height of her fame in the late-1970s, she alleges that her managers had misappropriated her earnings. As revolutionary unrest intensified and the Pahlavi regime imposed martial law and closed cabarets and theaters in an attempt to appease conservatives, her sources of income vanished. This prompted the move to Los Angeles. But mounting debt and substance abuse issues influenced her decision to return home.

She writes that revolutionary hostility wasn’t simply directed at popular culture; it went after pleasure itself, particularly when embraced, celebrated or expressed by women. To the Islamic Republic, music was not a form of art or a vocation; it was a provocation and a moral abomination.

Googoosh, who’d been a practicing Shiite Muslim who prayed, fasted and went on pilgrimage, describes the shock she felt that so much cruelty could coexist with claims of religious piety following the Islamic Revolution. Personal faith and public, secular performances had not been seen as contradictions in pre-revolutionary Iran.

That all changed in 1979.

Iranian culture in exile

The revolution catalyzed a mass cultural exodus: Millions of Iranians fled the country, with many settling in California, where other popular singers such as Hayedeh, Mahasti and Homeyra rebuilt their careers in exile.

A proxy Iranian entertainment industry emerged in Los Angeles, allowing Iranian popular culture to live on outside the Islamic Republic. In what came to be called “Tehrangeles,” studios recorded Persian-language music and television, while entrepreneurs opened cabaret-style performance venues.

The entertainment infrastructure built in Tehrangeles later expanded to Europe, Canada and the Persian Gulf; much of the programming was saturated with motifs of memory, longing and nostalgia.

Meanwhile, Googoosh’s two decades off the stage had only amplified her mystique. When she finally received permission to leave Iran in 2000, she performed her first concert at Toronto’s Air Canada Centre before a sold-out crowd.

Since then, she’s recorded nine albums. Yet most of her fans have shown limited interest in these newer offerings. When she sings them, chants of “Ghadimi! Ghadimi!” (“Old! Old!”) often rise from the crowd.

Like many in the diaspora, they turn to Googoosh not to engage the present but to transport themselves to an earlier era – effectively freezing her, and their memories of Iran, in the past.

Silence reclaimed

Once silenced by the Islamic Republic, Googoosh now voluntarily withholds her voice in solidarity.

I see this refusal as a reclamation of her agency; with Iran again roiled by mass mobilization and protest, her silence resonates as loudly as her songs once did.

If Googoosh has long functioned as a vessel for collective memory, she now stands as a reminder that memory alone is not enough – that nostalgia cannot stand in for a political reckoning, and that voices shaped by exile remain tethered to unfinished struggles at home.

Richard Nedjat-Haiem 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. Googoosh, the ‘Voice of Iran,’ has gone quiet – and that’s her point – https://theconversation.com/googoosh-the-voice-of-iran-has-gone-quiet-and-thats-her-point-273447

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Ali Mamouri, Research Fellow, Middle East Studies, Deakin University

Since the outbreak of the current wave of protests in Iran, two sharply competing narratives have emerged to explain what is unfolding in the streets.

For the ruling establishment, the unrest is portrayed as a foreign-engineered plot. They argue it is an externally-driven attempt to destabilise the state through manipulation, infiltration, and psychological operations.

For the opposition, the same events are framed as a nationwide uprising rooted in long-standing grievances. They argue the protests signal a rupture between society and the political system.

How the “story” of a conflict is told is a key component in warfare. The Iran protest are offering two very different stories.

Narrative crafting as psychological warfare

In the digital age, psychological warfare has moved beyond conventional propaganda into the realm of what academics Ihsan Yilmaz and Shahram Akbarzadeh call Strategic Digital Information Operations (SDIOs).

Psychological operations function as central instruments of power, designed not only to suppress dissent but reshape how individuals perceive reality, legitimacy, and political possibility. Their objective is cognitive and emotional:

• to induce fear, uncertainty, and helplessness
• to discredit opponents
• to construct a sense of inevitability around a certain political scenario.

These techniques are employed not only by states, but increasingly by non-state actors as well.

Social media platforms have become the primary theatres of this psychological struggle. Hashtags, memes, manipulated images, and coordinated commenting – often amplified by automated accounts – are used to frame events, assign blame, and shape emotional responses at scale.

Crucially, audiences are not passive recipients of these narratives. Individuals sympathetic to a particular framing actively reproduce, reinforce, and police it within digital echo chambers. In this way, confirmation bias flourishes and alternative interpretations are dismissed or attacked.

Because of this, narrative control is not a secondary dimension of conflict but a central battleground. How an uprising is framed can shape its trajectory. It can determine whether it remains peaceful or turns violent, and whether domestic repression or foreign intervention comes to be seen as justified or inevitable.

The Iranian regime’s narrative

The Iranian regime has consistently framed the current uprising as a foreign-engineered plot, orchestrated by Israel, the United States and allied intelligence services. In this narrative, the protests are not an expression of domestic grievance but a continuation of Israel’s recent confrontation with Iran. This, it argues, is part of a broader campaign to overthrow the regime and turn the country into chaos.

Two weeks after the protests began, the state organised large pro-regime demonstrations. Shortly afterward, supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei declared these rallies had “thwarted the plan of foreign enemies that was meant to be carried out by domestic mercenaries”.

The message was clear: dissent was not only illegitimate but treasonous. Those participating in it were portrayed as instruments of external powers rather than citizens with political demands.

Demonising dissent serves a dual purpose. It is not only a method of silencing opposition, but also a tool for engineering perception and shaping emotional responses.

By portraying protesters as foreign agents, the regime seeks to manufacture compliance, discourage wavering supporters, and project an image of widespread popularity. The objective is not simply to punish critics, but to signal that public dissent will carry heavy costs.

To reinforce this narrative, pro-regime social media accounts have circulated content that blends ideological framing with selective factual material. Analyses arguing that events in Iran follow a familiar “regime change playbook” – have been widely shared, as have Israeli statements suggesting intelligence operations inside Iran. Cherry-picking expert commentary or isolated data points to justify repression is a common feature of this approach.

The timing and amplification of such content are also significant. Social media networks are deployed via “algorithmic manipulation” to make the regime’s framing go viral and marginalise counter views.

As this digital campaign unfolds, it is reinforced by more traditional forms of control. Internet restrictions and shutdowns limit access to alternative sources of information. This allows state media to dominate communications and thwart challenges to the official narrative.

In this environment, the regime’s story functions not merely as propaganda, but as a strategic instrument. It aims to redefine the uprising, delegitimise dissent, and preserving authority by controlling how events are understood.

The opposition narrative

Though the opposition is divided, but two main groups have appeared active in framing the opposition narrative: those who support an Iranian monarchy, and dissenting armed group Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK). Despite their differences, the two have contributed to the same story.

They have crafted a persuasive narrative, framing the uprising as a moral emergency requiring external intervention, particularly by the United States and Israel. This narrative does not represent all opposition voices, but it has gained visibility through social media, exile media outlets, and activist networks. Its core objective is to bring international attention to the conflict and put the case for, then bring about, regime change in Iran.

One central technique has been the legitimisation and encouragement of violence. Calls for armed protest and direct confrontation with security forces mark a clear shift away from demand-based, civilian mobilisation toward a violent uprising.

A high number of state forces casualties – reportedly more than 114 by January 11 – is an example of the effectiveness of this technique. This escalation is often justified as necessary to “keep the movement alive” and generate a level of bloodshed that would compel international intervention.

According to external conflict-monitoring assessments, clashes between armed protesters and state forces have in fact resulted in significant casualties on both sides.

A second technique involves the strategic inflation of casualty figures. Opposition platforms have claimed the death toll to be far higher than figures cited by independent estimates.

Such exaggeration serves a clear psychological and political purpose. It is intended to shock and sway international opinion, frame the situation as genocidal or exceptional, and increase pressure on foreign governments to act militarily.

A third element has been the use of intimidation and rhetorical coercion. In some high-profile media appearances, opposition figures have openly threatened pro-regime commentators, warning of retribution once power changes hands.

This language serves multiple functions. It seeks to silence alternative viewpoints, project confidence and inevitability, and present the situation as one of good versus evil. At the same time, such rhetoric risks alienating undecided audiences and reinforcing regime claims the uprising will lead to chaos or revenge politics.

These practices reveal how parts of the opposition have also embraced narrative warfare as a strategic tool. This narrative is used to amplify violence, inflate harm, and suppress competing interpretations. It aims to redefine the uprising not merely as a domestic revolt, but as a humanitarian and security crisis that demands foreign intervention.

In doing so, it mirrors the regime’s own effort to weaponise storytelling in a conflict where perception is as consequential as power.

In different ways, both narratives ultimately sideline the protesters themselves. They reduce a diverse, grassroots movement into an instrument of power struggle, either to legitimise repression at home or justify intervention from abroad.

Ali Mamouri 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. One uprising, two stories: how each side is trying to frame the uprising in Iran – https://theconversation.com/one-uprising-two-stories-how-each-side-is-trying-to-frame-the-uprising-in-iran-273573