Source: The Conversation – (in Spanish) – By Armando Alvares Garcia Júnior, Profesor de Derecho Internacional y de Relaciones Internacionales, UNIR – Universidad Internacional de La Rioja
Los sistemas de mensajería instantánea para uso institucional están a punto de dejar de pertenecer a Meta. John Smith / Unsplash. , CC BY-SA
WhatsApp no va a desaparecer de los móviles de los europeos, pero sí está perdiendo terreno en los despachos oficiales. La razón es simple: la Unión Europea y varios gobiernos nacionales quieren separar la comunicación privada de la institucional, y hacerlo con herramientas que estén bajo control europeo, por motivos de soberanía digital, seguridad y protección de datos.
Durante años, WhatsApp se convirtió en una especie de lengua franca digital. Se usa para organizar reuniones, coordinar equipos y, también, para intercambiar mensajes de trabajo.
El problema es que, cuando esa costumbre entra en la administración pública, deja de ser solo una cuestión de comodidad: pasan a circular por una plataforma privada asuntos sensibles, con un riesgo evidente para la confidencialidad y para la trazabilidad de la información.
El peligro del cifrado de extremo a extremo
Muchas veces se piensa que, si una aplicación tiene cifrado de extremo a extremo, ya es suficiente. Pero el debate europeo va mucho más allá. Aunque el contenido del mensaje esté protegido, siguen existiendo los metadatos: quién habla con quién, cuándo, desde dónde y con qué frecuencia. Ese rastro puede ser muy valioso para fines comerciales, pero también para inteligencia o espionaje.
Además, el servicio pertenece a Meta, una empresa estadounidense, y eso abre otra discusión: quién controla la infraestructura, bajo qué jurisdicción opera y qué ocurre cuando entran en juego leyes extraterritoriales. La Unión Europea quiere reducir esa dependencia tecnológica porque la considera un problema estratégico, no solo técnico.
En Alemania, el Bundesmessenger se ha consolidado como alternativa institucional; Bélgica ha impulsado BIM. Otros países, como Países Bajos, Luxemburgo y Polonia, también avanzan en soluciones propias.
La Comisión Europea, por su parte, está reforzando su estrategia de soberanía digital. Bruselas insiste en que la autonomía estratégica no significa aislarse, sino controlar mejor las infraestructuras críticas y reducir vulnerabilidades frente a actores externos.
La idea central es que Europa no quiere depender de una aplicación extranjera para comunicaciones oficiales sensibles. Si una administración maneja presupuestos, sanciones, contratos, seguridad o diplomacia por una app comercial, está cediendo parte del control sobre su información y sobre sus canales de trabajo.
Por eso, el movimiento se interpreta como una política de soberanía digital. Se trata de establecer una frontera clara entre la mensajería cotidiana de los ciudadanos y la comunicación institucional de los Estados.
A corto plazo, el cambio parece más probable en el sector público que en la población general, si la UE consolida servicios interoperables, seguros y sencillos. Si las alternativas europeas logran unir privacidad, facilidad de uso y adopción institucional, el abandono de WhatsApp en la administración se convertirá en tendencia irreversible.
Para los ciudadanos, en cambio, WhatsApp sigue siendo muy difícil de reemplazar por el efecto red: lo usa casi todo el mundo y eso hace costoso cambiar de plataforma.
Impactos del cambio
Para las administraciones públicas europeas, este cambio supondrá una transformación profunda en la gestión diaria. Los funcionarios pasarán de depender de una sola app universal a herramientas diseñadas específicamente para entornos institucionales, con protocolos estrictos de auditoría y retención de mensajes. Esto blindaría la confidencialidad y facilitaría el cumplimiento de normativas como el RGPD, además de evitar multas millonarias por fugas accidentales de datos sensibles.
Finalmente, desde el punto de vista operativo, se espera una mayor interoperabilidad entre países. Como ejemplo concreto, imaginemos a un diplomático español que se coordina operaciones diplomáticas sensibles con su homólogo alemán sin fricciones técnicas: los sistemas federados permitirían fluidez y seguridad, fortaleciendo la cohesión europea frente a eventuales crisis.
El riesgo principal es una curva de aprendizaje inicial –la resistencia natural al cambio entre usuarios–. Aun así, si la transición avanza al ritmo previsto, el abandono de WhatsApp tenderá a consolidarse en ministerios y agencias a partir de este año.
Armando Alvares Garcia Júnior no recibe salario, ni ejerce labores de consultoría, ni posee acciones, ni recibe financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y ha declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado.
Anti-immigrant marches in several major South African cities (such as Tshwane and Johannesburg) in early May 2026 once again led to questions being asked about xenophobia in post-apartheid South Africa.
In the wake of the protests President Cyril Ramaphosa called on South Africans to embrace solidarity with their African neighbours. For their part, foreign governments lodged their protests while police sought to curtail violence.
The tension in the country was palpable.
Are the recent outbreaks of anti-immigrant activism a harbinger of a wider uptick in anti-migrant sentiment amongst South Africans? Recent public opinion data from the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) suggests that this might be the case.
The HSRC’s South African Social Attitudes Survey is an important source of information on what ordinary South Africans think about international migration. The survey series consists of nationally representative, repeated cross-sectional surveys that have been conducted annually by the HSRC since 2003.
The latest data, from the 2025 survey, show that South Africans are more hostile towards immigrants than at any other time before since the survey began in 2003. An important dimension of the change has been an attitudinal shift and hardening of attitudes towards migrants among poorer and working-class adults. In addition, the recent growth of anti-immigrant sentiment has been geographically concentrated in four provinces: Mpumalanga, Gauteng, Limpopo and KwaZulu-Natal.
The rise in anti-immigrant sentiment is particularly concerning given that the country is due to hold local government elections on 4 November 2026. Aspirant political parties, in an attempt to maintain or gain power, may seek to exploit anti-immigrant sentiment for their own ends. In this way elections can provide a potential accelerant for xenophobia.
South African Social Attitudes Survey has included the following in its questionnaire since 2003:
Please indicate which of the following statements applies to you? I generally welcome to South Africa… (i) All immigrants; (ii) Some immigrants; (iii) No immigrants; and (iv) Uncertain.
In 2003 about a third (34%) of the South African adult population said that they would welcome all immigrants. The remainder indicated that they would accept either none (32%) or some (35%).
The proportion of the public that would be prepared to welcome foreigners tended to fluctuate within a narrow band over the 2003-2017 period.
But around the time of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020, the research data began to show an upswing in anti-immigrant sentiment.
About a quarter (26%) of those surveyed said that they would welcome all immigrants during the 2021 survey round. This was similar to figures in the mid-2010s.
But the share that held this hospitable attitude fell in subsequent survey rounds. In 2025 15% of adults said that they would welcome all foreigners.
Conversely, the proportion of the public adopting a hostile position (in other words ‘welcome no immigrants’) increased from 30% in 2021 to 42% in 2025.
Geography and class
The provinces with the highest growth in anti-immigrant sentiment – Mpumalanga, Gauteng, Limpopo and KwaZulu-Natal – are ones through which most immigrants travel and often settle.
The situation has become particularly delicate in KwaZulu-Natal. The share of adults in the province who said that they would welcome no immigrants grew from 23% in 2021 to 45% in 2023 and then again to 60% in 2025.
The upsurge in hostility in KwaZulu-Natal could be linked to growing popular anger against the current economic and political status quo. A staggering 88% of provincial residents are unhappy with present economic conditions, and an equal proportion expect conditions to worsen over the next five years.
The notable attitudinal shift among poor people is also concerning.
South Africa is a highly unequal nation characterised by stark economic divisions. Most citizens can be found on the wrong side of these divides and could be classified as economically disadvantaged.
Historically, as research has shown, anti-immigrant sentiment in the country tended to cut across class divisions. But in the years following the COVID-19 pandemic, something changed.
Before the pandemic, South African Social Attitudes Survey data showed a linear relationship between economic disadvantage and anti-immigrant sentiment. In the years following the pandemic, however, a clear pattern emerged. As the lockdowns ended and the post-pandemic recovery began, most socioeconomic groups in South Africa became more and more hostile towards immigrants. But antipathy grew at a much more aggressive rate for the low and lower middle socioeconomic groups.
During the 2025 survey round, adults in these groups were much more hostile towards foreigners than those in the upper middle and high socio-economic groups.
The drivers
What could have caused the economically disadvantaged to become more antagonistic towards immigrants over the last five years or so?
It could be argued that the poor have become more likely to scapegoat foreigners for the failures and inequalities of the post-pandemic economic recovery. Poor people have been badly affected by a cost of living crisis and persistent deindustrialisation. They need someone to blame and foreigners have long provided a handy scapegoat.
The South African economy has struggled in the last few years, dealing with doggedly high unemployment. The country also has notoriously high crime rates. Such problems, as experts have argued again and again, cannot be directly laid at the feet of immigrants living in the country. But it would appear that they are getting blamed anyway.
What should be done?
The South African government has a National Action Plan to Combat Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance.
Implemented in March 2019, one of its goals was to reduce public hostility towards migrants. Clearly, whether because of a lack of resources or government coordination, the plan has not succeeded.
The country needs to reinvigorate it and its associated processes. What’s needed is political, civic and community leaders to address legitimate socio-economic grievances without allowing immigrants to become scapegoats for deeper structural failures in society.
Efforts to strengthen social cohesion, improve economic inclusion, enhance public trust in governance and promote responsible political leadership are also crucial.
Well-provisioned and effective anti-xenophobia strategies are urgently required to address the worsening situation. The alternative is to allow hatred to flourish.
Steven Gordon has received funding from South Africa’s National Research Foundation. He is affiliated with the University of Johannesburg.
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Jessie-Lee McIsaac, Associate Professor, Canada Research Chair in Early Childhood: Diversity and Transitions, Mount Saint Vincent University
Feeding children can be challenging. It is sometimes hard to know if you’re getting it right.
We want the best for our children, and we often think that means making sure they eat the right amounts of the right foods. Research tells us that we also need to think about how we’re supporting children to eat, and the messages they receive about food.
With more children attending child care for the vast majority of their day, early learning settings are critically important for promoting children’s optimal growth and development during foundational years.
It takes time for young children to learn about different foods and textures. Some children are adventurous eaters who may be excited to try new foods and accept them more quickly. Other children may be naturally more cautious eaters and need support or extra time.
A responsive feeding environment allows children to communicate their feelings of hunger and fullness, and in this way encourages children to regulate their own eating.
When caregivers respect a child’s autonomy, children can build comfort with a wide variety of foods and textures. This allows children to practise self-regulation by responding to feelings of hunger and fullness, and develop a lifelong healthy relationship with food.
Responsive feeding in child care
We established the CELEBRATE Feeding project, which stands for Coaching in Early Learning Environments to Build a Responsive Approach to Eating and Feeding.
We developed the CELEBRATE Feeding Approach as a flexible framework to support key educator behaviours in priority areas of change. These areas include mealtime routines and how educators talk about food throughout the day.
When we support children in having control of what and how much goes on their plate, they build autonomy with their decisions about the food as well as physical and fine-motor skills.
This meant moving away from coercing, praising or rewarding children based on what they were eating. Children may take a bite when pressured to eat, but in the long-term this pressure can backfire and make them less willing to accept the food.
We encouraged educators to focus on more neutral language by avoiding labelling foods as good or bad, and not pressuring children to eat more or less of certain foods.
Table talk
Educators also engaged children in conversations at the table that were not just about food. Focusing on connection and fun at the table, rather than worrying about what children are eating, can especially help children who may be stressed at mealtime because of household food insecurity or because they have been labelled as difficult or picky eaters.
We want to create a safe, positive environment for children to enjoy a variety of foods and avoid attaching feelings of guilt and shame to food.
Educators were coached to provide repeated opportunities for children to explore foods, without the expectation to eat or taste. This was achieved through meals and play, gardening, cooking, sensory activities and food-related books, songs and materials.
Children explored food through sight, smell, touch and taste in positive and joyful ways to support their curiosity and confidence as competent eaters.
Basil Bunny video, created in partnership with Celebrate Feeding at the University of Prince Edward Island and @Tunesandtalltales.
Shifting perspectives around eating
Changing our approach around food can be hard. As adults, our own personal values and beliefs around food have been shaped throughout our lives. Our cultural and social beliefs around food, financial stress or food insecurity influence what we say and do when we’re with children.
Engaging families in this process and keeping equity and inclusion at the forefront can help create food environments that support everyone.
One director of a child-care program told us that in every facet of a child’s life, educators viewed children as capable and confident except when it came to food. Participating in the CELEBRATE Feeding project was a game-changer for shifting perspectives for her and her team.
A perspective shift means that we need to trust that while adults’ concern for children’s nutrition is genuine and well-meaning, children are capable of practising self-regulation by responding to feelings of hunger and fullness.
Prioritizing curiosity and joyfulness
Educators have been overwhelmingly receptive to rethinking their approach to feeding children by prioritizing curiosity and joyfulness rather than coercion and obligation.
We are continuing to share these messages through professional development and resources on our website.
While it sometimes feels hard to get it right when feeding children, we encourage caregivers to take a breath and aim for connection at the table.
Creating trust, confidence and enjoyable food memories are perhaps more important for long-term health than one resentful bite of broccoli.
Jessie-Lee McIsaac has received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research for the CELEBRATE Feeding project and other research. She has also received project funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, Public Health Agency of Canada, Margaret and Wallace McCain Family Foundation, and the Nova Scotia Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. Her research program is undertaken, in part, thanks to funding from the Canada Research Chairs program. McIsaac is a board member of a non-profit child care centre in Nova Scotia.
Our Celebrate Feeding intervention used the Nourishing Beginnings program from the Dairy Farmers of Canada as one training opportunity for educators. While Dairy Farmers of Canada is an industry group, Nourishing Beginnings was designed to align with evidence-based responsive feeding and child nutrition guidelines. The workshop offered to educators during our intervention was delivered by our Coaches (Registered Dietitians) with support from Dairy Farmers of Canada Dietitians. No team members received personal financial benefit from Dairy Farmers of Canada related to their work with CELEBRATE Feeding.
Julie E. Campbell receives research funding from the Government of Nova Scotia
Melissa (Misty) Rossiter received project funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and has been supported by a Jeanne and J.-Louis Lévesque Research Professorship in Nutrisciences and Health.
Such washes can help remove pesticides and keep produce fresh, appealing and more likely to be eaten.(Unsplash/Melissa Askew)
Many grocery shoppers know the routine: bring fruit and vegetables home, rinse them, dry them and hope they stay fresh long enough to be eaten. But fresh produce is delicate. Grapes shrivel, apple slices brown and berries can spoil quickly.
At the same time, many people worry about what may remain on the surface of fruit they buy, including pesticide residues.
Cleaning and freshness are usually treated as separate problems that require different treatments. Washing feels like a simple act of control. But it’s not quite that simple.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recommends rinsing produce under running water and says soap, detergent and commercial produce washes are not recommended. Water helps, but it does not solve every problem.
Our new study suggests those goals may be combined. We developed a dual-function biodegradable wash that is able to remove surface pesticide residues and form a thin protective layer to help fruit stay fresh for longer.
The timing matters. Around one quarter of fruits and vegetables are lost or wasted globally each year. For fresh produce, even small gains after harvest can matter because quality can change quickly during shipping, storage and daily use at home.
What’s inside and how does it works?
Food science professor Tianxi Yang explains how the biodegradabe wash works. (UBC)
The wash developed in the study is made from starch nanoparticles, tannic acid and iron. Starch is a plant-based material often used in food science because it can form films. Tannic acid is a plant compound found in many foods and plants. Iron helps connect tannic acid into a fine network on the surface of the starch particles.
In plain terms, starch provides the base, tannic acid adds useful plant chemistry and iron helps hold the structure together. During rinsing, this structure can interact with some pesticide molecules on the fruit’s surface and helps wash them away.
When immersed, the same wash can form a very thin coating layer. This is not meant to be a heavy wax-like layer. It is closer to a light surface film that can slow water loss and help maintain appearance. That matters because people often decide whether to eat or throw away fruit based on how it looks and feels.
Removing surface pesticide residues
The cleaning results were strong. On apple surfaces, the wash removed more than 85 per cent of thiabendazole, compared with 48 per cent for tap water, 65 per cent for baking soda and 61 per cent for native starch.
Thiabendazole is a fungicide used on some fresh produce post-harvest. We also tested two other pesticides. The wash removed 93 per cent of the acetamiprid residues and 89 per cent of imidacloprid from apple surfaces. These results suggest the wash can work across more than one type of pesticide residue, rather than only one special chosen compound.
There is, however, an important limit. The study focused on residues on the fruit surface. Some pesticides can move into plant tissue while the fruit is growing, which makes them much harder to remove after harvest.
A better wash should not be understood as a way to erase all pesticide exposure. It’s a tool for reducing what’s on the surface of a fruit or vegetable.
Grapes and apples dipped in the UBC wash lost less moisture and browned more slowly compared to samples not treated with the wash. (Tianxi Yang/UBC Media Relations)
The second part of our study looked at freshness. Over 15 days, untreated grapes lost around 45 per cent of their weight, while grapes treated with our wash system lost only 21 per cent. Fresh-cut apples also lost less weight over 48 hours, dropping from 17 per cent in untreated samples to nine per cent.
Those changes can impact what people buy. Treated grapes looked fresher after storage, and apple slices stayed lighter for longer. That kind of change matters outside the lab because produce that looks dried out or browned is less likely to be eaten.
The coating also showed an ability to slow oxidation and inhibited a test bacterium in laboratory experiments. This doesn’t mean the wash has completed all the safety tests needed for consumer use. However, it does suggest the coating may do more than simply sit on the surface.
What this could mean in practice
For now, a realistic use for our wash would likely be in post-harvest processing plants, not kitchen sinks. Processing facilities can control washing time, concentration, water handling and disposal more carefully than households can. We estimated the raw-material cost is less than US$0.032 per apple. Meanwhile, we are actively working on developing a household spray formulation for consumer use.
More work is needed. The wash should be tested on more fruits and vegetables, under commercial conditions and through the regulatory steps required before real-world use.
Still, the idea is useful because it reframes the problem. A fruit wash doesn’t have to be only a rinse. It could clean more effectively and then keep working, helping produce stay fresh, appealing and more likely to be eaten.
The research discussed in this article received funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).
Ling Guo and Tzu-Cheng (Ivy) Chiu 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.
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By John Gradek, Faculty Lecturer and Academic Program Co-ordinator, Supply Network and Aviation Management, McGill University
For many residents in the Northern Hemisphere, the advent of the summer season has always signalled travel. Travel with family, travel with friends, adventure travel, sightseeing travel, travel by automobile, travel by train, travel by air.
Some carriers have begun to implement capacity reductions in response to rationing measures, impacting both aircraft and staff levels.
Spirit’s collapse as a warning
Financial turmoil has now become the the subject of heated conversation in airline boardrooms, with any number of initiatives being considered to conserve liquidity in an environment that threatens the survival of many carriers.
Spirit’s exit will remove one of the few remaining ultra-low-cost options for American travellers, and could push fares higher across the industry.
Its closure has brought the aviation fuel cost crisis into immediate focus with both regulators and the travelling public. Are other U.S. carriers at risk of the same fate as Spirit? Are other airlines globally at risk as well?
What this means for summer 2026 travel
For Canadians planning summer travel, the picture divides roughly along domestic and international lines.
Airlines have increased fares to recover fuel cost increases, cut services on routes that have become unprofitable and begun redrawing growth schedules to reflect geopolitical uncertainties.
For travellers contemplating international travel this summer, airfares have increased substantially. Domestic Canadian fares are also higher than 2025 levels, though the increase is more modest.
Demand on domestic routes has remained strong, and carriers have given no indication of softening. Competition among carriers — a key driver of lower airfares — has been muted at best, with airlines focused on profitability and, in some cases, survival.
Like all such crises, this aviation fuel crisis will eventually end. The question of when is the subject of debate and consternation. The International Air Transport Association has noted that even if the Strait of Hormuz were to reopen, recovering normal jet fuel supply could take months.
For travellers still finalizing summer plans, the central question is how much risk they can tolerate. Further capacity cuts are possible if not likely, and passengers will get minimal notice if flights are cancelled.
Those who want a straightforward, low-stress trip would do well to look closer to home and stick to domestic flights. Those with more flexibility and appetite for uncertainty will find that international travel this summer will be one for the record books.
John Gradek 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.
Until recently, AI’s role in research felt like having a useful assistant. It could summarise a paper, clean up a dataset or draft an abstract. Researchers were still in charge of the thinking.
That changed in late 2025 when cutting-edge “frontier” AI models became capable of reasoning and planning reliably by themselves. A key feature of these models is “tool calling” – the ability to interact with external tools in order to act on the world, not just describe it.
This marks the rise of agentic AI: systems that do not just respond to instructions but can independently plan, execute and iterate. In science as in other fields, chatbots have become coworkers that can autonomously complete real work, end to end.
An example of this is Tokyo-based Sakana AI’s The AI Scientist. Unveiled in mid-2025 and now in its second iteration, the Japanese tech company bills this as “the first comprehensive system for fully automatic scientific discovery”.
The AI Scientist scans existing literature, generates hypotheses, writes and executes code, analyses results and produces a full research paper – largely without human involvement. It reasons, fails and revises, just as a junior scientist would.
This represents something genuinely new: an autonomous AI system passing a milder version of the Turing test by demonstrating scientific quality, if not (yet) machine intelligence.
The AI Scientist’s peer-reviewed paper explained. Video: Matthew Berman.
Other significant achievements include Singapore-based startup Analemma carrying out a live demonstration of its Fully Automated Research System (Fars) in February. It produced 166 complete machine-learning research papers in roughly 417 hours for around US$1,100 (£810). That’s one academic paper every 2.5 hours at a cost that would sustain a research assistant for a couple of weeks.
And Google Cloud AI Research recently unveiled PaperOrchestra, which takes a researcher’s raw experimental logs and rough notes and converts them into a submission-ready manuscript, with figures and verified citations. In blind evaluations by 11 AI researchers, it easily outperformed existing autonomous systems in this area.
Having spent two decades researching disruptive technological innovations, I believe a significant threshold has been crossed. While there is a way to go before AI systems match the very best human-produced work, the era of fully automated research has arrived.
Implications for academia
The arrival of autonomous research systems lands on an academic system under severe strain in many countries. Over the last decade, the number of papers submitted to academic journals has grown much faster than the pool of qualified peer reviewers, leading to suggestions that the science publication system is being “overwhelmed”.
If systems like Fars can produce thousands of papers per year, the publication infrastructure of science faces a volume it was never designed to handle. Some academic reviews have already been identified as using AI-generated content. As submission numbers continue to rise, this may alter the role of a published academic paper as a definitive signal of the quality and skills of human researchers.
An optimistic take is that AI may shift academia away from its strong reliance on quantity-based metrics, in favour of how influential or innovative publications are. This is a reform critics of the current system have long called for.
Less optimistically, as AI research scales up, an academic system designed for coherent, methodologically defensible contributions may inflate the proportion of incremental, rather than radically novel, scientific contributions. Both the quality and originality of research could suffer as a result.
Science has always needed its heretics to advance. Italian astronomer Galileo, the “father of modern science”, was forced to recant his defence of heliocentrism before the Catholic Church’s Inquisition. Hungarian physician Ignaz Semmelweis died in a psychiatric institution having failed to convince his colleagues that handwashing could save lives.
Yet historically, the ability of scientific institutions to encourage radical approaches has also been a mainstaple of how science has progressed. To sustain this, AI systems will need to be trained to maximise novelty and transformation, rather than plausibility and incremental progress.
AI’s impact on creative industries
The transformative effects of this new breeed of AI extend well beyond scientific research. A striking example is The Epstein Files. This fully AI-generated podcast reached number one the UK Apple Podcasts and Spotify charts in early 2026, drawing 700,000 downloads in its first week.
Music is further along and more conflicted. By mid-2025, the fully AI-generated band The Velvet Sundown had amassed over a million monthly Spotify listeners. In 2026, the platform was forced to introduce artist-protection features after AI tracks began displacing human music on popular playlists, while Deezer, facing roughly 50,000 AI-generated uploads daily, began excluding them from curated lists.
Ownership remains the elephant in the room. US courts have ruled that AI-generated works cannot be copyrighted, since human authorship remains a legal requirement. AI can produce at industrial scale, but no one can own the output legally.
This matters far beyond intellectual property law. In creative industries, it threatens the royalty streams, licensing deals and catalogue valuations on which artists, labels and publishers have built their entire business models for generations.
In science, meanwhile, it is destabilising the entire incentive architecture, which rests on the foundational assumption that knowledge is both generated and owned by humans. When that assumption dissolves, so does much of the institutional logic that has governed how we produce, reward and trust expertise.
The question, across all these fields, is no longer whether AI can produce the work. Rather, it is whether sufficient thought has gone into what we will gain and lose when it does.
Sorin M.S. Krammer 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.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Natasha Lindstaedt, Professor in the Department of Government, University of Essex
Pakistan has emerged as a central diplomatic broker in the conflict between the US and Iran. When announcing a pause to the US operation to guide stranded vessels through the Strait of Hormuz on May 6, Donald Trump said he had made the decision “based on the request of Pakistan”.
The Pakistani prime minister, Shehbaz Sharif, subsequently expressed hope “that the current momentum will lead to a lasting agreement that secures durable peace and stability for the region and beyond”. This latest intervention comes a month after Pakistan secured its biggest diplomatic win in years by brokering a ceasefire in Iran.
But how did Pakistan emerge as the most trustworthy mediator in this conflict, and what drove Islamabad to involve itself? Pakistan’s biggest advantage is that it enjoys relationships with both the US and Iran, which has helped it be seen as a neutral party by each side.
Pakistan has worked with the US in dealing with Iran for decades. Since 1981, two years after the US and Iran severed diplomatic ties following the Islamic revolution, a dedicated section of the Pakistani embassy in Washington has handled Iranian diplomatic affairs in the US.
Pakistan has also worked with the US in mediation efforts elsewhere. Most notably, it facilitated former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger’s secret visit to China in 1971. This paved the way for the normalisation of relations between the US and China later that decade.
Relations between the US and Pakistan have not always been smooth. In 2011, a decade after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Atlantic magazine in the US referred to Pakistan as the “ally from hell”. Whether or not it did so knowingly, Pakistan hosted al-Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden following the attack.
Trump himself also denied Pakistan military aid during his first term as president, saying it was not doing enough to combat terrorism. And Pakistan’s human rights record, particularly concerning democratic backsliding and restrictions on civil liberties, have at times led to tension with the US government.
However, Pakistan’s relationship with the US has improved markedly in Trump’s second term. Trump, who often uses personal ties to guide US foreign policy, has developed a strong relationship with Sharif and the chief of Pakistan’s army, Asim Munir. In June 2025, Munir was even invited to the White House for a private lunch. This was the first time a US president had hosted a non-head of state military leader at this level.
Pakistan’s recent efforts to court Trump have played a key role in building these ties. Over the past year Pakistan has nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, joined his Board of Peace and launched a collaboration with his World Liberty Financial crypto platform.
And in July, Islamabad signed a deal with the US to allow Washington to help develop Pakistan’s largely untapped oil reserves. “We read him [Trump] right,” said the former chairman of the Pakistani Senate’s Defense Committee, Mushahid Hussain Syed, in an interview with the Washington Post on April 20.
The relationship between Pakistan and Iran has also been characterised by ups and downs. While Iran was the first country to recognise Pakistan’s independence in 1947, their relationship has often been fraught with tension. This largely stems from Iran’s territorial claim to the Balochistan province of Pakistan, as well as from Pakistan’s ties with Iranian rivals.
As recently as January 2024, tensions between the two countries appeared to be escalating again over Balochistan. However, hostilities soon receded and both countries formally resumed their bilateral ties. They subsequently expanded their security cooperation and invited each other’s ambassadors and foreign ministers for a formal reconciliation ceremony.
Strategic necessity
Some commentators argue that Pakistan’s decision to step in as the primary mediator in Iran has been driven by strategic necessity. Its Balochistan province is currently grappling with an insurgency. Islamabad will thus want to avoid a situation where the Iran war spills into Pakistan, as this could destabilise its border regions even further.
There are also economic reasons explaining Pakistan’s involvement. Pakistan has been severely affected by the disruption to Gulf shipping. It imports between 85% and 90% of its crude oil from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and almost 99% of its liquified gas from the UAE and Qatar.
Before the war broke out, Pakistan’s economy had been starting to gain momentum. But higher oil prices are now affecting government revenues, increasing its fuel import bill from US$300 million (£220 million) before the conflict to US$800 million now. Pakistan’s authorities have been forced to raise consumer fuel prices by more than 50%.
Pakistan’s agricultural sector, which employs around 40% of the country’s population, is also vulnerable to the conflict due to its reliance on fertiliser imported through the Strait of Hormuz. Prices of urea fertiliser have surged by 50% since the war broke out. Prolonged disruption to the agriculture sector risks plunging some of the most vulnerable people in Pakistan further into poverty.
Remittances are another area that could be affected by a protracted conflict, with as many as five million Pakistani people living in the Gulf region. Pakistan received roughly US$30 billion in remittances between 2025 and 2026, 54% of which came from the Gulf.
If the war continues to affect Gulf economies, many Pakistani workers may be forced to return home. This will cause remittance revenues to fall, depriving Pakistan of a vital source of foreign exchange, while simultaneously pushing up domestic unemployment.
Pakistan’s relationships with the US and Iran put it in a strong position to intervene in the conflict diplomatically. But its mediation has also been a calculated effort to stabilise its borders and protect its economy.
Natasha Lindstaedt 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.
Source: The Conversation – France (in French) – By Jean-Baptiste Meyer, Directeur de recherche (Centre Population et Développement), Institut de recherche pour le développement (IRD)
Et si la diplomatie climatique se réinventait en dehors du format traditionnel des COP ? En Colombie, à l’occasion d’une conférence organisée à Santa Marta du 24 au 29 avril 2026, une dynamique alternative a émergé : plus ouverte, elle cherche à dépasser les blocages multilatéraux en plaçant la diversité des savoirs au cœur des décisions.
S’il y a un constat sur lequel convergent les « climato-négationnistes » et les activistes climatiques radicaux, c’est l’inutilité des COP, organisées sous l’égide des Nations unies (Convention-cadre des Nations unies sur les changements climatiques, UNFCC de son acronyme en anglais). Dans les deux cas, on leur reproche une inefficacité de plus en plus apparente, où les décisions sont nécessairement prises au consensus. En conséquence, le consensus devient tellement mou qu’il n’en exprime plus rien de significatif ni d’opératoire.
Ainsi le résume la bande-annonce d’un film documentaire à venir dans le courant de l’été 2026, en partenariat avec l’Institut de recherche pour le développement (IRD) et l’Université nationale de Colombie.
Bande-annonce du documentaire De Los Andes a Belém (2026).
Du 24 au 29 avril 2026 à Santa Marta, en Colombie, une conférence inédite a voulu replacer enfin la sortie des combustibles fossiles au cœur de l’agenda international. Co-organisée par la Colombie et les Pays-Bas, elle a regroupé 57 États volontaires (et l’Union européenne en tant que telle, NDLR).
Qu’a-t-il été décidé à cette occasion ? À rebours des COP climat, où ce sont avant tout les textes finaux qui comptent, pesés au mot près, car votés par les représentants d’États, c’est ici surtout la méthode de travail qui diffère, beaucoup moins rigide. Elle ne s’accompagnait d’aucune obligation de production particulière, si ce n’est d’engager le processus de constitution d’une feuille de route pour la sortie des énergies fossiles. La rencontre a ainsi inauguré de nouvelles modalités de coopération mondiale sur les enjeux socio-environnementaux.
Dépasser le blocage des COP grâce à une coalition de volontaires
Le débat sur la paralysie des négociations multilatérales en général – et celle des COP climat en particulier – n’est guère nouveau. Leur répétition annuelle exacerbe les frustrations de ceux qui souhaitent réellement progresser sur les questions climatiques.
À la COP30 de Belém, en novembre 2025, une quarantaine de pays avaient exprimé leur mécontentement quant à l’absence de mention de la sortie des énergies fossiles dans la déclaration finale. Plus de 80 se sont associés à l’initiative encourageant à poursuivre les travaux d’élaboration d’une feuille de route en ce sens.
La Colombie et les Pays-Bas ont alors invité les États qui souhaitaient travaillaient sur ce point à se réunir dans une conférence en marge des COP. Autrement dit, la conférence de Santa Marta ne s’est certes pas tenue dans le cadre onusien, mais s’est toutefois inscrite dans le prolongement de la précédente COP climat.
Préparée dans un laps de temps exceptionnellement court (moins de la moitié d’une année, contre un an pour les COP climat), cette conférence inédite avait une organisation moins cadrée au plan organisationnel. Aux dires d’observateurs et de participants, on y percevait un petit côté brouillon : davantage d’improvisation, voire parfois un manque de clarté sur les livrables attendus et les prochaines étapes.
Pourtant, ces faiblesses – inhérentes au format de la conférence spontanée, point d’étape entre la COP30 du Brésil et la COP31 en Turquie – ont, aux dires des participants, pu être dépassées, notamment grâce à son caractère volontaire. Juan Carlos Monterrey Gómez, envoyé climatique du Panama, cité dans le Climate Diplomacy Brief, a par exemple déclaré :
« Santa Marta est un moment historique, car c’est la première fois que nous pouvons ouvrir nos cœurs, ouvrir nos esprits et avoir une véritable conversation sans ces stupides demandes de mise au vote, sans ces stupides procédures qui font dérailler toute la séance et ne nous laissent que dix minutes pour aborder le fond. »
La méthode Santa Marta ? Un bouillon de culture plutôt que des zones bleue et verte
Concrètement, la conférence a successivement réuni trois composantes : un panel académique (baptisé Academic Dialogue) où les scientifiques du monde entier ont pu émettre des recommandations, un « sommet des peuples », avec notamment des représentants associatifs, communautaires et syndicaux et, enfin, un segment de haut niveau (Transition Away from Fossil Fues, ou TAFF, regroupant essentiellement des représentants gouvernementaux spécialisés.
Cette concentration de thématiques, de compétences et de volontés dans des espaces restreints a favorisé un véritable bouillon de culture permettant des échanges fertiles. Il contraste avec l’organisation physique des COP, où plusieurs milliers de participants se retrouvent dans une multitude de pavillons, souvent sur plusieurs bâtiments. L’espace y est alors divisé entre zone bleue, réservée aux délégations nationales, aux organismes onusiens et aux ONG observatrices, et où se déroulent les négociations officielles de la COP28, et zone verte, ouverte à toutes les autres parties prenantes.
Contrairement aux COP, où ce sont les délégations nationales qui débattent (les discussions relatives à l’état de la science, par exemple, se déroulent à un autre moment, sous l’égide d’un organe subsidiaire, la conférence de Santa Marta a proposé une méthodologie transversale, impliquant en amont 15 groupes de travail transnationaux. Une grande hétérogénéité a caractérisé l’ensemble de ces groupes, allant des représentants des sciences à ceux de la société civile, en passant par les entités publiques à différentes échelles, ainsi que des agences de financement ou des entreprises multinationales.
Au cours des deux mois qui ont précédé la rencontre, ces derniers ont planché sur trois enjeux fondamentaux : la dépendance structurelle aux combustibles fossiles, l’action sur l’offre et la demande et les modalités de la coopération internationale et de la diplomatie climatique.
Répartition des groupes de travail en amont de la conférence de Santa Marta (Colombie). Fourni par l’auteur
Malgré la diversité de statuts et d’intérêts des participants à ces groupes de travail, un certain nombre de points de convergence sont apparus :
les progrès réalisés par les alternatives aux fossiles sont irréversibles,
il est indispensable de mettre fin aux soutiens fiscaux et juridiques à l’extraction des combustibles,
pour y parvenir, la concertation et la dialogue sont essentiels.
Remettre la science au centre, sans oublier les savoirs autochtones
À Santa Marta, la science a gardé un rôle fondamental, acté à la fin de la conférence par l’instauration d’un conseil spécifique. Sa fonction est de nourrir les processus de décision, à partir de connaissances élaborées de façon rigoureuse. Lors de la conférence, les participants ont exprimé leur foi dans une politique fondée sur les preuves (evidence based policy). Elle confère une responsabilité majeure à la communauté scientifique.
L’hétérogénéité de la participation des corps sociaux à la conférence a ainsi permis d’introduire de véritables porte-paroles des entités naturelles. Au-delà des chercheurs, régulièrement convoqués pour en expliquer les comportements et la dégradation, elles ont également mis à l’honneur les communautés indigènes, paysannes ou afro-descendantes
Le mariage cognitif entre ces savoirs hétérogènes requiert toutefois un travail transépistémique. Les épistémies varient considérablement entre celles fondées sur le scepticisme organisé (les disciplines scientifiques) et celles recourant aux explications traditionnelles parfois d’ordre religieux, qui font intervenir des entités spirituelles, par exemple. Pourtant, des convergences notables existent, notamment pour ce qui est de la conscience écologique, susceptibles d’influencer les positions politiques qui en découlent.
Malgré tout, une certaine hiérarchie a pu perdurer durant la conférence entre ces acteurs de la diversité culturelle et ceux de la gouvernance, inscrite dans la division successive des séquences (académique, société civile puis représentation gouvernementale) et leur degré d’exclusivité. Mais la tendance à l’ouverture et à l’inclusion manifeste plus qu’un changement idéologique : c’est aussi une modification (partielle mais réelle) des références objectives.
On retrouve en effet, dans la nouvelle diplomatie climatique portée à Santa Marta, une « esquisse du Parlement des choses », telle que décrite par Bruno Latour en 2018. Elle consiste à revoir les rôles attribués au politique, à l’expertise et à la technocratie, et où ce ne serait plus seulement les humains qui auraient le droit d’être représentés.
Ce concept pose de nouvelles questions au droit et à l’économie politique internationale. Un ouvrage à paraître prochainement, issu d’un projet européen et latino-américain sur la transition écologique auquel j’ai collaboré, entame la remise en question de la conception de la géopolitique centrée sur l’humain.
Vers une nouvelle géopolitique climatique ?
Les efforts déployés à Santa Marta ont transcendé les clivages nationaux, mais aussi nord-sud, d’une certaine manière. Avec une présidence bicéphale eurolatino (colombo-néerlandaise), et euro-océanique pour la prochaine conférence qui sera co-organisée par l’Irlande et Tuvalu, le grand partage manichéen des responsabilités historiques de l’empreinte écologique (qui, historiquement, est un point d’achoppement des COP climat) n’a, certes, pas été complètement effacé. Il a toutefois été adouci par le cadrage de la conférence sur la recherche de solutions.
Toutes les régions du monde étaient représentées, avec une majorité relative de l’Europe (plus d’un tiers des pays officiellement présents), suivie de l’Amérique latine, puis de l’Asie, de l’Afrique et de l’Océanie. Aucun des grands pays à prétention hégémonique n’était invité – ni les États-Unis, ni la Chine, ni la Russie – et le seul des grands émergents à participer était le Brésil.
Déclaration du premier ministre canadien Mark Carney, lors du Forum de Davos, en janvier 2026.
Mais la vision de la conférence de Santa Marta s’affirme et se distingue sur au moins deux points :
le premier concerne l’importance accordée au Sud global,
et le deuxième, l’irruption des non-humains dans le champ de la géopolitique.
Même si la prégnance du Nord demeurait dans les coordinations, la composition de l’assistance lors des réunions privilégiait naturellement la participation de ressortissants du Sud. Les sujets abordés reflétaient des enjeux qui les concernent au premier chef, puisque les impacts écologiques actuels les affectent en priorité. En mettant le Sud au cœur des débats, une telle rencontre participe du rééquilibrage de ces derniers et renouvelle la façon de les aborder.
Avec ce renouvellement de la contradiction à son endroit, le négationnisme climatique (qui peut, on l’a vu avec la sortie des États-Unis de l’accord de Paris, trouver des relais à l’échelle des États) a de fortes chances d’être progressivement confronté à un isolement accru. Ses velléités d’entraînement ont fait long feu à Belém, où aucun pays n’est sorti de l’accord de Paris. Elles pourraient se voir débordées par des initiatives telles que celles explorées à Santa Marta, qui a aussi voulu anticiper ses effets pervers. Des mécanismes ont ainsi été envisagés pour contrer l’augmentation de la demande d’hydrocarbures que pourrait générer une baisse des prix du fait de la croissance des énergies renouvelables.
Written by Neil Forsyth (also creator of Brink’s-Mat robbery drama The Gold), Legends balances tension and realism with a measured, slow-burn pace that prioritises character over spectacle. Steve Coogan plays Don, a former undercover police officer tasked with recruiting customs officers to go undercover themselves to infiltrate drug gangs.
Much of its strength rests on the central performance of Tom Burke, whose portrayal of the lead undercover officer, Guy, anchors the series emotionally. Burke brings a quiet intensity to the role, capturing the unease, vulnerability, and moral ambiguity of someone living between identities.
The supporting cast also does an exceptional job, reinforcing the drama’s grounded and realistic tone, capturing the collective pressure, uncertainty and emotional toll of undercover work.
Becoming a legend
Unlike elite operatives, these are everyday officials thrust into extraordinary criminal worlds, making the series not just gripping television, but a sharp exploration of how undercover work reshapes identity, morality and survival.
The title itself is significant. In undercover policing, a “legend” is the carefully constructed false identity, complete with backstory, relationships, habits and a believable past. These identities must withstand intense scrutiny from criminals, meaning success depends on absolute credibility.
In Legends, officers must abandon their real selves and convincingly live as criminals to gain trust. This demands constant performance, producing intense psychological strain as loyalty to the state clashes with the need to belong within a criminal world.
In criminology, this reflects the concept of identity conflict. Undercover officers must operate simultaneously as agents of the law and participants in deviance. Howard Becker’s labelling theory is particularly relevant here: labels do not simply describe behaviour – they shape it.
To be effective, officers must adopt the identity of the “criminal,” often participating in minor illegality or forming close ties with offenders. As former undercover cop Don explains, “Your legend has to come from you, or it won’t work,” emphasising that a convincing undercover identity cannot simply be performed, it must feel authentic and internally lived to be believable.
Psychological unravelling
The result is moral ambiguity, where the line between observation and complicity becomes increasingly unstable. As seen in Donnie Brasco (1997) and The Departed, (2006) prolonged immersion can erode the boundary between professional duty and personal identity, leading not to control, but fragmentation.
Legends appears to centre on this psychological unravelling. These are not distant professionals but ordinary individuals removed from everyday life, required to deceive family and colleagues while facing the constant threat of exposure. This is particularly evident with Guy, who appears increasingly weighed down by the demands of sustaining his legend.
Even in controlled situations, there is a sense of constant vigilance in his interactions – carefully measured responses, restrained body language, and an underlying tension that suggests the effort required to remain convincing. At the same time, brief glimpses of his life beyond the operation hint at growing emotional distance, reinforcing how the undercover role begins to dominate his identity.
Criminologists describe this as role contamination, where it stops being a performance and begins to reshape the real self. The deeper the infiltration, the harder it becomes to return.
The criminal world they enter is equally significant. The series focuses on drug gangs, which links directly to organised crime theory. Drug trafficking organisations are not chaotic groups of offenders, but structured systems with hierarchies, codes of loyalty and mechanisms of control. Trust is currency; betrayal is often fatal.
For undercover officers, success depends on understanding not just who controls the drugs, but who controls fear, respect and power. This aligns with criminal enterprise theory, which argues that organised crime emerges in response to market demand.
Drug trafficking persists because prohibition generates profitable black markets, and criminal groups operate much like businesses within them. In this sense, Legends is not simply about crime, but about parallel economies embedded within society – where criminals may wield more immediate authority than the state.
In many communities, organised crime groups provide forms of protection, employment and dispute resolution where trust in formal institutions is weak. Drug gangs can become alternative authorities. For undercover officers, this makes infiltration even more complex because they must navigate a world where legitimacy is not automatically attached to the police or the government.
Instead, loyalty may belong to the gang leader who provides security or income. As it goes on, Legends is likely to show how dangerous this balance becomes when officers must earn trust in a system built on suspicion.
Legends also raises pressing ethical questions. Undercover policing relies on deception, manipulation and at times emotional exploitation. Officers may form relationships with people who are unaware they are being investigated, blurring the boundaries of acceptable state power.
If the law depends on deception to enforce itself, where should the limits lie? As films like Sicario (2015) suggest, the pursuit of justice can itself become morally compromised. Legends will probably explore this moral uncertainty, showing that successful infiltration often comes at a personal and ethical cost.
Ultimately, Legends is far more than a crime drama about drug gangs. It is a study of how states confront organised crime by constructing false identities and sending ordinary people into extraordinary danger.
This makes Legends not only compelling television, but also a valuable exploration of policing, identity, organised crime, and the hidden moral costs of state power.
Adriana Marin 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.
Two months into the war in Iran, the reasons the US gave for launching this conflict – and Washington’s minimum criteria for claiming success – now appear unintelligible. So much so that US officials are now arguing the war had actually ended in America’s favour almost a month ago, when the ceasefire came into effect.
It is hard to think of a more damning indictment of Donald Trump’s catastrophic war in Iran than the spectacle of his secretary of state, Marco Rubio, telling reporters on May 5 that the main goal now was to get the Strait of Hormuz “back to the way it was: anyone can use it, no mines in the water, nobody paying tolls”.
This, he argued, was an entirely separate defensive and humanitarian operation and would only become a war if US ships came under fire – which they in fact did that same day. Rubio ignored the obvious contradiction that the humanitarian operation had been necessitated by the very war he was simultaneously presenting as already won.
Things took an even more absurd turn later that day. Trump announced he was suspending “Project Freedom”, his plan for the US Navy to escort tankers out of the strait, after just one day. The US president cited “great progress” toward an agreement with Iran. As has happened several times now, global stock markets rallied before falling back again.
While few doubt Trump is desperate to put this disastrous war behind him, particularly before heading to Beijing on May 14, he massively oversold the impression of a breakthrough. The Iranians were merely considering a 14-point proposal for 30 days of negotiations aimed at finding a durable end to the war.
The more convincing reason Trump abandoned Project Freedom is that it was already clear it would not solve the crisis. Most owners of the 1,500 ships currently stranded behind the strait were unwilling to risk passage even with a naval escort. Iran’s response, attacking shipping and launching missiles at the United Arab Emirates, also threatened the ceasefire itself.
Washington’s problem is that the Iranians will probably insist talks can only begin, and the Strait of Hormuz reopen, if Trump agrees to end the economic blockade of Iranian maritime trade. The US blockade is inflicting serious damage on the Iranian economy.
Apart from anything else, Iranian officials see ending the blockade as logical reciprocity. But they also understand time is running out before the closure of the strait causes lasting structural damage to the global economy – if it has not already. This gives them enhanced leverage at the moment.
Yet even if negotiations begin, the same problem that prevented a deal before the war remains. Trump lacks the detailed and institutionalised policy apparatus of his predecessor, Barack Obama, whose 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran the current US president so desperately wants to outdo. Obama’s deal took 20 months of intense wrangling to complete. Trump has neither the patience, technical expertise or direct diplomatic connections to achieve the same.
Added to this are new conditions created by the war itself. The fragmentation of Iran’s decision-making process and the empowerment of elites with an even higher tolerance for military and economic pressure have introduced uncertainty into the equation. And Iran has now realised the increased leverage it has through its ability to close a critical artery of the global economy.
Colossal failure
The answer on the nuclear issue may lie in a fudge. Iran could well agree to a moratorium on uranium enrichment while not yet agreeing to ship out or dilute its enriched uranium – though without ruling that out in order to prolong negotiations.
If slightly more moderate heads in Tehran prevail – and that remains a very big if – it would be an obvious concession to make. Iran’s geographic advantages and ballistic missile capabilities have established a credible deterrent against future attack.
The question is whether anything short of total surrender on the nuclear issue is acceptable to Trump, and whether he is willing to resist inevitable Israeli opposition to blurring this red line. If not, he has already threatened to resume bombing at a “much higher intensity” than before.
Yet there are serious doubts about whether he has the stomach for this. And even if he does, it is difficult to see how any amount of US and Israeli bombing can force the Iranian regime to surrender.
Trump’s shifting aims for the war and desperate scramble for an exit underscore that this entire enterprise has been a colossal strategic failure. It will define his legacy, reshape the Middle East and impose further misery on the Iranian people – the very opposite of what he has repeatedly said he wants to do.
The war has has shattered confidence among US regional allies that Washington can protect them. It has also alienated traditional US allies who were blamed and then punished for failing to solve a problem they neither created nor could resolve. The US and Israeli attacks have further entrenched a brutal regime that will now be even harder to negotiate with, while completely marginalising moderate voices inside Iran.
If negotiations can prevail, the successes the US president and his advisers trumpet – the destruction of parts of Iran’s military-industrial capacity and navy – are real. Though in the former case probably only temporary and in the latter, demonstrably not critical for maintaining freedom of navigation.
The only positive is that Trump’s brief experiment with military adventurism, an aberration even within his own muddled political trajectory, may now be ending.
Christian Emery 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.
