MIL Submissions Engine

May 8, 2026

From fossicking for fossils to a champion for life on Earth: Sir David Attenborough at 100

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Euan Ritchie, Professor in Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, School of Life & Environmental Sciences, Deakin University

Sir David Attenborough turns 100 this week.

Very few people have the good fortune to live for a century. Fewer still achieve so much and touch so many lives.

Across his seven decade career with the BBC, Attenborough ushered in the transition from black and white to colour television. He gave the now legendary comedy troupe Monty Python their lucky break, greenlighting their Flying Circus. His keen eye and care for viewers is in part why tennis balls are yellow, not white – they’re much easier to see on screen.

But Attenborough is, of course, most famous for his nature documentaries. For decades, he has fronted the camera to educate, entertain and inspire billions of people about the complexity, wonder and majesty of the natural world, and the many threats it faces. It wasn’t a given – Attenborough was told early in his career his teeth were too big for television!

For ecologists like myself, Attenborough’s work has been a source of deep inspiration. It was instrumental in my decision to pursue a life and a career dedicated to understanding, caring and fighting for the protection of nature. For this gift, I am eternally grateful.

A career driven by curiosity

Attenborough’s connection with nature came early, forged in no small part through an insatiable fascination with fossils – including his childhood joy at discovering an ammonite in the Leicestershire countryside.

He went on to study geology and zoology at Cambridge University, graduating in 1947. He served in the navy and worked in an educational publishing house. Notably, the BBC rejected his first job application as a radio producer in 1950. But he tried again, and joined the BBC as a trainee producer in 1952.

His career in nature documentaries began to bud almost immediately, with his Zoo Quest series beginning in 1954. But it burst into full bloom with the landmark Life on Earth series in 1979, which brought distant locations, extraordinary wildlife and evolution and ecology to TV. It instilled a sense of wonder and awe in audiences, while maintaining and respecting scientific accuracy.

two men, black and white image, TV interview — Early in his career, Attenborough (right) interviewed Edmund Hillary.
Wikimedia, CC BY-NC-ND

The master storyteller

One reason Attenborough has had such success as a communicator is his understated, calm but authoritative demeanour. When you sit down to watch an Attenborough documentary, you feel in safe hands.

His approach isn’t the norm. In other nature documentaries, wildlife can often seem secondary, as props for the presenter.

Some of Sir David’s documentaries didn’t always go to script.

In series such as The Living Planet, The Trials of Life, The Blue Planet, The Planet Earth, and scores of others, Attenborough took us across the globe, revealing nature’s beauty, oddities and extraordinary complexity, as well as its macabre and brutal aspects. The habitats home to the world’s species are brought to life in extraordinary detail. We watch with laughter, trepidation, sadness, anger, excitement and awe, ebbing and flowing as nature’s stories unfold.

Who can forget the first time they saw and heard the extraordinary vocal repertoire and mimicry of a lyrebird, or a curious mountain gorilla’s desire to connect with a fellow great ape? The epic battle for survival between a hatchling iguana and hungry hordes of racer snakes? Or the breathtaking explosion of colour and complexity of a coral reef? Each of these was captured by master cinematographers and the story told to us by Attenborough.

A truly epic chase and battle for survival between iguanas and snakes.

Over his long career, Attenborough has become an icon. He was voted the UK’s best TV presenter of all time. But his prodigious output has come at a personal cost too. One of his regrets is how much time he has spent away from his family.

He is also not off limits to criticism. For a long time, Attenborough focused on the glory of nature, largely omitting the damage humans do through overfishing, deforestation, pollution, spreading exotic species, and other threats. He has also shied away from assigning blame to those most responsible for the harms inflicted on nature.

In 2018, he said too much focus on why so much wildlife is threatened was a “turn-off” for some viewers. Ecologists and conservation scientists can sympathise. We know bombarding people with doom and gloom invites apathy and despair, not a desire to act. It’s a hard line to walk between harsh realities and hope.

To his credit, Attenborough has belatedly focused on these issues in recent years. Footage of plastic pollution in Blue Planet II and the ravages of industrial fishing in Ocean have brought a sharp focus on these issues.

In 2020, he released A Life On Our Planet, which he describes as a “witness statement” to the startling losses of biodiversity he has seen over his lifetime. Rather than just spell out the problems, Attenborough laid out how to solve them – and the role we can all play in fixing the two biggest and deeply interwoven problems nature faces: climate change and biodiversity declines and extinctions.

While Attenborough’s earlier work largely avoided these difficult conversations, they succeeded in bringing nature’s wonder to millions of people. This shouldn’t be overlooked. At a time when more and more of us are cut off from nature, Attenborough’s documentaries forged a new connection. For people to care about losing nature, they first have to know and love it.

Conservation relies on stories

Scientific research rarely leads to the behavioural changes we might hope for. Accumulating facts and evidence is vital. But it’s not enough. What humans respond to is stories.

Alongside other globally renowned voices such as the late, great Jane Goodall, Attenborough’s work telling the stories of nature has shaped public opinion. In turn, it has galvanised conservation efforts such as the push to protect 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030.

As he celebrates his centenary, it’s encouraging to see a new generation and diversity of voices in the media and science communication, advocacy, and scientific community. They speak and share their messages with great clarity, confidence, and passion.

Attenborough is just one person. He can’t replace the vital role of scientists, community leaders, conservationists and policymakers in conserving nature. But no one will ever replace David’s distinctive voice. As he has said:

it seems to me that the natural world is the greatest source of excitement; the greatest source of visual beauty; the greatest source of intellectual interest. It is the greatest source of so much in life that makes life worth living

Hear, hear. Happy birthday for May 8th, David Attenborough.

Euan Ritchie receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action. Euan is a Councillor with the Biodiversity Council.

– ref. From fossicking for fossils to a champion for life on Earth: Sir David Attenborough at 100 – https://theconversation.com/from-fossicking-for-fossils-to-a-champion-for-life-on-earth-sir-david-attenborough-at-100-281229

May 7, 2026

Iran wants oil tariffs paid in Chinese yuan – is the power of the US petrodollar in decline?

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Chris Ogden, Associate Professor in Global Studies, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

After weeks of blockades by Iran and the United States in the Strait of Hormuz, it’s clear the narrow waterway is now pivotal to the outcome of the conflict.

The US has begun to escort ships through the narrow passage, but behind the military manoeuvring lies a deeper development: energy security in the Persian Gulf is in a state of profound flux.

As well as the desire by both Iran and the US to control the global flow of oil, gas, helium and fertilisers from the region, the United Arab Emirates (a key US ally) has withdrawn from OPEC in what’s been called a major blow to the oil cartel.

On top of this, Iran has announced plans to introduce tariffs in the Strait of Hormuz as a form of reparations for the damage caused by the war.

If imposed, these tariffs are estimated to be worth between US$40 billion and $50 billion a year to Iran, and would potentially allow it to mitigate the impact of US economic sanctions.

Crucially, tariffs would be a way to cultivate stronger relations with China because they would be denominated in Chinese yuan, not US dollars. This has the potential to significantly alter regional and global power balances.

In fact, such payments have reportedly already been made by vessels going to China, India and Japan, with the Iranian parliament working to formalise the process. (Iran has also begun accepting payments in cryptocurrency.)

50 years of dominance

If Iran can continue to charge these tariffs it could tilt regional influence away from the US towards China and Asia by eroding the historical dominance of the petrodollar.

Essentially, the petrodollar system has seen the pricing and trading of oil in US dollars. The term dates from the 1970s when the US asked Saudi Arabia to exclusively price its oil in US dollars in return for military aid.

This spread across OPEC (the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries), becoming the benchmark of the global oil trade, bolstering the US dollar as the global reserve currency and underwriting US power.

Oil-producing nations amassed huge petrodollar surpluses – too much to invest only in their own economies – which were funnelled or “recycled” back into US securities and stocks, and other countries’ sovereign wealth funds.

They have become the primary source of revenue for OPEC members, as well as non-member oil exporters Qatar and Norway. This ties these countries to Washington and gives the US significant financial leverage in global affairs. The flow of petrodollars helps finance US deficits and reduce US borrowing costs.

A new paradigm?

If major regional players such as the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia pay Iranian tariffs in “petroyuans”, economist Antonio Bhardwaj has said, it would mark:

the systematic erosion of the petrodollar system and the emergence of the petroyuan as a credible, institutionally embedded alternative framework for settling global energy transactions.

It’s a sizeable “if”, but the introduction of tariffs would also pose a dilemma for countries that supported Iran in the conflict (implicitly or explicitly) and those that didn’t.

As internatinoal relations analyst Pakizah Parveen has written, we would see the emergence of:

a bifurcated global oil market: barrels from compliant parties would move through Hormuz in yuan. In contrast, non-compliant parties would incur significantly higher costs in dollar-denominated barrels.

Such a choice would affect major US allies such as Pakistan, South Korea, Japan and the Philippines, all of which have faced severe economic pressures as a result of the upheavals in the Gulf and Middle East.

Paying tariffs in petroyuan would draw them towards China and play into Beijing’s narrative of being a reliable and more stable economic force. It also mirrors Russia’s request for payment in yuan for its oil since 2025.

Decline of the petrodollar

It would be premature to argue Iranian tariffs will lead to a general “de-dollarisation” of the world economy. But they may be a step towards a devaluing of the US dollar.

By extension, any move by other countries away from the US dollar is a move away from dependence on the US financially and politically. It would also aid China’s push to internationalise the yuan.

For the first time since 1996, global central banks hold more gold in their reserves than US debt securities. The BRICS group of countries may move further away from US influence, with China, India and Brazil having all reduced their US holdings in 2025.

Overall, Iranian tariffs denominated in yuan would be another sign of an emerging multipolar world in which US preeminence is no longer a given. It would mean more strategic flexibility for all countries, great and small, but also more uncertainty.

Chris Ogden is affiliated with the Foreign Policy Centre in London.

– ref. Iran wants oil tariffs paid in Chinese yuan – is the power of the US petrodollar in decline? – https://theconversation.com/iran-wants-oil-tariffs-paid-in-chinese-yuan-is-the-power-of-the-us-petrodollar-in-decline-281858

May 7, 2026

Russia’s pared-down Victory Day parade tells a story: Away from the pomp, war in Ukraine is not going to Putin’s plan

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Lena Surzhko Harned, Associate Teaching Professor of Political Science, Penn State

A police boat patrols the waters of the Moskva River near Red Square, which is decorated for the celebration of the 81st anniversary of the Soviet Union’s victory over Nazi Germany in World War II.
AP Photo/Alexander Zemlianichenko

Victory Day in Russia, which marks the surrender of Nazi Germany to the Soviet Union, has long held particular importance in Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

Yet this year the May 9 celebration – usually replete with extensive parades across the country and a demonstration of military hardware in Moscow – is expected to be significantly pared down. That’s due to Kyiv’s ongoing long-range military capabilities. For the first time in two decades, Russian officials have said, there will be no lavish display of tanks and missiles.

The reality for Putin is that the war in Ukraine, now in its fifth year, continues to be a grueling drain on Russian men, its economy and resources – and may continue to be for some time.

That was underscored by the European Union’s April 23 approval of a US$106 billion loan package to Ukraine. The aid, which will be a boon to Ukraine’s war-torn economy, had been stymied by EU-member Hungary under its former president, Viktor Orban, who was ousted in April 12 elections.

The resumption of EU aid and the removal of a pro-Moscow European voice at the EU represent major blows to Russia’s regional strategy. Perhaps trying to reset the narrative, Russia declared it would mark this Victory Day with a two-day ceasefire with Ukraine. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy responded by saying his country would also observe a ceasefire, starting two days earlier on May 6.

But there remain few immediate signs of a breakthrough in the conflict – and Russia appears chiefly interested in negotiating Ukraine’s future not with Kyiv but with U.S. President Donald Trump, who has been sympathetic to Russian interests.

As a scholar of contemporary politics in Eastern Europe, I see that as part of a pattern of Russian miscalculations and consistent denial of the will of citizens in democratic societies in Eastern Europe. Indeed, it reflects a dominant imperial mindset among Russia’s political elites, which the Kremlin has not altered since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Losing hold of the old Soviet bloc?

While formally recognizing the independence of former Soviet republics in 1991, Moscow has continued to treat those countries as part of its sphere of influence.

For more than 25 years, Russia has pursued a hybrid approach of influencing former Soviet countries, along with others in Eastern Europe. That has included supporting electoral fraud, economic machination, media manipulation and use of force and violence.

Indeed, suspected Russian interference in politics and elections has been a frequent occurrence in Armenia, Georgia, Moldova, Romania and most recently Hungary.

A man in a suit gestures on a stage. — Hungary’s former Prime Minister Viktor Orban was Russia’s most stalwart ally in Europe.
AP Photo / Petr David Josek

But Hungary and Armenia are recent and powerful examples that show the limits of Russian operations. Orban’s loss in Hungary immediately dislodged Russia’s most powerful point of leverage in European politics.

Meanwhile, in Yerevan on May 5, Armenia hosted a bilateral summit with the EU where the country established stronger economic and defense ties to the bloc. It was a stark diplomatic event for the country that has long been a junior ally of Russia’s but which has increasingly moved away from Moscow.

Ukraine: A test of Russian policy

Yet Ukraine remains the focal point of both the extent and limits of Russian external interference.

Putin has been attempting to have a loyal proxy government in the country ever since being spurned by Leonid Kuchma – the second president of Ukraine, who was in office until 2005 – who proclaimed that “Ukraine is not Russia.”

In Ukraine’s 2004 presidential elections, Putin’s Kremlin threw its substantial resources behind Kuchma’s prime minister, Viktor Yanukovich, who was seen as more friendly to Russian interests.

Since then, its relationship with the country has been one of external interference. Putin’s message throughout has been clear: The West, in its fights against Russia, has sought to colonize and destroy Ukraine by supporting nationalist forces against Moscow’s interests.

Facing consistently strong Ukrainian civil society and sovereignty movements, Russia found it difficult to fully implement its goals through political subversion or influence. So Moscow increasingly turned to military options.

In March 2014, Russia moved to annex Crimea and began a war in Ukraine’s eastern border regions of Luhansk and Donetsk.

That war in the east ground on for years, until in 2022 Putin made the decision to double down yet again, this time opting for a full invasion. The goal of the war was in Putin’s own words to “de-militarize” and “de-nazify” Ukraine. Yet, four years later, Putin’s desire for regime change has not yielded the desired results.

The human cost of Russian pursuits

Over the past year, Trump’s commitment to a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia, without first establishing a durable ceasefire, has moved the U.S. position toward Putin’s. That has included Trump’s support for Ukraine territorial concession as the grinding war continues.

Without significant territorial gains, Russia has continued and intensified its campaign of mass airstrikes and drone attacks on Ukrainian population centers. Indeed, 2025 was the deadliest year since the start of the full-scale invasion; civilian deaths were up 26% in 2025 over the previous year.

A rescue worker walks among rubble. — A rescue worker walks inside apartments destroyed by a Russian strike in Odesa, Ukraine, on April 27, 2026.
AP Photo/Michael Shtekel

In the especially cold winter of 2025-26, Russia consistently targeted the energy grids vital to the millions of Ukrainians. Across Ukraine, at the record-low freezing temperatures, people endured daily attacks by drones and artillery, while trying to survive without electricity, heat and running water.

The Kremlin’s plan to put maximum pressure on Ukrainian civilians in the hope that Ukrainians would start blaming their leadership for refusing peace on Putin’s terms has not worked. For its part, the Ukrainian leadership has refused Russia’s maximalist war aims while cautiously continuing a commitment to the U.S.-mediated peace process.

Zelenskyy’s approval ratings remain steady at around 60%. The public opposition to Moscow’s demands on territorial concessions have not budged either, with a majority of Ukrainians continuing to categorically reject territorial concessions. Those numbers have not changed significantly since 2024.

Yet, war and surviving it takes a toll. And the experience of the year of negotiations has left many disillusioned, with some 70% doubting that peace talks will lead to a lasting solution.

A murky future

The last rounds of U.S.-mediated talks between Russia and Ukraine took place Feb. 16, 2026.

While Zelenskyy insists that the talks are not stalled, Russian’s top diplomat, Sergey Lavrov, has said the negotiations are not Russia’s top priority.

Buoyed by high oil prices as a result of the U.S. war in Iran, Russia has pursued a spring offensive and not relinquished its demands on Ukraine’s territories.

Yet this demand remains a nonstarter for Ukraine and Zelenskyy. As the Trump administration embraces the Russian “land for security” plan, Russia and its allies are likely to continue to put pressure on Zelenskyy, portraying him as an obstacle to peace talks.

But especially given Moscow’s recent woes, from losing a reliable ally in Hungary to the related EU loan guarantee, it’s unlikely that a continued grinding war will convince Ukrainians to abandon their sovereignty – or serve Russia’s own security.

Lena Surzhko Harned 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. Russia’s pared-down Victory Day parade tells a story: Away from the pomp, war in Ukraine is not going to Putin’s plan – https://theconversation.com/russias-pared-down-victory-day-parade-tells-a-story-away-from-the-pomp-war-in-ukraine-is-not-going-to-putins-plan-276690

May 7, 2026

Ted Turner didn’t just revolutionize television − he changed the way we see our world

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Michael J. Socolow, Professor of Communication and Journalism, University of Maine

Ted Turner attends the CNN launch event in Atlanta, Ga., on June 1, 1980. Rick Diamond/Getty Images

Ted Turner, who died on April 6, 2026, was bright, shrewd and, most of all, lucky. The cable TV visionary proved to be in the right place, at the right time, to change television and video news forever.

Most of his big gambles, on things such as the MGM studio and library, which led to the creation of the Turner Classic Movies channel, paid off handsomely.

But Turner will be remembered mostly for the creation and development of the Cable News Network – CNN – which launched in 1980 and made our knowledge of distant events instantaneous and our world more comprehensible. In this sense, Turner’s legacy extends beyond television. He changed our conception not only of journalism but also of our world.

Turner’s obituaries note his record-setting philanthropy, his impressive conservation efforts and his campaign to make the world safer by securing post-Soviet Union era nuclear weaponry. Over the course of his 87 years, Turner proved an outstanding yachtsman, an active and involved sports team owner and a quotable maverick in the business world.

Yet as a scholar of broadcast history – and a former CNN employee – I think Turner’s ultimate legacy is a bit more atmospheric than measurable.

He changed the media ecology in profound and lasting ways. CNN’s arrival disrupted an established media environment, in which broadcast journalism routines and audience viewing habits had become standardized by the ABC, CBS and NBC TV networks.

The ramshackle early CNN, with its farcical “world headquarters” housed in a former Atlanta-area country club, was derided as the “Chicken Noodle Network” by veteran network journalists. But by the mid-1980s it had established profitability, and by 1991, with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Gulf War, it assumed a singular position in America’s – and the world’s – information environment.

CNN had matured to respectability, and Turner was recognized as a visionary by Time magazine, which named him 1991’s Man of the Year. His idea had blossomed into a new arena for global information sharing, and his cable network fully competed with the established broadcast channels on big stories throughout the 1990s.

Right place, right time, right team

Turner’s cable TV news revolution required significant collaboration. The fulfillment of his vision needed luck, inherited money, innovative new technologies, supportive partners and even federal regulatory intervention.

For example, had Newton Minow’s Federal Communications Commission not pushed Congress to pass the All-Channel Receiver Act of 1962, American TV manufacturers would likely never have placed the UHF dial on their sets. That UHF dial made additional local TV competition possible by allowing more stations to broadcast.

In 1970, Turner purchased UHF Channel 17 in Atlanta, which he named WTGC for “Turner Communications Group,” and UHF Channel 36 in Charlotte, North Carolina, which he named WRET for “Robert Edward Turner,” and began building his broadcasting empire.

By the mid-1970s, the cost of satellite distribution to cable system operators had decreased to such an extent that Turner realized – and seized – an opportunity to nationally distribute his local station. He worked with satellite and cable system operators, building early relationships that would prove beneficial to everyone in the cable industry as it developed over the 1980s and ’90s.

In 1979 and 1980, he used these relationships to build the first 24-hour TV network, but it was his internal hires that made the original channel function. To launch CNN, Turner hired veterans of the TV news business, including Robert Wussler, who had previously been president of CBS Sports and the CBS Television Network. And he hired Reese Schonfeld, who had previously founded the Independent Television News Association, a national syndicator of pooled local TV programming.

A man stands in a newsroom, arms folded. — Ted Turner in the newsroom of his Cable News Network in Atlanta in 1985.
AP Photo

It was Turner’s vision, investments and established partnerships that made CNN possible. But the creation of the network proved a team effort requiring managerial competence and veteran television production experience.

CNN’s success was never assured. The channel continually lost money in its initial years. But the idea of 24-hour TV news being delivered to paying subscribers, through their cable system operators, proved so valuable that as early as 1981, two CBS executives secretly jetted to Atlanta to meet with Turner and Wussler about purchasing the network.

“I’ll sell you CNN,” he told them. But the deal floundered when the CBS executives would not accept anything less than 51% ownership – and control – of the channel. “You want control? You don’t buy control of Ted Turner’s companies,” he explained. “Forty-nine percent or less.”

Only four years later, Turner would turn the tables and attempt to take over CBS.

Turner came very close to living long enough to see CBS and CNN under a single ownership. CBS’ parent company, Paramount Skydance, is closing in on the purchase of Warner Bros. Discovery, the corporation that owns CNN.

Yet today, these two once hugely profitable news operations have been subsumed within massive multinational corporations, with their legacy brand equity providing as much value to their ownership as their journalism. Turner had long bemoaned the managerial fate of his cable news channel, which he sold to Warner Bros. in 1996.

Success invites criticism, establishes a legacy

Turner is one of the few figures in American media history who left a clearly identifiable legacy. There was a media world that existed before CNN and the one that came after. CNN’s success gave rise to competitors such as MSNBC, Fox News and others.

These channels simultaneously differentiated themselves from CNN while constantly measuring themselves against their older rival. But Turner’s original vision was distinct from the panel programs and punditry that’s now replaced original reporting from around the world.

Four men dressed in suits stand in a newsroom. — President Bill Clinton tours CNN’s new studios in Atlanta with Ted Turner on May 3, 1994.
AP Photo/Dennis Cook

Turner wanted to own and operate a global news organization where the news would always be the star, and where, like the classic wire services, professional reporting would be instant and accurate. And he wanted to make a fortune while doing it.

When he finally succeeded, critics began to complain about what journalist and academic Tom Rosenstiel called “The Myth of CNN” in a cover story in The New Republic in 1994. Scholars bemoaned CNN for its privileging good visuals over context and depth. They argued that its foreign coverage failed to maintain sufficient independence from the U.S. government.

Dictators and terrorists around the world learned to exploit CNN to get their messages across to the American public. In this sense, CNN’s neutrality, once a source of respect and credibility, could also undermine it by making the channel easily exploitable.

Billions of people around the world now take for granted the profusion of news access to anywhere on earth, at any time of day or night. That world was unimaginable before Turner’s work to make CNN conceivable and then real.

His legacy is not simply a series of cable channels but an entirely new way of thinking about information retrieval and access. Think about that the next time you scroll past video clips from London, Tokyo, Beirut or Mexico City, or check out breaking news videos from Ukraine or Tehran. And thank Ted for making such a world possible.

Michael J. Socolow 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. Ted Turner didn’t just revolutionize television − he changed the way we see our world – https://theconversation.com/ted-turner-didnt-just-revolutionize-television-he-changed-the-way-we-see-our-world-282434

May 7, 2026

Yémen–Somalie : l’inquiétante coopération entre ennemis idéologiques menace le commerce mondial

Source: The Conversation – in French – By Brendon Novel, Candidat au doctorat en science politique, Université de Montréal

Dans une région stratégique pour le commerce mondial, des ennemis idéologiques pourraient aujourd’hui coopérer. Les insurgés houthistes du Yémen et le groupe somalien Al-Chabab, branche d’Al-Qaida la plus puissante au monde, échangeraient des ressources logistiques et militaires selon plusieurs rapports de l’ONU et du renseignement étatsunien, sans qu’il soit toutefois question d’une alliance formelle.

Ces échanges concernent notamment des technologies militaires, dont des drones, qui pourraient accroître la capacité d’Al-Chabab à opérer bien au-delà du territoire somalien, dans une zone déjà marquée par de fortes tensions sécuritaires.

Le mouvement Ansar Allah (dont les partisans sont les « Houthistes ») contrôle une partie du nord du Yémen et dispose de capacités militaires lui permettant de perturber la navigation en mer Rouge. Al-Chabab, de son côté, contrôle de larges portions du territoire somalien et mène une insurrection armée contre le gouvernement central.

Dans le cadre de mes recherches doctorales en science politique à l’Université de Montréal, j’ai été amené à m’intéresser aux questions de sécurité dans la Corne de l’Afrique, et plus largement dans le bassin de la mer Rouge, qui constitue l’une des principales routes du commerce mondial entre l’Asie et l’Europe via le canal de Suez.

Des liens opportunistes

Les premières mentions d’une coopération entre les deux groupes remontent à 2024. Le panel d’experts sur le Yémen de l’ONU est le premier à avoir alerté sur un trafic d’armes en expansion entre les côtes somaliennes et yéménites, toutes deux en proie à des conflits depuis 1991 et 2014 respectivement. Ce même panel s’est aussi inquiété d’une coopération croissante entre les deux organisations, tant sur le plan opérationnel que logistique.

Des cadres houthistes se seraient effectivement rendus en Somalie pour y établir des liens directs. Il est également probable que des connexions aient été établies par des individus extérieurs aux deux groupes, mais intégrés à des réseaux criminels qui leur sont liés. Des flux de contrebande de tout type — y compris d’armes — prospèrent en effet depuis longtemps le long des côtes de la Corne de l’Afrique et du Yémen.

À première vue, il peut paraître contre-intuitif que ces deux organisations coopèrent. Les Houthistes sont d’obédience chiite zaydite, alors qu’Al-Chabab s’inscrit dans un courant rigoriste de l’islam sunnite particulièrement anti-chiite.

L’existence d’intérêts matériels circonstanciels entre deux forces idéologiquement opposées n’a toutefois rien d’inédit. Le mouvement houthiste cherche à gagner en influence régionale et à diversifier ses sources de revenus, tandis qu’Al-Chabab vise à enrichir son arsenal militaire.

Al-Chabab en quête de drones

Toujours selon l’ONU, des militants d’Al-Chabab auraient été formés au Yémen aux technologies de drone et à la fabrication d’engins explosifs sophistiqués. Par-là, Al-Chabab cherche à rendre ses assauts plus efficaces et meurtriers contre les forces gouvernementales somaliennes et leurs soutiens internationaux.

Ce faisant, les Houthistes auraient déjà fourni des drones armés aux militants somaliens qui leur ont également demandé des missiles guidés. Très utilisés au cours des attaques houthistes contre des navires en mer Rouge et dans le golfe d’Aden entre 2023 et 2025, ces équipements conféreraient à Al-Chabab une capacité de nuisance encore plus importante, en Somalie et au-delà.

Jusqu’à présent, l’organisation se sert de drones essentiellement pour des activités de surveillance et de renseignement. L’acquisition de drones offensifs donnerait à ses militants un levier de plus face à une armée somalienne déjà en grande difficulté.

Une expansion territoriale quasi continue

Depuis son émergence au milieu des années 2000, Al-Chabab s’est imposé comme la branche d’Al-Qaida la plus puissante au monde. L’organisation contrôle aujourd’hui de larges portions du territoire somalien, au centre et au sud du pays. Sa force repose d’abord sur les défaillances militaires, politiques et économiques du gouvernement somalien et de ses soutiens étrangers.

Al-Chabab prospère en effet sur l’échec du processus de reconstruction de l’État somalien selon un modèle fédéral. L’organisation exploite en particulier les rivalités — parfois violentes — entre l’armée fédérale et les forces régionales en quête d’autonomie. Ses militants profitent de ces dissensions, toujours plus importantes, alors que le pouvoir central à Mogadiscio, la capitale, s’efforce de centraliser le pouvoir et les ressources économiques du pays.

Comme l’armée somalienne, les forces internationales engagées à leur côté depuis le milieu des années 2000 — notamment celles de l’Union africaine — sont mises en difficulté par Al-Chabab.

Les États-Unis sont également en peine. En 2025, le nombre de frappes états-uniennes en Somalie n’a jamais été aussi important. Si elles ont permis d’affaiblir le groupe État islamique dans le nord du pays (aussi suspectées de liens avec les Houthistes), elles n’ont que peu affecté le contrôle territorial d’Al-Chabab.

Déjà des milliers d’abonnés à l’infolettre de La Conversation. Et vous ? Abonnez-vous gratuitement à notre infolettre pour mieux comprendre les grands enjeux contemporains.

Risques d’instabilité régionale accrue

Après l’opération Hilaac (« éclair »), menée avec le soutien de Washington contre l’État islamique dans la province autonomiste du Puntland au nord, une nouvelle opération, Onkod (« tonnerre »), se prépare contre Al-Chabab dans une région côtière à l’ouest du Puntland. Les militants de l’organisation y renforcent donc leurs positions. Leurs actions — pour l’instant limitées — pourraient alors déborder sur le golfe d’Aden qui voit passer près de 30 % du trafic mondial de conteneurs.

Entre 2023 et 2025 déjà, ce passage maritime a traversé une période de forte instabilité du fait des attaques houthistes en mer Rouge en soutien au peuple palestinien. Ces opérations ont mobilisé l’attention et les ressources des forces internationales présentes dans la région, contribuant à un regain des attaques de piraterie depuis les côtes somaliennes. Si ces attaques ont diminué aujourd’hui, un retour de l’instabilité n’est pas exclu.

Une présence d’Al-Chabab plus marquée dans le nord de la Somalie pourrait y contribuer. Dans le même temps, les Houthistes pourraient eux aussi participer à l’instabilité de cet espace maritime, dans un contexte de guerre ouverte entre l’Iran, les États-Unis et Israël depuis février. L’économie mondiale, déjà exposée aux perturbations du détroit d’Ormuz, en serait alors d’autant plus fragilisée.

Brendon Novel ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

– ref. Yémen–Somalie : l’inquiétante coopération entre ennemis idéologiques menace le commerce mondial – https://theconversation.com/yemen-somalie-linquietante-cooperation-entre-ennemis-ideologiques-menace-le-commerce-mondial-278176

May 7, 2026

Health authorities work to contain cruise ship hantavirus outbreak

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Daniel Pastula, Professor of Neurology, Medicine (Infectious Diseases), and Epidemiology, University of Colorado Anschutz

The cruise ship MV Hondius sits anchored off Praia, the capital of Cape Verde, on May 5, 2026, before setting course for Spain on May 6. AFP via Getty Images

The MV Hondius, a Dutch cruise ship with a deadly outbreak of hantavirus, was on its way to the Canary Islands on May 7, 2026, after evacuating three ill passengers for treatment.

The World Health Organization confirmed the outbreak on May 4, noting a total of seven infections, with three deaths since the outbreak began in early April. An eighth case was confirmed on May 6.

Because of the illness’s one- to eight-week incubation period, additional cases may still be identified. Health officials around the world are monitoring passengers who disembarked from the ship in the early days of the outbreak in late April. Health officials emphasize, however, that the risk to the public from the outbreak is low.

I’m a medical epidemiologist – here’s what you need to know about the virus and how the outbreak is playing out.

What is hantavirus?

Hantavirus isn’t just one virus but a group of closely related viruses found throughout the world. Their natural reservoir is rodents, such as wild mice, rats and moles. Infected rodents don’t get symptoms, but the virus replicates in their cells. It sometimes spills over into other animals, including humans, and can cause severe disease and even death.

There are two general types of hantaviruses. Old World hantaviruses, typically found in Europe and Asia, generally affect the kidneys. Their mortality rate in people is 15% or less.

New World hantaviruses, such as the one causing the outbreak on the Hondius, occur in North and South America. The best-known strains of this type are the Andes virus, the strain that was confirmed in the cruise ship outbreak, and the Sin Nombre virus, which likely caused the death of Betsy Arakawa, Gene Hackman’s wife, in March 2025.

These viruses generally affect the lungs and are fatal in about 40% of cases. Symptoms start with a flu-like illness and can progress quickly to intense inflammation in the lungs that leads to lung and heart failure.

A person with a hantavirus infection may experience symptoms anywhere from a week to eight weeks after exposure. There is no treatment; doctors can offer only supportive care, such as hydration, artificial respiration or dialysis.

How do these viruses spread?

Cases of hantavirus infection are rare. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recorded 890 cases in the U.S. from 1993, when surveillance began, through the end of 2023.

The vast majority of cases occur in China, with thousands of cases caused by Old World hantavirus strains occurring annually.

Most often, people become infected with these viruses by inhaling aerosolized urine or droppings from infected rodents. Imagine a cabin infested with mice infected by the virus – sweeping the cabin would shake up dust from the mouse urine and droppings, distributing it through the air and enabling people to inhale the viral particles. There’s a smaller risk of getting ill through direct contact, such as by being bitten by an infected rodent or by touching its saliva.

Health officials are tracking people who left the ship before the outbreak was identified.

The worry on the cruise ship is human-to-human transmission. Epidemiologists had previously found hints that the Andes virus may be transmitted from one person to another under certain circumstances, such as close, sustained contact in close quarters, like a small cruise ship.

What do investigators think happened on the cruise ship?

The Hondius, now carrying close to 150 passengers, started out in Argentina on April 1 and was sailing north on a 33-day journey.

There were no reports of rodents on the ship, so it’s unlikely the illness started there. According to news reports, the people who first got sick had been touring Argentina and Chile for months beforehand. Researchers speculate they likely got infected during an activity in which they were exposed to a rodent carrying the disease or its excrement.

Given these viruses’ weekslong incubation period, these people may have been feeling fine when they boarded the ship, before eventually falling ill. They may have then spread Andes virus to others through breathing shared air or other close contact in close quarters.

What happens now?

The ship is now traveling to Spain, and multiple patients are being evacuated along the way.

Also, researchers are tracking 29 people who disembarked from the ship on April 24, before the outbreak was identified. People who had significant exposure will likely be quarantined to watch for symptoms and be isolated if symptoms develop.

Residents of three U.S. states are being monitored. Dutch officials announced on May 7 that a flight attendant who was not a passenger but briefly interacted with a passenger was hospitalized with possible hantavirus symptoms.

Is the situation dangerous?

Health officials can’t rule out that additional hantavirus cases may emerge in the cruise ship outbreak, but beyond the ship the risk remains low. That’s because most cases of hantavirus, including Andes virus, are acquired directly from rodents or their excrement and not from other humans.

It’s important to note, however, that even on vacation, people should pay attention to risks for infection – particularly as they may be very different from the ones they’re used to at home.

Daniel Pastula 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. Health authorities work to contain cruise ship hantavirus outbreak – https://theconversation.com/health-authorities-work-to-contain-cruise-ship-hantavirus-outbreak-282343

May 7, 2026

Iran war has shown the limits of US power

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

Donald Trump in the Mar a Lago situation room overseeing the launch of Operation Epic Fury on February 28. White House gallery

In his 1873 book On War, the great Prussian military strategist Carl von Clausewitz wrote that: “War is the realm of uncertainty.” He would have been at home in Washington this week where Clausewitz’s “fog of war” appears to have descended on the White House, at times obscuring reality.

On Tuesday, the US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, briefed reporters that the US plan 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 was, of course, the way things were before the war actually started.

But uncertainty about what this war was actually all about has been a hallmark of the past two months. When the conflict began on the last day of February, the US said it was about preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Although the US president, Donald Trump, added a layer of complexity by saying it was also about regime change.

Trump’s closest ally, the Israeli prime minister, added another later by insisting this was also about getting rid of Iran’s ballistic missiles and launchers and neutralising its proxies in the region.

Christian Emery, an expert in international relations at University College London – who specialises in US-Iranian affairs – sees this lack of coherence about what the war is for as underscoring “that this entire enterprise has been a colossal strategic failure”.

As things stand it now appears possible that an interim deal could well open the Strait of Hormuz to allow the global economy to return to something like normal. But the main reasons the US and Israel launched the war are unlikely to be resolved any time soon and the episode has proved to Tehran – and the rest of the world – that Iran can use its geography to its strategic advantage whenever it chooses.

For Bamo Nouri and Inderjeet Parmar, experts in international security at City St George’s Unversity of London – who have been regular contributors to our coverage of the conflict – the episode has been an object lesson in the limits of power. The US and Israel exercised considerable military superiority to Iran and have used it to devastating effect. But this is not how conflict works in the 21st century.

The US and Israel were chasing different outcomes so there was no strategic coherence to their war aims. And they underestimated Iran’s durability under pressure. Iran didn’t need to win, just to endure. “As the war progressed” they write, “the fantasy of decisive victory collapsed under the weight of economic, political and strategic reality”.

Interestingly, the Trump administration is now saying that Operation Epic Fury finished about a month ago. US forces are now engaged in Project Freedom, a humanitarian operation to help ships stranded in the Strait of Hormuz to transit the waterway.

As Andrew Gawthorpe, an expert in US foreign policy from Leiden University, notes, this change of emphasis appeared to emerge as Republicans in Congress were insisting that the administration was legally obliged under the War Powers Act to seek authorisation for the conflict.

Gawthorpe believes the war’s unpopularity is allowing Congress to claw back some of the influence it had over the way the US uses its military.

As we’ve noted before, the main theme of the past few weeks, since the US launched its blockade of Iranian ports to match Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz, is which side can absorb more pain and pressure. US consumers are facing increased prices at the gas pumps which has fed through to a higher inflation rate generally.

But the headline US CPI increase of 3.3% last month is dwarfed by inflation in Iran which is reported to have hit 50%. It’s worth noting that it was inflation and the general economic malaise which kicked off the huge protests that wracked Iran in January.

More pressingly, Iran’s inability to export its oil thanks to the US blockade means that sooner of later it will need to close down its oil production. As engineers and oil production experts Nima Shokri and Martin J Blunt explain, this can be done, but it’s by no means easy and risks seriously damaging the wells.

Global affair

They’ll be watching this all very closely in Beijing of course. The US president is due to visit Beijing next week to meet Xi Jinping for the first time since the two met on the sidelines of the Apec conference in South Korea last October.

So it was interesting to see that Iranian foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, visited Beijing this week to meet with his Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi. In normal times, China buys between 80% and 90% of Iran’s seaborne oil exports – and it has been very clear that it wants to see the Strait of Hormuz opened and “a complete cessation of fighting…without delay”.

But China-watcher Tom Harper of the University of East London, believes that Beijing can see advantages in the US getting bogged down in a fullscale war in the Middle East and might go as far as to offer military support to Tehran if that happens. While China has denied providing shoulder-launched Manpad missiles to Iran, Tehran is using its BeiDou satellite navigational system (a sort of Chinese GPS) to aim its missiles.

If you find these expert takes on an increasingly dangerous world useful, please consider supporting us with a donation.

Wang also said that China recognises Iran’s “legitimate right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy” – something it sees as a sovereignty issue. Which should all make for an interesting encounter between Trump and the Chinese president, Xi Jinping (if the trip goes ahead, that is).

The surprise player in all this has been Pakistan, writes Natasha Lindstaedt, an international affairs expert at the University of Essex. But as Lindstaedt points out, Pakistan has a long diplomatic track record with both the US and Iran. In 1981, two years after Washington and Tehran severed relations in the wake of the revolution that brought the Islamic Republic into being, Pakistan established a dedicated section of its Washington embassy to handling Iranian affairs in the US.

Washington and Islamabad have had their ups and downs, but things have grown closer with Trump in the White House – and Pakistan has tried to do all the right things to court Trump, including nominating him for the Nobel Peace Prize and joining his board of peace. Lindstaedt walks us through this intriguing ménage à trois.

– ref. Iran war has shown the limits of US power – https://theconversation.com/iran-war-has-shown-the-limits-of-us-power-282421

May 7, 2026

Trois morts sur un bateau de croisière : ce qu’on sait du hantavirus andin

Source: The Conversation – in French – By Benoit Barbeau, Associate professor, Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)

Le bateau MV Hondius, foyer du hantavirus qui a causé la mort de trois passagers et en a infecté au moins cinq autres, a quitté le Cap-Vert mercredi et est attendu samedi à Tenerife, dans l’archipel espagnol des Canaries, d’où l’évacuation des passagers, dont des Canadiens, devrait débuter lundi.

C’est le virus des Andes qui est ici en cause, le seul du groupe des hantavirus transmissible entre humains, notamment par des gouttelettes de salive et par l’urine.

Il est peu probable que la première personne contaminée par ce hantavirus l’ait été à bord du MV Hondius ni au cours d’une escale. Le temps d’incubation pointe vers une contamination survenue avant le départ d’Ushuaïa, dans le sud de l’Argentine, au début du mois d’avril. Plusieurs des passagers de la croisière ont voyagé en Argentine et au Chili, où le virus est endémique.

Le risque présenté par ce hantavirus est « faible » pour « le reste du monde », a déclaré l’Organisation mondiale de la santé (OMS), qui balaie toute similitude avec la pandémie de Covid-19.

Mais que sait-on de ce hantavirus ? Nous avons joint le professeur Benoît Barbeau du département des sciences biologiques de l’UQAM, expert en virologie, dont les recherches portent sur les rétrovirus humains et les coronavirus.

The Conversation Canada : À quoi avons-nous affaire avec l’hantavirus andin ?

Dr Benoît Barbeau : Il fait partie d’un groupe de virus regroupé sous le genre orthohantavirus. Le type andin peut occasionnellement être transmis à l’humain par des rongeurs (par les particules d’excréments ou d’urines) et provoquer des syndromes pulmonaires et hémorragiques, potentiellement mortels.

Ce qu’on comprend, mais on n’en a pas la certitude pour l’instant, c’est qu’une personne aurait visité des endroits, en Argentine, où il y avait présence de souris sylvestres infectées. Après avoir été en contact avec des particules d’excréments ou d’urine, sans le savoir, elle aurait pu inhaler celles-ci ou tout autre type de matière similaire. C’est le scénario le plus probable. Cette personne serait arrivée sur le bateau en étant déjà infectée. La contamination d’autres passagers s’est poursuivie à partir de là.

Il faut savoir que l’hantavirus andin n’a pas une efficacité de transmission très forte entre humains. Ça se fait par les urines, la salive, les contacts répétés… Par exemple, sur un bateau, dans une même cabine, avec des contacts fréquents. Le virus n’est pas transmissible en aérosol, comme la grippe ou la Covid. C’est quand même rassurant.

TCC : Il n’est pas si aisément transmissible, mais beaucoup plus mortel…

B.B. : En effet. Ce virus provoque deux types de maladies : une fièvre hémorragique, qui fait penser à Ebola, et qui a un taux de mortalité important (NDLR Jusqu’à 40 %), ou un syndrome pulmonaire, tout aussi létal. À l’heure actuelle, on n’a pas de traitements antiviraux. On ne peut que soulager les symptômes.

TCC : C’est un virus moins efficace dans sa transmission, mais son incubation peut être longue…

B.B : En effet, l’incubation peut aller jusqu’à huit semaines, contre deux à trois jours pour la Covid. Ça complexifie évidemment la chaîne de transmission. Cela dit, la personne ne sera pas contagieuse pendant ces huit semaines, mais fort probablement davantage quand les symptômes vont apparaître.

TCC : Pourquoi l’Amérique du Sud est-elle plus touchée par cette forme d’hantavirus ?

B.B. : On ne sait pas trop. De manière générale, en fait, on en sait peu sur ce virus, qui a été identifié à la fin des années 70 seulement. C’est donc un virus relativement récent pour nous, même si on sait que dans l’histoire, certaines éclosions y seraient liées. Il est présent dans plusieurs endroits (dont au Canada), mais demeure très peu prévalent. Depuis 1989, on en a recensé une centaine de cas chez l’humain au Canada. Parmi eux, une vingtaine sont décédés. Cela dit, peut-être que d’autres personnes ont été infectées et non recensées.

Ce qu’on sait, c’est que la souris sylvestre est la principale souche d’infection. Elle peut être porteuse du virus, mais plus tolérante à l’infection, donc elle n’est pas malade, et les risques de contagion sont plus grands. Elle devient un réservoir. Un peu comme la chauve-souris pour plusieurs virus, comme Ebola, les coronavirus, et le virus de la rage.

TCC : Est-ce que la présente éclosion, très médiatisée, poussera à développer davantage la recherche ?

B.B. : Possiblement… On espère un éveil du côté des gouvernements. On aurait intérêt à mieux investiguer. Mais on finance davantage la recherche sur les virus qui ont le plus d’impact sur un pays et sur sa population. Et comme la majorité des hantavirus n’est pas transmissible d’humain à humain, il n’y a pas tant d’intérêt pour les gouvernements d’investir dans la recherche.

Déjà des milliers d’abonnés à l’infolettre de La Conversation. Et vous ? Abonnez-vous gratuitement à notre infolettre pour mieux comprendre les grands enjeux contemporains.

Mettre de l’énergie et de l’argent pour développer un vaccin ne serait pas très rentable non plus, car un vaccin efficace pour le type andin, par exemple, serait fort possiblement inefficace pour les autres hantavirus, et il y en a beaucoup. Ça ajoute à la complexité. Il vaut mieux investir dans les traitements, c’est plus efficace. On pourrait commencer par réutiliser ou tester d’autres antiviraux connus.

TCC : À quoi s’attendre pour la suite ?

B.B. : Tout dépend de ce qui va découler des analyses épidémiologiques… Il y a des passagers qui ont quitté le bateau de croisière avant qu’on sache qu’il y avait une éclosion. Il faut les retracer, eux et les gens avec qui ils ont été en contact. Le transfert des passagers toujours à bord du bateau doit se faire dans les prochains jours, à partir des îles Canaries. Les gens seront rapatriés dans leur pays respectif. Ils seront isolés et confinés avec des mesures qui seront certainement strictes, il n’y a donc pas de risque de transmission dans la population.

Je crois qu’on peut être confiant. Mais il faut rester très vigilant.

Benoit Barbeau ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

– ref. Trois morts sur un bateau de croisière : ce qu’on sait du hantavirus andin – https://theconversation.com/trois-morts-sur-un-bateau-de-croisiere-ce-quon-sait-du-hantavirus-andin-282320

May 7, 2026

Así escapa el hantavirus al control del sistema inmunitario: ¿cómo puede evitarse?

Source: The Conversation – (in Spanish) – By Narcisa Martínez Quiles, Catedrática de Inmunología (UCM) y Especialista en Inmunología (Ministerio de Sanidad), Universidad Complutense de Madrid

La pandemia de covid-19 transformó nuestra percepción del riesgo infeccioso y polarizó el debate sobre las medidas de salud pública. En este contexto, el actual brote de síndrome cardiopulmonar por hantavirus genera incertidumbre y preguntas legítimas: ¿es realmente rara la transmisión entre personas? ¿Debemos adoptar medidas individuales de protección?

Considerando que hasta un 40 % de los casos pueden escapar al control inmunitario, resulta esencial analizar qué dice realmente la evidencia científica sobre transmisión, respuesta inmunitaria y prevención.

Lo que ya ésta confirmado es que el brote en el crucero MV Hondius se debe a la variante Andes. Desafortunadamente, hablamos de un patógeno con una elevada tasa de mortalidad, y que, además, es uno de los pocos hantavirus conocidos capaz de transmitirse de persona a persona. Veamos ahora cómo infecta y se contagia.

Así ataca a los pulmones

El hantavirus Andes (ANDV) tiene como diana principal los pulmones y puede causar el síndrome cardiopulmonar (HCPS). ¿Cómo llega hasta allí? ¿Qué células infecta? Estudios con microscopía avanzada en biopsias de personas infectadas fallecidas indican que el virus puede multiplicarse en las células de los alvéolos pulmonares (epitelio y células endoteliales) y liberarse hacia las vías respiratorias. También se han detectado partículas virales en macrófagos, células inmunitarias que pueden desplazarse y eliminarse al toser y expectorar (expulsar flema o moco).

Además, la presencia del virus en glándulas salivares humanas sugiere que la saliva podría actuar como una vía adicional de salida y posible transmisión entre personas. Por lo tanto, un individuo infectado podría transmitir el virus fundamentalmente en las gotículas de saliva y/o componentes expectorados del pulmón expulsados al toser.

Aunque no es la vía principal de contagio, no puede descartarse que partículas más pequeñas o aerosoles puedan permanecer en suspensión durante cierto tiempo en ambientes poco ventilados, facilitando una posible transmisión por vía aérea. De hecho, algo similar ocurrió inicialmente con el covid-19, cuando el papel de los aerosoles no fue reconocido de forma inmediata.

¿Cuán contagioso es?

Recordemos que en la pandemia por coronavirus se usaba el número reproductivo epidemiológico (R₀), que indica cuántas personas puede infectar de media un caso durante su fase contagiosa. Pues bien, para el ANDV se ha estimado en torno a R₀= 1,5, según uno de los brotes mejor caracterizados, que tuvo lugar en Argentina y ocasionó 34 casos y 11 fallecidos.

Contextualizada, la transmisibilidad del hantavirus Andes no es insignificante. El virus más contagioso conocido en humanos, el del sarampión, tiene un R₀ de aproximadamente 12-18. En comparación, el coronavirus inicial o variante Wuhan tuvo un R₀ inicial de alrededor de 2-3, aunque la variante ómicron alcanzó cifras más altas. Frente a estos valores, agentes patógenos como el hantavirus Andes presentan una transmisibilidad más limitada, que se favorece en contextos de contacto estrecho.

¿Cómo se controló el citado brote en Argentina? ¿Funcionaron las medidas de control, tales como la localización, aislamiento y tratamiento de los casos? Afortunadamente, sí surtieron efecto: se observó que el R₀ descendió de 2,12 antes de aplicar las medidas de control a 0,96, lo que indica que la transmisión pasó de expandirse a prácticamente detenerse. Por lo tanto, intentemos mantener la calma y la racionalidad en la situación actual.

¿Por qué falla el sistema inmunitario?

Transmitidos por los roedores, los hantavirus tienen como material genético RNA, con características distintas al nuestro, que una vez en el interior celular es reconocido como extraño. Así se inicia una cascada de señales que culmina en la producción de interferones tipo I (IFN-I), sustancias que son una parte esencial de nuestra primera línea de defensa.

Los interferones producidos y secretados por las células infectadas se unen a los receptores de membrana en prácticamente todas las células del organismo, incluidas las inmunitarias. De esta forma activan todo un programa antiviral que es vital para controlar las infecciones por virus y otros patógenos.

El “estado antiviral” hace que las células del organismo frenen su actividad a la mínima necesaria (house keeping), con el objetivo de evitar que el virus se aproveche de nuestra maquinaria celular para replicarse.

En las células inmunitarias tiene efectos diversos, todos encaminados a eliminar al invasor. Por ejemplo, potencian la acción de las células natural killer (NK), que eliminan células infectadas, o activa a las células dendríticas, que son el nexo con la inmunidad adaptativa, productora de anticuerpos y de linfocitos citotóxicos específicos frente a componentes del virus.

Entonces, ¿cómo evade al sistema inmunitario? Desde hace ya casi 20 años se sabe que el hantavirus Andes bloquea específicamente la producción de interferones tipo I. Otros hantavirus que no causan enfermedad en humanos carecen de esa habilidad tan nefasta. En parte, esto explica su peligrosidad, pues desarma la primera línea de defensa.

El hantavirus Andes posee la capacidad de bloquear la respuesta inmunitaria, fundamentalmente impidiendo la producción de interferones por las células infectadas a través de varios mecanismos moleculares complejos. Figura realizada por Zhiwen Hai y Weihua Yang, contratados predoctorales en la Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
CC BY

¿Hay tratamiento?

Aparte de los cuidados paliativos hospitalarios –tan importantes– de soporte crítico intensivo, actualmente no hay tratamiento. Tampoco se han desarrollado vacunas. Sin embargo, si consideramos que otras infecciones virales crónicas, como la hepatitis B y C, son suscetibles de ser tratadas con IFN-I, surge la pregunta: ¿podrían usarse también con los pasajeros del crucero? ¿Se podría hacer alguna terapia preventiva o profiláctica? Diversos trabajos apuntan a que ese podría ser el caso, aunque sólo se ha estudiado el efecto de IFN-1 en el tratamiento del hantavirus que produce fallo renal. Al parecer, se trata de una línea de investigación abandonada que quizá convendría reevaluarse.

Además, antes del descubrimiento de los antibióticos se inducía un aumento moderado de la temperatura corporal, porque la fiebre potencia múltiples funciones inmunitarias, incluyendo la activación de células innatas y la amplificación de respuestas antivirales mediadas por los interferones tipo I.

¿Cómo podemos protegernos?

Los síntomas por la infección son similares a otras enfermedades respiratorias, por lo que siempre conviene consultar cualquier cuadro sospechoso si se ha estado en zonas donde circula el virus y se presenta dificultad para respirar, fiebre o cualquier otro síntoma similar a los de la gripe o “catarro”.

Recordemos que las probabilidades de contagio en España para la población general actualmente son muy bajas. No obstante, en mi modesta opinión, el uso de mascarillas de protección FFP2 en ambientes concurridos puede prevenir, y quizá más que todo, tranquilizarnos mientras las autoridades sanitarias controlan por completo el brote actual.

Narcisa Martínez Quiles 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.

– ref. Así escapa el hantavirus al control del sistema inmunitario: ¿cómo puede evitarse? – https://theconversation.com/asi-escapa-el-hantavirus-al-control-del-sistema-inmunitario-como-puede-evitarse-282401

May 7, 2026

2026: el verano de la crisis del queroseno, ¿habrá menos turistas?

Source: The Conversation – (in Spanish) – By José Tomás Arnau Domínguez, Departamento de Economía Aplicada, Universitat de València

Aeropuerto Málaga-Costa del Sol. Kiev.Victor/Shutterstock

Se acerca el verano y el cierre del estrecho de Ormuz se mantiene, asfixiando la oferta de petróleo y gas natural y sus derivados (incluido el combustible para aviación). Aunque no hay datos para anticipar una caída generalizada, se están produciendo recargos y cancelaciones que apuntan a un riesgo más concreto: cuando suben los costes, las aerolíneas protegen las rutas más rentables y otros destinos quedan más expuestos.

Una fortaleza con letra pequeña

España llega a esta coyuntura con una posición sólida. En 2025 recibió 96,8 millones de turistas internacionales, un nuevo máximo histórico y un 3,2 % más que el año anterior. Reino Unido, Francia y Alemania fueron los tres principales mercados emisores. Además, la demanda internacional sigue siendo alta y España mantiene una posición fuerte en el mercado europeo de vacaciones.

Pero esa fortaleza tiene letra pequeña. Cuanto mayor es el volumen de turistas internacionales, mayor es la exposición del país a cualquier cambio en la conectividad aérea. El riesgo, por tanto, no nace de una caída de visitantes sino del encarecimiento de una pieza esencial del viaje: el vuelo. No obstante, conviene evitar dos errores:

El alarmismo: unas cancelaciones concretas no anuncian por sí solas una mala temporada.
La complacencia: cuando sube el coste de volar, algunos destinos lo notan antes que otros.

Cuando suben los costes, cambian las rutas

Lufthansa ha anunciado la retirada de 20 000 vuelos de corto radio hasta octubre. La cifra es llamativa, pero necesita contexto. Según la propia compañía, el ajuste equivale aproximadamente al 1 % de su capacidad de verano, medida en asientos/kilómetro disponibles (ASK, el número de asientos de un vuelo por la distancia en kilómetros de la ruta). La decisión se concentra en sus vuelos europeos y busca ahorrar unas 40 000 toneladas de combustible.

Cuando el combustible se encarece, las aerolíneas ajustan su programación: reducen frecuencias, cancelan las rutas con menores márgenes de ganancias, concentran sus operaciones en en sus hubs aeroportuarios (centros de conexión que reciben y emiten grandes cantidades de vuelos, pasajeros y mercancías) y protegen los trayectos más rentables. Si volar se hace más caro, la demanda turística puede cambiar de forma.

Estos ajustes no afectan por igual a todos los modelos del negocio aéreo. Las aerolíneas tradicionales (legacy, con tarifas y servicios completos suelen proteger sus rutas estratégicas y hubs principales, concentrando pasajeros y optimizando conexiones.

En cambio, las compañías de bajo coste, que operan con mayor flexibilidad, pueden ajustar muy rápidamente sus rutas, frecuencias e incluso los aeropuertos desde los que operan en función de la rentabilidad. Así, un contexto de costes al alza va a condicionar qué rutas se mantienen y cuáles desaparecen.

Pese a la incertidumbre, muchos turistas seguirán viajando. Puede que ahora reserven antes, reduzcan su estancia, cambien sus fechas de viaje, elijan otro aeropuerto, busquen un destino más cercano o recorten sus gastos de viaje.

El precio altera las decisiones

En España preocupa una crisis en el sector turístico por el peso que este tiene en el PIB nacional (12,6 % en 2024) y porque algunos de los mercados afectados por las tensiones energéticas son grandes clientes turísticos de España.

Tras Reino Unido, Alemania es el segundo mercado turístico para España en gasto, pasajeros aéreos y pernoctas. En 2025 recibió 12 millones de turistas alemanes, un máximo histórico, que gastaron alrededor de 15 800 millones de euros.

Francia también es clave aunque, por proximidad, muchos turistas franceses pueden viajar por carretera. Eso reduce parte de la dependencia aérea pero no la elimina: las conexiones aéreas siguen siendo importantes para islas, ciudades y destinos alejados de la frontera.

A esto se le suma la dependencia de hubs europeos como Fráncfort, Ámsterdam o París. Una parte muy importante del turismo no llega en vuelos directos sino a través de estos grandes aeropuertos de conexión. Así, las decisiones tomadas en estos nodos pueden afectar indirectamente a los destinos españoles.

Por eso no basta con mirar la cifra nacional de turistas. Una reducción de capacidad desde un hub alemán puede no mover demasiado el total nacional. Pero puede afectar a una isla, a una ciudad concreta, a una ruta de temporada o a un segmento de viajeros de alto gasto.

El propio ministro de Industria y Turismo ha advertido que, pese a que España tiene una posición relativamente sólida en reservas y producción de queroseno, eso no la protege si los países emisores de turistas sufren problemas de conectividad o precios.

Leer más:
¿Qué regiones españolas notan más las fluctuaciones en la llegada de turistas?

No todo ‘shock’ externo perjudica

A veces, la inestabilidad en unas regiones desvía la demanda hacia otras. Según la agencia Reuters, se está produciendo un aumento en las reservas de vuelos y hoteles hacia España y Portugal por parte de viajeros que evitan las zonas afectadas por el conflicto en Oriente Medio.

Esto introduce una paradoja: el mismo contexto internacional que encarece el combustible puede hacer que algunos turistas elijan España por considerarla un destino seguro, cercano y bien conectado.

Por eso el análisis debe ser prudente. Un shock externo puede tener efectos negativos y positivos al mismo tiempo: subir el coste de volar, pero también desplazar viajeros desde otros destinos, o afectar a unas rutas pero reforzar otras.

Más asientos no eliminan la incertidumbre

Las aerolíneas prevén para España una temporada de abril a octubre de 2026 alrededor de un 6 % mayor que el año anterior. El crecimiento sería especialmente fuerte en destinos como Alicante, Andalucía, Madrid y Barcelona.

Pero la capacidad programada no siempre coincide con la capacidad finalmente operada. Las aerolíneas pueden ajustar vuelos si suben los costes, si baja la rentabilidad de una ruta o si aparecen problemas de suministro. Por eso conviene mirar los datos durante la temporada, no solo antes de que empiece.

El problema no es perder atractivo, sino que ese atractivo no baste si llegar al destino se vuelve más caro, menos rentable o más incierto para las aerolíneas.

La fragilidad de un modelo que funciona

Esta crisis a las puertas del verano permite distinguir entre una alarma coyuntural y una vulnerabilidad estructural.

La alarma coyuntural sería decir que España va a tener menos turistas este verano por las cancelaciones de algunas aerolíneas. Hoy no hay base suficiente para sostener eso.

La vulnerabilidad estructural es otra cosa: España depende de una enorme red internacional de movilidad. Esa red incluye aerolíneas, combustible, aeropuertos de conexión, precios energéticos, regulación ambiental, conflictos geopolíticos y capacidad de gasto de los hogares en los países emisores.

Cuando todo funciona se alcanzan récords turísticos, pero cuando una pieza falla el modelo muestra su fragilidad.

A esta vulnerabilidad se suma un factor estructural: el paulatino encarecimiento relacionado con la transición energética del transporte aéreo. La Unión Europea ha intensificado la regulación sobre emisiones, a través de instrumentos como el sistema de comercio de derechos de emisión (EU ETS), y está impulsando el uso de combustibles sostenibles de aviación (SAF), más costosos que el queroseno convencional.

Este contexto apunta a una tendencia de fondo: volar se puede encarecer también por cambios regulatorios y ambientales para reducir el impacto climático y no solo por factores coyunturales como el precio del petróleo.

Qué tener en cuenta este verano

España viene de cifras turísticas récord, tiene una demanda internacional sólida y una conectividad aérea muy amplia. Pero el turismo no solo depende de lo atractivo que sea el país, sino de que los turistas puedan llegar de forma frecuente, asequible y previsible. Para saber si estamos ante un ruido pasajero o ante un problema mayor, conviene seguir varios indicadores:

La capacidad aérea realmente operada. No basta con saber cuántos asientos se programaron al inicio de la temporada.
Las tarifas. Una subida moderada puede no frenar la demanda, pero un ascenso rápido sí puede afectar a familias con menor presupuesto o a reservas de última hora.
Los mercados emisores. Alemania, Francia y Reino Unido no reaccionan igual ante los mismos precios ni tienen las mismas alternativas de transporte.
El gasto. El riesgo no es solo que vengan menos turistas. Puede que viajen los mismos, pero que gasten menos, se alojen menos noches o reduzcan su consumo en destino.
La distribución territorial. Un buen dato nacional puede ocultar problemas en destinos concretos.

La pregunta no es solo si habrá menos vuelos o menos turistas este verano, sino si el modelo turístico español está preparado para un futuro en el que volar puede ser más caro y estar más regulado y expuesto a shocks externos.

De momento, no parece haber motivos para el alarmismo, pero sí los hay para observar los datos con atención.

Las personas firmantes no son asalariadas, ni consultoras, ni poseen acciones, ni reciben financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y han declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado anteriormente.

– ref. 2026: el verano de la crisis del queroseno, ¿habrá menos turistas? – https://theconversation.com/2026-el-verano-de-la-crisis-del-queroseno-habra-menos-turistas-281571