Attracting more Chinese tourists to New Zealand, including during the off-season, was a major part of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s trade agenda during his visit to China last week. As Tourism Minister Louise Upston put it: “we welcome anyone, from anywhere, anytime”.
It’s all part of the government’s plan to “turbocharge” the tourism sector with an additional NZ$13.5 million for marketing this year. The hope is this will help double the value of tourism as an export earner by 2034.
The China visit built on the government’s Tourism Growth Roadmap which aims to attract 3.89 million visitors by 2026, and 4.78 million by 2030-34.
Ironically, the release of the roadmap coincided with unprecedented, organised push-back against mass tourism across southern Europe this month. Fed up with the economic and cultural impact of too much “touristification”, residents of popular cities and islands in Italy, Portugal and Spain took part in coordinated protests, some even spraying tourists with water pistols.
Before COVID upended international tourism in 2020, similar serious concerns were voiced in New Zealand about environmental degradation, crowding and congestion, and declining public support for tourism.
But the plan to turbocharge tourism specifically aims to return international visitor arrivals to pre-COVID levels.
From destination management to marketing
As part of the government’s Tourism Boost Package, money generated by the International Visitor Levy (IVL) will be spent driving demand in Australia and elsewhere over the next two years.
But this use of the visitor levy (which was raised to $100 in October last year) seems at odds with its stated purpose. According to New Zealand Immigration, “The IVL is your contribution to maintaining the facilities and natural environment you will use and enjoy during your stay”.
Visitor levy revenue was strategically intended to support tourism regions to protect their natural environments and maintain crucial infrastructure.
Diverting visitor levy income to fund overall tourism growth also seems to turn a deaf ear to the 2020 interim report from the Tourism Futures Taskforce and the 2023 Tourism Adaptation Roadmap from the Aotearoa Circle industry group.
Both were widely acknowledged for their vision and ambition to create a future tourism that served the aspirations of Māori and local communities.
Anti-tourism protesters in Barcelona brandish water pistols, June 15. Getty Images
Redefining tourism ‘value’
There are several key questions about the practical implications of the government’s growth-oriented tourism development approach.
Firstly, staff and infrastructure limitations mean destinations and business will struggle to accommodate more numbers. As the acting mayor of MacKenzie District has noted, several businesses around Tekapo were forced to operate below capacity last summer because there was no suitable housing available for the staff, only up-market holiday rentals.
New Zealand also faces a tourism workforce crisis. Over the past ten years, there has been a 63% drop in the number of students taking tourism-related tertiary courses, and a 73% decrease in those completing hospitality courses.
Meanwhile, from Northland to Queenstown, basic utilities such as electricity and drinking water are being stretched beyond capacity during peak visitation times.
Secondly, there is a real risk of environmental damage from overtourism compromising the appeal of iconic attractions and destinations.
But despite concern over growing visitor pressure at Piopiotahi/Milford Sound over the past decade, the government recently rejected a plan to manage numbers and ban cruise ships in the inner sound.
Thirdly, there is the risk of tourism losing its social licence, as is happening in parts of Europe, given the huge burdens on small communities. As the mayor of Queenstown said recently: “When I first started as the mayor, I think it was one resident night to every 30 visitor nights. It is now one to 47.”
The government’s focus on “turbocharging” economic growth through tourism now puts at risk what little progress has been made toward a sustainable tourism model and giving the regions most affected a voice.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
A new opera by American composer Nico Muhly is reimagining the myth of Aphrodite through a contemporary lens, exploring beauty, desire and identity in a strikingly relevant way.
Aphrodite had its world premiere on Friday at Sydney’s Carriageworks arts precinct. The opera is directed by Alexander Berlage, performed by the Sydney Chamber Opera (in collaboration with Omega Ensemble), and features a sharp libretto by Melbourne playwright Laura Lethlean.
It is a reflective production that challenges societal ideals and the enduring weight of cultural myths.
A contemporary take on mythology
Rather than simply retelling the myth, Nico Muhly’s Aphrodite engages in a creative dialogue with it. Through its protagonist Ava, an author and recently divorced mother of three, it interrogates the ideals and pressures associated with beauty and desirability.
The story opens as Ava (Jessica O’Donoghue) returns to her hotel room after the premiere of a Netflix documentary based on her best-selling book, The Aphrodite Complex.
Alone, Ava confronts personal insecurities, societal critiques, the fallout from her divorce, and fantasies of Hector, the young director of photography who worked on the documentary’s production with her in Athens.
From her vulnerability emerges Aphrodite (Meechot Marrero) – a manifestation of the mythical Greek goddess, and a subconscious force embodying Ava’s desires and fears.
Meechot Marrero is phenomenal as Aphrodite, embodying the goddess’s power. Daniel Boud
Although it is brief (running for one hour) the opera’s plot is tightly focused. It centres on Ava’s emotional unravelling and her interaction with Aphrodite.
The interplay between both characters blurs the boundaries between myth and reality, exploring how the stories we tell about ourselves, our culture, and our ideals, shape our identities.
The opera poses profound questions. What does it means to be beautiful? Does beauty bestow power? How do societal expectations distort perceptions of self worth?
Despite her academic expertise in deconstructing the Aphrodite myth, Ava finds herself trapped in the very ideals she critiques. This highlights the inescapable pull these ancient narratives continue to have in contemporary life.
A visually stunning experience
From the moment Ava steps on stage in a black tailored suit and heels, the opera’s modern aesthetic is unmistakable.
The setting, designed by Isabel Hudson, is confined to a single hotel suite, including a bedroom, wardrobe and bathroom, with the bedroom backlit by a city skyline. Everyday details such as a flatscreen TV and a minibar cart create an atmosphere that feels both intimate and starkly contemporary.
The opera, with its unmistakably contemporary setting, seems made with the modern viewer in mind. Daniel Boud
A standout feature is the black-and-white screen above the stage. This screen displays subtitles for the English libretto, alongside live visuals of the performance (handled by video designer Morgan Moroney).
The projections, captured by roving cameras, do more than just document the action. They add an artistic layer by focusing on intimate details, such as a hand gripping a thigh, or toes curling in a carpet.
This visual storytelling evokes the voyeuristic tone of a music video or vintage film noir, accentuating the themes of scrutiny and self-perception. It reflects both the mythological obsession with beauty and the modern culture of constant observation.
As the opera progresses, the visuals evolve. Toward the climax, earlier footage is replayed, creating a dynamic where Ava and Aphrodite must confront their own images. This layering transforms the cameras from passive observers into active participants.
Musically engaging
Muhly’s score is performed with technical brilliance by Omega Ensemble, and perfectly complements Lethlean’s libretto.
Ava’s music alternates between structured and rhythmic patterns, reflecting her controlled persona – while more fragmented and fluid melodies mirror her internal struggles.
By contrast, Aphrodite’s music is bold and forceful, underscoring the goddess’s power and allure. As the narrative unfolds, the musical identities of Ava and Aphrodite intertwine, mirroring the blurring of their characters.
The collaboration between the Sydney Chamber Opera, Omega Ensemble, and the creative team results in a production that is intellectually stimulating and musically stunning. Daniel Boud
The opera’s success is due in no small part to the extraordinary performances of its two leads. Jessica O’Donoghue is outstanding as Ava, delivering a vocally precise and emotionally raw performance. She captures Ava’s complexities – such as her intellectual sharpness and emotional vulnerability – with extraordinary depth.
Meechot Marrero is equally phenomenal as Aphrodite. Marrero embodies the goddess’s desirability and power with a commanding stage presence and thrilling vocals.
Together, O’Donoghue and Marrero create a dynamic interplay that forms the opera’s emotional core.
A triumph of modern opera
In Aphrodite, Nico Muhly and Laura Lethlean have created a bold and thought-provoking opera that will resonate deeply with contemporary audiences.
It is not merely a performance, but an experience that will linger long after the final note. By reframing mythology through a modern lens, it challenges us to reconsider the ideals we uphold, and the myths we live by.
Aphrodite is a powerful reminder that beauty, like myth, is multifaceted: its power lies not in perfection, but in its ability to challenge, inspire and transform.
Aphrodite is on at Carriageworks, Sydney, until June 28.
Laura Case 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.
US President Donald Trump’s strike on Iran’s nuclear weapons program, which he foreshadowed on and off for the past few days, has revealed a surprisingly broad middle ground in US politics, even as it has provoked controversy in the international community.
Almost immediately after news of the US military action broke, John Fetterman, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, blasted out a statement of support, calling the attack the “correct move”.
Steny Hoyer of Maryland, who spent decades in House Democratic Leadership roles, said the strike “was essential to preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon”.
Governor of Pennsylvania Josh Shapiro, a likely presidential candidate in 2028, gave a thoughtful evaluation of the attack, calling Iran’s nuclear weapons program “dangerous”.
Other Democrats were more muted. Leading Senators, including Leader Chuck Schumer, complained about the lack of congressional authorisation and the administration’s failure to consult Congress before the strike, but didn’t specifically oppose the US action.
In the US system, only Congress can declare war, but the president has broad power as commander-in-chief to respond to threats. Most defenders of presidential authority acknowledge his authority to act militarily – particularly when the US’s role is highly limited, such as in the Iran strike. Should US involvement deepen, the calls for a congressional role in authorising the war will become louder and more legitimate.
Some on the far left, including Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, openly opposed the strike and even called for Trump’s impeachment. Ocasio-Cortez said:
The President’s disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers. He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations. It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment.
On the Republican side, there has also not been unanimous support for the strike.
Even within the president’s coalition, some isolationists have been opposed to any US strike on Iran. They rightly pointed out that Trump campaigned on ending wars, not starting them.
Media personalities Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon openly urged the president not to strike Iran. Carlson’s interview on the issue with hawkish Republican Ted Cruz gathered huge attention on social media.
Tulsi Gabbard, Trump’s Director of National Intelligence and a member of his cabinet, went so far as to make a video about the horrors of nuclear conflict.
Trump’s reaction to Gabbard’s video was furious. He even suggested he might eliminate her office, which is charged with coordinating America’s many intelligence agencies.
Trump also called Carlson, whose millions-strong following on X is a key component of Trump’s political base, “kooky” for opposing a strike on Iran. Trump later walked that back, saying Carlson had called to apologise, and that Carlson “is a nice guy”.
In Congress, one notable Trump ally opposed the Iran attack. Marjorie Taylor Greene, the controversial congresswoman from Georgia, said:
Every time America is on the verge of greatness, we get involved in another foreign war […] This is not our fight. Peace is the answer.
Trump’s decision has wide cross-party support
It is certainly fair to look closely at Trump’s base and explore divisions and disagreements. However, it is highly likely that Trump’s dominant personality means he will keep the vast majority of his base together.
More revealing about US politics is the support across the aisle for his Iran policy.
Trump’s brash manner and divisive rhetoric make it difficult for Democrats to support him in any circumstance, but the US people’s disdain for Iran appears to be much stronger.
In 1979, Iranian revolutionaries took 52 US diplomats hostage. The image of those captive hostages blindfolded and at the mercy of Iranian radicals is burned into older Americans’ brains.
It has been the standard practice of US presidents to brief the bipartisan leadership of Congress on key national security initiatives, such as a strikes on adversaries. While not a hard-and-fast rule, the practice can produce more bipartisan support for a president’s actions that he might otherwise have. It’s not unreasonable to think senior congressional Democrats might be more openly supportive of the Iran strike if they had been consulted in this manner.
However, Trump and his administration did not do this, for a reason. There is little value in open bipartisanship in America today. Even though both parties are very close on Iran policy, neither wants that to be seen in public as cooperating across the aisle. Each party would much rather make the case to its base that it represents their interests and is not willing to compromise with the other party. Support from Democrats does not strengthen Trump, as his base is highly suspicious of the opposition party.
The reverse is true for elected Democrats, including those in leadership. They will be more vulnerable from progressives in next year’s primary contests if they are seen as insufficiently resisting Trump. There is no Trump-like figure in their party to protect them from this base.
In US politics today, nothing is more dangerous than agreeing with the other party. There is a premium value on publicly opposing your political adversaries, no matter what the issue. It makes for a foreign policy that appears more fractured than it actually is.
Lester Munson receives funding from the U.S. Studies Centre at the University of Sydney. He is affiliated with the Republican Party.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nick Fuller, Clinical Trials Director, Department of Endocrinology, RPA Hospital, University of Sydney
If it feels like your child’s diet consists entirely of breakfast cereal, chicken nuggets and snacks that’d outlast the apocalypse, you’re not alone.
Processed foods are the go-to for many kids, and for some, they’re the only foods they’ll eat.
Here’s why – and what you can do about it.
Processed foods and their prevalence in kids’ diets
Processed foods are any foods altered from their natural state.
While some food processing is beneficial – such as pasteurising milk to kill bacteria – the ones that cause parents concern are ultra-processed foods, which use industrial methods to enhance flavour, texture and shelf life by adding sugars, salt, fats and artificial flavours, colours and preservatives.
Parents know some ultra-processed foods all too well – they’re the fast and junk foods kids love. But others hide in plain sight, disguised as “healthy” convenience foods such as flavoured yoghurts and muffins.
Ultra-processed foods offer low-to-no nutrition, which is why dietary guidelines recommend limiting them. But these
“discretionary foods” make up one-third of Aussie kids’ daily energy intake.
Why do kids find processed foods so appealing?
Basic biology
Ultra-processed foods are engineered to be addictive, with their added sugar, salt and fat activating kids’ brains’ reward system, releasing feelgood chemicals.
Evolution has hardwired humans to seek natural sugar- and fat-rich foods – a physiological response our hunter-gatherer ancestors developed to avoid starvation.
Fussy eaters also favour ultra-processed foods, such as chicken nuggets, chips and breakfast cereals, because they’re familiar and non-threatening, often beige like breastmilk and kids’ first solid foods. Plus their blander flavours don’t overwhelm developing tastebuds.
Pester power
From sneaky YouTube ads to eye-level supermarket displays, kids are incessantly exposed to marketing that makes them crave – and demand – ultra-processed foods.
How processed foods impact kids’ health
Ultra-processed foods can impact kids’ health in a range of ways, contributing to:
nutritional deficiencies. Kids filling up on ultra-processed foods are less likely to eat vegetables, fruits, whole grains and lean meats, producing a diet lacking in fibre and other key nutrients needed for growth and development
increased risk of diseases. Long-term overconsumption of ultra-processed foods is linked with a higher risk of developing a range of chronic diseases, including heart disease, type 2 diabetes and cancer.
Unhealthy eating habits can be hard to break, but positive diet and lifestyle changes – even later in childhood – can reverse these negative health effects.
Science-based tips for healthier eating habits
1. Eat together
Family mealtimes allow you to model healthy eating. Sit together around the table, share the same meal, and put devices away so everyone’s attention is on eating.
2. Introduce foods carefully
Research shows kids need eight to ten exposures before they willingly eat new foods. So offer them regularly, encourage tasting and don’t pressure them to eat.
While it’s tempting, avoid offering dessert as a reward for trying something healthy. Using treats as a reward increases kids’ preference for unhealthy foods.
Kids are also more likely to try new foods when they’re hungry, so avoid snacks one to preferably two hours before mealtimes.
So, tweak family favourites by swapping ingredients, such as using lentils instead of beef in bolognese or roasting carrots to make “orange chippies”. Grating veggies into sauces also expands kids’ diets without overwhelming them.
4. Make food fun
Children respond positively when healthy foods are presented in fun ways, so include different colours, textures and shapes on their plate to hold their interest.
Changing meal locations – and enjoying an occasional outdoor picnic – is another simple way to make mealtimes feel special and fun.
Changing where you eat can make meals fun. RDNE/Pexels
encourage kids to grow herbs and veggies so they understand where healthy food comes from: toddlers can harvest produce; older kids can plant and prune
visit the greengrocer, fishmonger and butcher regularly so kids can see and explore the healthy foods on offer
talk to toddlers about food in energy terms: “eating wholegrain toast helps you play longer”
share fun facts with older kids: “fish has a special type of fat called omega-3 that makes us smarter”.
6. Involve kids in cooking
Spark kids’ interest in healthy meals by involving them in food preparation. Let them choose recipes and take on age-appropriate tasks such as mixing and chopping.
When kids help make a meal, they feel proud of their effort, and research shows they’re more likely to try what they’ve created.
It takes about two months to form a habit, so expect resistance along the way. But with perseverance, we can shift kids’ love of processed foods toward healthier choices, helping them establish healthy eating habits for life.
A/Professor Nick Fuller works for the University of Sydney and RPA Hospital and has received external funding for projects relating to the treatment of overweight and obesity. He is the author and founder of the Interval Weight Loss program, and the author of Healthy Parents, Healthy Kids with Penguin Books.
US President Donald Trump’s strike on Iran’s nuclear weapons program, which he foreshadowed on and off for the past few days, has revealed a surprisingly broad middle ground in US politics, even as it has provoked controversy in the international community.
Almost immediately after news of the US military action broke, John Fetterman, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, blasted out a statement of support, calling the attack the “correct move”.
Steny Hoyer of Maryland, who spent decades in House Democratic Leadership roles, said the strike “was essential to preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon”.
Governor of Pennsylvania Josh Shapiro, a likely presidential candidate in 2028, gave a thoughtful evaluation of the attack, calling Iran’s nuclear weapons program “dangerous”.
Other Democrats were more muted. Leading Senators, including Leader Chuck Schumer, complained about the lack of congressional authorisation and the administration’s failure to consult Congress before the strike, but didn’t specifically oppose the US action.
In the US system, only Congress can declare war, but the president has broad power as commander-in-chief to respond to threats. Most defenders of presidential authority acknowledge his authority to act militarily – particularly when the US’s role is highly limited, such as in the Iran strike. Should US involvement deepen, the calls for a congressional role in authorising the war will become louder and more legitimate.
Some on the far left, including Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, openly opposed the strike and even called for Trump’s impeachment. Ocasio-Cortez said:
The President’s disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers. He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations. It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment.
On the Republican side, there has also not been unanimous support for the strike.
Even within the president’s coalition, some isolationists have been opposed to any US strike on Iran. They rightly pointed out that Trump campaigned on ending wars, not starting them.
Media personalities Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon openly urged the president not to strike Iran. Carlson’s interview on the issue with hawkish Republican Ted Cruz gathered huge attention on social media.
Tulsi Gabbard, Trump’s Director of National Intelligence and a member of his cabinet, went so far as to make a video about the horrors of nuclear conflict.
Trump’s reaction to Gabbard’s video was furious. He even suggested he might eliminate her office, which is charged with coordinating America’s many intelligence agencies.
Trump also called Carlson, whose millions-strong following on X is a key component of Trump’s political base, “kooky” for opposing a strike on Iran. Trump later walked that back, saying Carlson had called to apologise, and that Carlson “is a nice guy”.
In Congress, one notable Trump ally opposed the Iran attack. Marjorie Taylor Greene, the controversial congresswoman from Georgia, said:
Every time America is on the verge of greatness, we get involved in another foreign war […] This is not our fight. Peace is the answer.
Trump’s decision has wide cross-party support
It is certainly fair to look closely at Trump’s base and explore divisions and disagreements. However, it is highly likely that Trump’s dominant personality means he will keep the vast majority of his base together.
More revealing about US politics is the support across the aisle for his Iran policy.
Trump’s brash manner and divisive rhetoric make it difficult for Democrats to support him in any circumstance, but the US people’s disdain for Iran appears to be much stronger.
In 1979, Iranian revolutionaries took 52 US diplomats hostage. The image of those captive hostages blindfolded and at the mercy of Iranian radicals is burned into older Americans’ brains.
It has been the standard practice of US presidents to brief the bipartisan leadership of Congress on key national security initiatives, such as a strikes on adversaries. While not a hard-and-fast rule, the practice can produce more bipartisan support for a president’s actions that he might otherwise have. It’s not unreasonable to think senior congressional Democrats might be more openly supportive of the Iran strike if they had been consulted in this manner.
However, Trump and his administration did not do this, for a reason. There is little value in open bipartisanship in America today. Even though both parties are very close on Iran policy, neither wants that to be seen in public as cooperating across the aisle. Each party would much rather make the case to its base that it represents their interests and is not willing to compromise with the other party. Support from Democrats does not strengthen Trump, as his base is highly suspicious of the opposition party.
The reverse is true for elected Democrats, including those in leadership. They will be more vulnerable from progressives in next year’s primary contests if they are seen as insufficiently resisting Trump. There is no Trump-like figure in their party to protect them from this base.
In US politics today, nothing is more dangerous than agreeing with the other party. There is a premium value on publicly opposing your political adversaries, no matter what the issue. It makes for a foreign policy that appears more fractured than it actually is.
Lester Munson receives funding from the U.S. Studies Centre at the University of Sydney. He is affiliated with the Republican Party.
One of the most sought-after items of 2025 isn’t a designer handbag or the latest tech gadget. It’s a plush elf with a snaggle-toothed grin.
Labubu (拉布布) is a global sensation. From David Beckham and Rihanna to Dua Lipa and Blackpink’s Lisa, celebrities – and even members of the Thai royal family – have been spotted showcasing their Labubu collections.
Created in 2015 by Hong Kong artist Kasing Lung for his picture-book series The Monsters, Labubu gained mass popularity when toy company Pop Mart began releasing it as blind-box collectables in 2019. The toys are often sold in these blind-boxes, where people don’t know what make they’ve bought until after opening the box.
The niche designer toy has since spiralled into a multi billion-dollar obsession. Plushies sell out within minutes, fans queue for hours, and rare editions like the human-sized mint-green-coloured Labubu have fetched over A$230,000 at auction.
Labubu isn’t just a toy. It’s a glimpse of how China’s long-awaited soft power is beginning to take shape in unexpected ways.
None of these efforts have matched the spontaneous global appeal of this small plush creature. Unlike Japan’s government-funded “Cool Japan” initiative launched in 2010, or South Korea’s highly coordinated export of creative industries, Labubu succeeded without central planning. It went viral organically: fanned by fandoms, fuelled by TikTok and amplified by celebrity endorsements.
Now, China is starting to look “cool” to the outside world.
Pop Mart’s blind-box sales model taps into the same reward mechanisms as online gaming. More than buying a toy, it’s about the thrill of unboxing the rarest edition, the social status of ownership, and the resale value of a seemingly childish product. This cultural product is emotionally charged and economically strategic.
Labubu uses ‘blind boxes’ – where buyers don’t know what model they’ll get – to emotionally hook collectors. Tatiana Diuvbanova/Shutterstock
For China, Labubu represents an unintentional yet potent form of soft power: a quirky figure that makes the country feel playful, creative and emotionally accessible.
In an era when global perceptions of China are often shaped by geopolitics, surveillance, and authoritarianism, Labubu seems to offer something different – something disarming.
How Japan and Korea use cultural exports
Japan, long celebrated for its exports of anime, fashion, and food culture, launched its “Cool Japan” strategy in 2010 to formalise and promote its creative industries abroad.
The initiative helped amplify global interest in sectors such as anime and cuisine but it often struggled with bureaucratic inefficiency, market misjudgements and unclear performance metrics.
Many of the country’s cultural successes – from Pokémon and Studio Ghibli to ramen and izakaya – were largely driven by market forces and fan communities, rather than by the government.
South Korea provides a more recent, effective model. The Korean Wave, or hallyu, has been heavily supported by state investment and infrastructure.
From the film Parasite to global icons such as K-Pop band BTS, South Korea’s cultural output has earned international acclaim and helped rebrand the nation on the world stage.
Importantly, it was a case of soft power being harnessed intentionally and strategically, with entertainment at the forefront of foreign policy.
Labubu represents a third model: accidental soft power born from a commercial ecosystem in China increasingly focused on intellectual property (IP), lifestyle branding and consumer-driven trends.
The emotional politics of toys
Beyond its political implications, the Labubu craze reflects wider shifts in global consumer culture. Today’s toy market is no longer just for children.
The adult “kidult” sector, driven by nostalgia, comfort-seeking, and collectability, is rising.
The frenzy over Labubu is part of this trend, where millennials and Gen Z buyers invest in emotionally charged objects as expressions of identity, status and belonging.
The popularity of labubu has seen long lines at PopMart shops around the world, like this one in South Jakarta. petanicupu/Shutterstock
At the same time, Labubu represents a growing intersection between play and finance. The resale markettreats plushies like speculative assets. Their scarcity creates value; their emotional resonance creates demand.
It’s capitalism with a fuzzy face.
Not everything is cuddly. In cities like London or Seoul, Pop Mart was forced to suspend sales after scuffles broke out among fans competing to buy the toys. And a surge in global counterfeits has raised growing concerns over IP protection and consumer trust.
The rise of China’s soft power
Labubu may look like a mischievous little elf, but it carries serious cultural weight.
It reflects a China that is no longer just a producer of goods, but a producer of desire.
It’s tempting to see Labubu as a fad like fidget spinners, Beanie Babies, or Tamagotchis. But it signals something deeper: a shift in how Chinese cultural products can evoke emotion, status and aspiration on a global scale.
This tiny plush toy took nearly a decade to become a global sensation. China’s hopes of fully realising its soft power potential may take even longer. But if Labubu is any indication, the way forward may depend less on state-led campaigns and more on organic, bottom-up cultural momentum.
Ming Gao receives funding from the Swedish Research Council. This research was produced with support from the Swedish Research Council grant “Moved Apart” (nr. 2022-01864). Ming Gao is a member of Lund University Profile Area: Human Rights.
One of the most sought-after items of 2025 isn’t a designer handbag or the latest tech gadget. It’s a plush elf with a snaggle-toothed grin.
Labubu (拉布布) is a global sensation. From David Beckham and Rihanna to Dua Lipa and Blackpink’s Lisa, celebrities – and even members of the Thai royal family – have been spotted showcasing their Labubu collections.
Created in 2015 by Hong Kong artist Kasing Lung for his picture-book series The Monsters, Labubu gained mass popularity when toy company Pop Mart began releasing it as blind-box collectables in 2019. The toys are often sold in these blind-boxes, where people don’t know what make they’ve bought until after opening the box.
The niche designer toy has since spiralled into a multi billion-dollar obsession. Plushies sell out within minutes, fans queue for hours, and rare editions like the human-sized mint-green-coloured Labubu have fetched over A$230,000 at auction.
Labubu isn’t just a toy. It’s a glimpse of how China’s long-awaited soft power is beginning to take shape in unexpected ways.
None of these efforts have matched the spontaneous global appeal of this small plush creature. Unlike Japan’s government-funded “Cool Japan” initiative launched in 2010, or South Korea’s highly coordinated export of creative industries, Labubu succeeded without central planning. It went viral organically: fanned by fandoms, fuelled by TikTok and amplified by celebrity endorsements.
Now, China is starting to look “cool” to the outside world.
Pop Mart’s blind-box sales model taps into the same reward mechanisms as online gaming. More than buying a toy, it’s about the thrill of unboxing the rarest edition, the social status of ownership, and the resale value of a seemingly childish product. This cultural product is emotionally charged and economically strategic.
Labubu uses ‘blind boxes’ – where buyers don’t know what model they’ll get – to emotionally hook collectors. Tatiana Diuvbanova/Shutterstock
For China, Labubu represents an unintentional yet potent form of soft power: a quirky figure that makes the country feel playful, creative and emotionally accessible.
In an era when global perceptions of China are often shaped by geopolitics, surveillance, and authoritarianism, Labubu seems to offer something different – something disarming.
How Japan and Korea use cultural exports
Japan, long celebrated for its exports of anime, fashion, and food culture, launched its “Cool Japan” strategy in 2010 to formalise and promote its creative industries abroad.
The initiative helped amplify global interest in sectors such as anime and cuisine but it often struggled with bureaucratic inefficiency, market misjudgements and unclear performance metrics.
Many of the country’s cultural successes – from Pokémon and Studio Ghibli to ramen and izakaya – were largely driven by market forces and fan communities, rather than by the government.
South Korea provides a more recent, effective model. The Korean Wave, or hallyu, has been heavily supported by state investment and infrastructure.
From the film Parasite to global icons such as K-Pop band BTS, South Korea’s cultural output has earned international acclaim and helped rebrand the nation on the world stage.
Importantly, it was a case of soft power being harnessed intentionally and strategically, with entertainment at the forefront of foreign policy.
Labubu represents a third model: accidental soft power born from a commercial ecosystem in China increasingly focused on intellectual property (IP), lifestyle branding and consumer-driven trends.
The emotional politics of toys
Beyond its political implications, the Labubu craze reflects wider shifts in global consumer culture. Today’s toy market is no longer just for children.
The adult “kidult” sector, driven by nostalgia, comfort-seeking, and collectability, is rising.
The frenzy over Labubu is part of this trend, where millennials and Gen Z buyers invest in emotionally charged objects as expressions of identity, status and belonging.
The popularity of labubu has seen long lines at PopMart shops around the world, like this one in South Jakarta. petanicupu/Shutterstock
At the same time, Labubu represents a growing intersection between play and finance. The resale markettreats plushies like speculative assets. Their scarcity creates value; their emotional resonance creates demand.
It’s capitalism with a fuzzy face.
Not everything is cuddly. In cities like London or Seoul, Pop Mart was forced to suspend sales after scuffles broke out among fans competing to buy the toys. And a surge in global counterfeits has raised growing concerns over IP protection and consumer trust.
The rise of China’s soft power
Labubu may look like a mischievous little elf, but it carries serious cultural weight.
It reflects a China that is no longer just a producer of goods, but a producer of desire.
It’s tempting to see Labubu as a fad like fidget spinners, Beanie Babies, or Tamagotchis. But it signals something deeper: a shift in how Chinese cultural products can evoke emotion, status and aspiration on a global scale.
This tiny plush toy took nearly a decade to become a global sensation. China’s hopes of fully realising its soft power potential may take even longer. But if Labubu is any indication, the way forward may depend less on state-led campaigns and more on organic, bottom-up cultural momentum.
Ming Gao receives funding from the Swedish Research Council. This research was produced with support from the Swedish Research Council grant “Moved Apart” (nr. 2022-01864). Ming Gao is a member of Lund University Profile Area: Human Rights.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Milton Speer, Visiting Fellow, School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, University of Technology Sydney
Unexpected severe turbulence injured crew and passengers on a Qantas Boeing 737 during descent at Brisbane on May 4 2024. The subsequent Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigation suggested the severity of the turbulence caught the captain by surprise.
This is not an isolated event. Thunderstorms featuring severe wind gusts such as violent updrafts and downbursts are hazardous to aircraft. Downbursts in particular have been known to cause many serious accidents.
Our new research suggests global warming is increasing the frequency and intensity of wind gusts from thunderstorm “downbursts”, with serious consequences for air travel.
We used machine learning techniques to identify the climate drivers causing more thunderstorm downbursts. Increased heat and moisture over eastern Australia turned out to be the key ingredients.
The findings suggest air safety authorities and airlines in eastern Australia must be more vigilant during takeoff and landing in a warming world.
The weather radar system on a 737 jet plane can detect a microburst just before it causes heavy turbulence. Qantas, annotated by the ATSB
Warm, moist air spells trouble for planes
Global warming increases the amount of water vapour in the lower atmosphere. That’s because 1°C of warming allows the atmosphere to hold 7% more water vapour.
The extra moisture typically comes from adjacent warmer seas. It evaporates from the surface of the ocean and feeds clouds.
Increased heat and water vapour fuels stronger thunderstorms. So climate change is expected to increase thunderstorm activity over eastern Australia
For aircraft, the main problem with thunderstorms is the risk of hazardous, rapid changes in wind strength and direction at low levels.
Small yet powerful
Small downbursts, several kilometres wide, are especially dangerous. These “microbursts” can cause abrupt changes in wind gust speed and direction, creating turbulence that suddenly moves the plane in all directions, both horizontally and vertically.
On descent or ascent, aircraft encountering microbursts can experience sudden, unexpected losses or gains in altitude. This has caused numerous aircraft accidentsin the past. Microbursts will become increasingly problematic in a warming climate.
Delta Flight 191 is the most famous aviation accident caused by a microburst | Smithsonian Channel Aviation Nation
Microburst analysis and prediction
Microbursts are very difficult to predict, because they are so small. So we used machine learning to identify the environmental factors most conducive to the formation of microbursts and associated severe wind gusts.
We accessed observational data from the Bureau of Meteorology’s extensive archives. Then we applied eight different machine learning techniques to find the one that worked best.
Machine learning is a field of study in artificial intelligence using algorithms and statistical models to enable computers to learn from data without explicit programming. It enables systems to identify patterns, make predictions and improve performance over time as they take in more information.
We found atmospheric conditions in eastern Australia are increasingly favouring the development of stronger, more frequent thunderstorm microbursts.
Regional airports in Australia and around the world often use small aircraft. Small planes with 4–50 passenger seats are more vulnerable to the strong, even extreme, wind gusts spawned by thunderstorm microbursts.
Widespread consequences
Our extensive regional case study identified the weather patterns that create severe thunderstorms in eastern Australia during the warmer months.
High cloud water content creates a [downward force] [https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/11215] in the cloud. This force induces a descending air current. When the heavier air reaches the ground, wind gusts spray out in multiple directions.
A small yet powerful downburst can deflect a plane from it’s intended path of descent, pushing it down towards the ground. Mehmood, K., et al (2023) Fluids., CC BY
These wind gusts endanger aircraft during takeoff and landing, because rapid wind shifts from tail winds to head winds can cause the aircraft to dangerously gain or lose altitude.
Our analysis highlights the elevated aviation risks of increased atmospheric turbulence from thunderstorm microbursts across eastern Australia.
Smaller aircraft at inland regional airports in southeastern Australia are especially vulnerable. But these sudden microburst-generated wind gusts will require monitoring by major east coast airports, such as Sydney and Brisbane.
Beware of heightened microburst activity
Flying has long been recognised as a very safe mode of travel, with an accident rate of just 1.13 per million flights.
However, passenger numbers worldwide have increased dramatically, implying even a small risk increase could affect a large number of travellers.
Previous research into climate-related risks to air travel has tended to focus on high-altitude cruising dangers, such as clear air turbulence and jet stream instability. In contrast, there has been less emphasis on dangers during low-level ascent and descent.
Our research is among the first to detail the heightened climate risk to airlines from thunderstorm microbursts, especially during takeoff and landing. Airlines and air safety authorities should anticipate more strong microbursts. More frequent wind gust turbulence from microbursts is to be expected over eastern Australia, in our ongoing warming climate.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Milton Speer, Visiting Fellow, School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, University of Technology Sydney
Unexpected severe turbulence injured crew and passengers on a Qantas Boeing 737 during descent at Brisbane on May 4 2024. The subsequent Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigation suggested the severity of the turbulence caught the captain by surprise.
This is not an isolated event. Thunderstorms featuring severe wind gusts such as violent updrafts and downbursts are hazardous to aircraft. Downbursts in particular have been known to cause many serious accidents.
Our new research suggests global warming is increasing the frequency and intensity of wind gusts from thunderstorm “downbursts”, with serious consequences for air travel.
We used machine learning techniques to identify the climate drivers causing more thunderstorm downbursts. Increased heat and moisture over eastern Australia turned out to be the key ingredients.
The findings suggest air safety authorities and airlines in eastern Australia must be more vigilant during takeoff and landing in a warming world.
The weather radar system on a 737 jet plane can detect a microburst just before it causes heavy turbulence. Qantas, annotated by the ATSB
Warm, moist air spells trouble for planes
Global warming increases the amount of water vapour in the lower atmosphere. That’s because 1°C of warming allows the atmosphere to hold 7% more water vapour.
The extra moisture typically comes from adjacent warmer seas. It evaporates from the surface of the ocean and feeds clouds.
Increased heat and water vapour fuels stronger thunderstorms. So climate change is expected to increase thunderstorm activity over eastern Australia
For aircraft, the main problem with thunderstorms is the risk of hazardous, rapid changes in wind strength and direction at low levels.
Small yet powerful
Small downbursts, several kilometres wide, are especially dangerous. These “microbursts” can cause abrupt changes in wind gust speed and direction, creating turbulence that suddenly moves the plane in all directions, both horizontally and vertically.
On descent or ascent, aircraft encountering microbursts can experience sudden, unexpected losses or gains in altitude. This has caused numerous aircraft accidentsin the past. Microbursts will become increasingly problematic in a warming climate.
Delta Flight 191 is the most famous aviation accident caused by a microburst | Smithsonian Channel Aviation Nation
Microburst analysis and prediction
Microbursts are very difficult to predict, because they are so small. So we used machine learning to identify the environmental factors most conducive to the formation of microbursts and associated severe wind gusts.
We accessed observational data from the Bureau of Meteorology’s extensive archives. Then we applied eight different machine learning techniques to find the one that worked best.
Machine learning is a field of study in artificial intelligence using algorithms and statistical models to enable computers to learn from data without explicit programming. It enables systems to identify patterns, make predictions and improve performance over time as they take in more information.
We found atmospheric conditions in eastern Australia are increasingly favouring the development of stronger, more frequent thunderstorm microbursts.
Regional airports in Australia and around the world often use small aircraft. Small planes with 4–50 passenger seats are more vulnerable to the strong, even extreme, wind gusts spawned by thunderstorm microbursts.
Widespread consequences
Our extensive regional case study identified the weather patterns that create severe thunderstorms in eastern Australia during the warmer months.
High cloud water content creates a [downward force] [https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/11215] in the cloud. This force induces a descending air current. When the heavier air reaches the ground, wind gusts spray out in multiple directions.
A small yet powerful downburst can deflect a plane from it’s intended path of descent, pushing it down towards the ground. Mehmood, K., et al (2023) Fluids., CC BY
These wind gusts endanger aircraft during takeoff and landing, because rapid wind shifts from tail winds to head winds can cause the aircraft to dangerously gain or lose altitude.
Our analysis highlights the elevated aviation risks of increased atmospheric turbulence from thunderstorm microbursts across eastern Australia.
Smaller aircraft at inland regional airports in southeastern Australia are especially vulnerable. But these sudden microburst-generated wind gusts will require monitoring by major east coast airports, such as Sydney and Brisbane.
Beware of heightened microburst activity
Flying has long been recognised as a very safe mode of travel, with an accident rate of just 1.13 per million flights.
However, passenger numbers worldwide have increased dramatically, implying even a small risk increase could affect a large number of travellers.
Previous research into climate-related risks to air travel has tended to focus on high-altitude cruising dangers, such as clear air turbulence and jet stream instability. In contrast, there has been less emphasis on dangers during low-level ascent and descent.
Our research is among the first to detail the heightened climate risk to airlines from thunderstorm microbursts, especially during takeoff and landing. Airlines and air safety authorities should anticipate more strong microbursts. More frequent wind gust turbulence from microbursts is to be expected over eastern Australia, in our ongoing warming climate.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
How Australian pregnant women are tested for gestational diabetes is set to change, with new national guidelines released today.
Changes are expected to lead to fewer diagnoses in women at lower risk, reducing the burden of extra monitoring and intervention. Meanwhile the changes focus care and support towards women and babies who will benefit most.
These latest recommendations form the first update in screening for gestational diabetes in more than a decade, and potentially affect more than 280,000 pregnant women a year across Australia.
What is gestational diabetes? Why do we test for it?
Gestational diabetes (also known as gestational diabetes mellitus) is one of the most common medical complications of pregnancy. It affects nearly one in five pregnancies in Australia.
It is defined by abnormally high levels of glucose (sugar) in the blood that are first picked up during pregnancy.
Most of the time gestational diabetes goes away after the birth. But women with gestational diabetes are at least seven times more likely to develop type 2 diabetes later in life.
In Australia, routine screening for gestational diabetes is recommended for all pregnant women. This will continue.
That’s because treatment reduces the risk of poorer pregnancy outcomes. This includes
babies being born very large – a condition called macrosomia – which can lead to difficult births, and a caesarean. Treatment also reduces the risk of pre-eclampsia, when women have high blood pressure and protein in their urine, and other serious pregnancy complications.
Screening for gestational diabetes is also an opportunity to identify women who may benefit from diabetes prevention programs and ways to support their long-term health, including support with nutrition and physical activity.
Why is testing changing?
Most women benefit from detection and treatment. However, for some women, a diagnosis can have negative impacts. This often relates to how care is delivered.
Women have described feeling shame and stigma after the diagnosis. Others report challenges accessing the care and support they need during pregnancy. This may include access to specialist doctors, allied health professionals and clinics. Some women have restricted their diet in an unhealthy way, without appropriate supervision by a health professional. Some have had to change their preferred maternity care provider or location of birth because their pregnancy is now considered higher risk.
So we must diagnose the condition in women when the benefits outweigh the potential costs.
Diagnosing gestational diabetes is based on having blood glucose levels above a certain threshold.
However, there is no clear level above which the risk of complications starts to increase. And determining the best thresholds to identify who does, and who does not, have gestational diabetes has been subject to much research and debate.
Globally, screening approaches and diagnostic criteria vary substantially. There are differences in who is recommended to be screened, when in pregnancy screening should occur, which tests should be used, and what the diagnostic glucose levels should be.
So, what changes?
The new recommendations are the result of reviewing up-to-date evidence with input from a wide range of professional and consumer groups.
Screening will continue
All pregnant women who don’t already have a diagnosis of pre-pregnancy diabetes, or gestational diabetes, will still be recommended screening at between 24 and 28 weeks’ gestation. They’ll still have an oral glucose tolerance test, a measure of how the body processes sugar. The test involves fasting overnight, and having a blood test in the morning before drinking a sugary drink. Then there are two more blood tests over two hours. However, fewer women will have this test twice in their pregnancy.
Changes mean more targeted care
The following changes mean health services should be able to reorient resources to ensure women have access to the care they need to support healthier pregnancies, including early support for women who need it most:
women with risk factors of existing, undiagnosed diabetes (such as a higher body-mass index or BMI, or a previous large baby) will be screened in the first trimester, with a single, non-fasting blood test (known as HbA1c)
fewer women will have an oral glucose tolerance test early in the pregnancy, ideally between ten and 14 weeks gestation. This early testing will be reserved for women with specific risk factors, such as gestational diabetes in a previous pregnancy, or a high level on the HbA1c test
women will only be diagnosed if their blood glucose level is above new, higher cut-off points for the oral glucose tolerance test, for tests conducted early or later in the pregnancy.
Which tests do I need?
These changes will be implemented over coming months. So women are encouraged to speak to their maternity care provider about how the changes apply to them.
Alexis Shub is a board director of the Australasian Diabetes in Pregnancy Society. She has received research funding from ADIPS.
Matthew Hare has received research funding from the NHMRC, MRFF, Diabetes Australia, Australian Diabetes Society, Royal Australasian College of Physicians, Viertel Charitable Foundation and Australian government Department of Health. He has received honoraria for consultancies, steering committees and invited talks from Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim and AstraZeneca. He is president and board chair of the Australasian Diabetes in Pregnancy Society, and a member of the Australian Diabetes Society and Endocrine Society of Australia.
Susan de Jersey has received research funding from the NHMRC, MRFF, Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital Foundation, Diabetes Australia, Metro North Health. She is a member of Dietitians Australia, Australian Diabetes Educators Association, and is vice chair and board director of the Australasian Diabetes in Pregnancy Society.
How Australian pregnant women are tested for gestational diabetes is set to change, with new national guidelines released today.
Changes are expected to lead to fewer diagnoses in women at lower risk, reducing the burden of extra monitoring and intervention. Meanwhile the changes focus care and support towards women and babies who will benefit most.
These latest recommendations form the first update in screening for gestational diabetes in more than a decade, and potentially affect more than 280,000 pregnant women a year across Australia.
What is gestational diabetes? Why do we test for it?
Gestational diabetes (also known as gestational diabetes mellitus) is one of the most common medical complications of pregnancy. It affects nearly one in five pregnancies in Australia.
It is defined by abnormally high levels of glucose (sugar) in the blood that are first picked up during pregnancy.
Most of the time gestational diabetes goes away after the birth. But women with gestational diabetes are at least seven times more likely to develop type 2 diabetes later in life.
In Australia, routine screening for gestational diabetes is recommended for all pregnant women. This will continue.
That’s because treatment reduces the risk of poorer pregnancy outcomes. This includes
babies being born very large – a condition called macrosomia – which can lead to difficult births, and a caesarean. Treatment also reduces the risk of pre-eclampsia, when women have high blood pressure and protein in their urine, and other serious pregnancy complications.
Screening for gestational diabetes is also an opportunity to identify women who may benefit from diabetes prevention programs and ways to support their long-term health, including support with nutrition and physical activity.
Why is testing changing?
Most women benefit from detection and treatment. However, for some women, a diagnosis can have negative impacts. This often relates to how care is delivered.
Women have described feeling shame and stigma after the diagnosis. Others report challenges accessing the care and support they need during pregnancy. This may include access to specialist doctors, allied health professionals and clinics. Some women have restricted their diet in an unhealthy way, without appropriate supervision by a health professional. Some have had to change their preferred maternity care provider or location of birth because their pregnancy is now considered higher risk.
So we must diagnose the condition in women when the benefits outweigh the potential costs.
Diagnosing gestational diabetes is based on having blood glucose levels above a certain threshold.
However, there is no clear level above which the risk of complications starts to increase. And determining the best thresholds to identify who does, and who does not, have gestational diabetes has been subject to much research and debate.
Globally, screening approaches and diagnostic criteria vary substantially. There are differences in who is recommended to be screened, when in pregnancy screening should occur, which tests should be used, and what the diagnostic glucose levels should be.
So, what changes?
The new recommendations are the result of reviewing up-to-date evidence with input from a wide range of professional and consumer groups.
Screening will continue
All pregnant women who don’t already have a diagnosis of pre-pregnancy diabetes, or gestational diabetes, will still be recommended screening at between 24 and 28 weeks’ gestation. They’ll still have an oral glucose tolerance test, a measure of how the body processes sugar. The test involves fasting overnight, and having a blood test in the morning before drinking a sugary drink. Then there are two more blood tests over two hours. However, fewer women will have this test twice in their pregnancy.
Changes mean more targeted care
The following changes mean health services should be able to reorient resources to ensure women have access to the care they need to support healthier pregnancies, including early support for women who need it most:
women with risk factors of existing, undiagnosed diabetes (such as a higher body-mass index or BMI, or a previous large baby) will be screened in the first trimester, with a single, non-fasting blood test (known as HbA1c)
fewer women will have an oral glucose tolerance test early in the pregnancy, ideally between ten and 14 weeks gestation. This early testing will be reserved for women with specific risk factors, such as gestational diabetes in a previous pregnancy, or a high level on the HbA1c test
women will only be diagnosed if their blood glucose level is above new, higher cut-off points for the oral glucose tolerance test, for tests conducted early or later in the pregnancy.
Which tests do I need?
These changes will be implemented over coming months. So women are encouraged to speak to their maternity care provider about how the changes apply to them.
Alexis Shub is a board director of the Australasian Diabetes in Pregnancy Society. She has received research funding from ADIPS.
Matthew Hare has received research funding from the NHMRC, MRFF, Diabetes Australia, Australian Diabetes Society, Royal Australasian College of Physicians, Viertel Charitable Foundation and Australian government Department of Health. He has received honoraria for consultancies, steering committees and invited talks from Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim and AstraZeneca. He is president and board chair of the Australasian Diabetes in Pregnancy Society, and a member of the Australian Diabetes Society and Endocrine Society of Australia.
Susan de Jersey has received research funding from the NHMRC, MRFF, Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital Foundation, Diabetes Australia, Metro North Health. She is a member of Dietitians Australia, Australian Diabetes Educators Association, and is vice chair and board director of the Australasian Diabetes in Pregnancy Society.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nick William Smith, Associate Investigator in Nutritional Science, Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey University
The latest update to the New Zealand food composition database, a comprehensive collection of nutrient data collated jointly by Plant & Food Research and the Ministry of Health, brings more than just numbers: it adds insights into culturally important foods and their role in diets.
For the first time, certain traditional foods such as rēwena (Māori bread) and ingredients such as natto, paneer, jackfruit and lentils are included. Alongside these are modern supermarket staples, including lactose-free yoghurts and dairy-free cheeses.
As New Zealand’s population continues to diversify and people’s food choices evolve, the database is keeping pace, ensuring everyone’s plate is represented. The latest update introduces 191 new or updated food records, each with a detailed list of all nutrients, from a wide range of culturally relevant, plant-based and speciality diet foods. These include:
traditional Māori foods such as rēwena
ethnic staples, including natto, paneer, black beans
high-protein yoghurts, dairy-free cheeses and lactose-free options, reflecting market trends.
New Zealanders’ changing food habits
New Zealand’s population is becoming more ethnically diverse. The 2023 census shows nearly a third of New Zealand residents were born overseas and the population of people with Asian ethnicity is the fastest growing in the country. Our supermarkets and food services reflect these changes in their offering.
At the same time, demand is growing for plant-based options, allergen-friendly foods and products tailored to different dietary needs. The database update captures these shifts, offering data on foods that might previously have been overlooked or underestimated.
For example, including rēwena means nutrition professionals working with Māori communities or individuals can offer tailored advice using culturally relevant foods. Including natto or paneer gives dietitians more information to support New Zealanders of Asian or Indian heritage.
Rēwena includes potato and is higher in protein and dietary fibre than most white breads. Shutterstock/EQRoy
The newly added foods weren’t chosen at random. They reflect real changes in the way New Zealanders eat, informed by surveys that reflect the quantities of foods consumed and also how important they are for delivering essential nutrients. The additions also capture new products available in supermarkets or significant changes in recipes.
Foods are collected from around the country to represent our geographically spread population. They are then sent for independent lab analysis to quantify their content of macro (proteins, carbohydrates, fats) and micronutrients (minerals and vitamins).
Including new foods ensures the database stays relevant for a modern, multicultural population and provides accurate nutrition information for consumers, healthcare providers, food businesses and researchers. This facilitates future national surveys to more accurately capture the diversity of New Zealand diets and their implications for population nutrition.
Where these new foods sit in a healthy diet
With the addition of 74 new food components, including detailed profiles of fatty acids and a new method for measuring dietary fibre, the database doesn’t just tell us what is in our food, but also how these foods contribute to nutrition.
Many of the newly included foods are rich in protein, dietary fibre or plant-based nutrients. This is true for rēwena, which includes potato and is higher in protein and dietary fibre than most white breads. Black beans and lentils are affordable sources of protein and iron, while jackfruit offers a low-fat, meat-like texture for vegetarian meals.
The database is reviewed and updated every two years to reflect what people are actually eating. With 2,857 foods and 434 nutrient components now in the system, it offers an unparalleled window into New Zealand’s food supply and provides information to support national nutrition surveys and dietary intake studies.
The data also supports educational resources, such as those produced by organisations that encourage New Zealanders to eat fruits and vegetables.
The food composition database is New Zealand’s most comprehensive source of high-quality nutrient data. It is used by researchers, the food industry, public health agencies and regulators to develop and reformulate products, create accurate nutrition labels, model dietary trends and monitor how changing food habits affect nutrition.
Nick William Smith works for Plant & Food Research.
Carolyn Elizabeth Lister 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 (Au and NZ) – By Nick William Smith, Associate Investigator in Nutritional Science, Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey University
The latest update to the New Zealand food composition database, a comprehensive collection of nutrient data collated jointly by Plant & Food Research and the Ministry of Health, brings more than just numbers: it adds insights into culturally important foods and their role in diets.
For the first time, certain traditional foods such as rēwena (Māori bread) and ingredients such as natto, paneer, jackfruit and lentils are included. Alongside these are modern supermarket staples, including lactose-free yoghurts and dairy-free cheeses.
As New Zealand’s population continues to diversify and people’s food choices evolve, the database is keeping pace, ensuring everyone’s plate is represented. The latest update introduces 191 new or updated food records, each with a detailed list of all nutrients, from a wide range of culturally relevant, plant-based and speciality diet foods. These include:
traditional Māori foods such as rēwena
ethnic staples, including natto, paneer, black beans
high-protein yoghurts, dairy-free cheeses and lactose-free options, reflecting market trends.
New Zealanders’ changing food habits
New Zealand’s population is becoming more ethnically diverse. The 2023 census shows nearly a third of New Zealand residents were born overseas and the population of people with Asian ethnicity is the fastest growing in the country. Our supermarkets and food services reflect these changes in their offering.
At the same time, demand is growing for plant-based options, allergen-friendly foods and products tailored to different dietary needs. The database update captures these shifts, offering data on foods that might previously have been overlooked or underestimated.
For example, including rēwena means nutrition professionals working with Māori communities or individuals can offer tailored advice using culturally relevant foods. Including natto or paneer gives dietitians more information to support New Zealanders of Asian or Indian heritage.
Rēwena includes potato and is higher in protein and dietary fibre than most white breads. Shutterstock/EQRoy
The newly added foods weren’t chosen at random. They reflect real changes in the way New Zealanders eat, informed by surveys that reflect the quantities of foods consumed and also how important they are for delivering essential nutrients. The additions also capture new products available in supermarkets or significant changes in recipes.
Foods are collected from around the country to represent our geographically spread population. They are then sent for independent lab analysis to quantify their content of macro (proteins, carbohydrates, fats) and micronutrients (minerals and vitamins).
Including new foods ensures the database stays relevant for a modern, multicultural population and provides accurate nutrition information for consumers, healthcare providers, food businesses and researchers. This facilitates future national surveys to more accurately capture the diversity of New Zealand diets and their implications for population nutrition.
Where these new foods sit in a healthy diet
With the addition of 74 new food components, including detailed profiles of fatty acids and a new method for measuring dietary fibre, the database doesn’t just tell us what is in our food, but also how these foods contribute to nutrition.
Many of the newly included foods are rich in protein, dietary fibre or plant-based nutrients. This is true for rēwena, which includes potato and is higher in protein and dietary fibre than most white breads. Black beans and lentils are affordable sources of protein and iron, while jackfruit offers a low-fat, meat-like texture for vegetarian meals.
The database is reviewed and updated every two years to reflect what people are actually eating. With 2,857 foods and 434 nutrient components now in the system, it offers an unparalleled window into New Zealand’s food supply and provides information to support national nutrition surveys and dietary intake studies.
The data also supports educational resources, such as those produced by organisations that encourage New Zealanders to eat fruits and vegetables.
The food composition database is New Zealand’s most comprehensive source of high-quality nutrient data. It is used by researchers, the food industry, public health agencies and regulators to develop and reformulate products, create accurate nutrition labels, model dietary trends and monitor how changing food habits affect nutrition.
Nick William Smith works for Plant & Food Research.
Carolyn Elizabeth Lister 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 (Au and NZ) – By Christian Jakob, Director, ARC Centre of Excellence for the Weather of the 21st Century, Monash University
Caleb Weiner / Unsplash
At any given time, about two-thirds of Earth’s surface is covered by clouds. Overall, they make the planet much cooler than it would be without them.
But as Earth gets warmer, mostly due to the rise in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from humans burning fossil fuels, clouds are changing too. And that might already be causing more warming – adding to the greenhouse heat boost, and changing clouds even more.
Over the past few years, the world’s average temperature has increased more than climate scientists were expecting. In our latest research, led by NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, we show that changes in clouds have made a significant contribution to turning up the thermostat.
Clouds and climate
Clouds help to keep Earth cool by reflecting sunlight back out to space before it can reach the ground. But not all clouds are equal.
Shiny, white clouds reflect away more sunlight – especially when they are closer to the equator, in the parts of Earth that receive the most sun. Grey, broken clouds reflect less sunlight, as do clouds closer to the poles where less light falls.
Research published last year showed that Earth has been absorbing more sunlight than the greenhouse effect alone can explain. Clouds were involved, but it wasn’t clear exactly how.
Bright cloud zones are shrinking
Our new study shows what is happening. The areas covered by highly reflective clouds are shrinking. At the same time, the areas containing broken, less reflective clouds are growing.
The net effect is that additional energy from sunlight is reaching Earth’s surface. Here it is absorbed, leading to extra heating.
We also looked at the effect of changes in the properties of the highly reflective clouds, caused by things such as changes in the amount of aerosol pollution in the atmosphere. However, we found these effects are much smaller than the effect of the change in area.
The global picture
In the big picture, Earth’s wind patterns are driven by hot air rising near the equator and the rotation of the planet. This creates huge, looping currents of atmospheric circulation around the globe.
Local weather systems – the kind that determine the location and type of clouds – depend on these major, large-scale wind systems. The major circulation patterns in the atmosphere are changing as a result of global warming.
We found much of the cloud action is taking place at the edges of these major wind systems.
Highly reflective clouds are on the decline in a region near the equator called the intertropical convergence zone, and also two other bands called the storm tracks, which lie between 30 and 40 degrees of latitude.
At the same time the subtropical trade-wind regions, home to ever-present but less reflective broken clouds, are expanding.
A feedback loop
In short, the global warming induced by increased greenhouse gases changes the major wind systems on Earth. This in turn reduces the area of highly reflective clouds, leading to additional warming.
Warming changes wind patterns, which changes cloud patterns, which results in more warming. This is what we call a “positive feedback” in the climate system: warming leads to more warming.
We still have a lot to learn about the details of this feedback loop. Our research will use ongoing satellite-based observations of clouds and how much energy Earth receives and radiates back out to space.
Christian Jakob receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christian Jakob, Director, ARC Centre of Excellence for the Weather of the 21st Century, Monash University
Caleb Weiner / Unsplash
At any given time, about two-thirds of Earth’s surface is covered by clouds. Overall, they make the planet much cooler than it would be without them.
But as Earth gets warmer, mostly due to the rise in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from humans burning fossil fuels, clouds are changing too. And that might already be causing more warming – adding to the greenhouse heat boost, and changing clouds even more.
Over the past few years, the world’s average temperature has increased more than climate scientists were expecting. In our latest research, led by NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, we show that changes in clouds have made a significant contribution to turning up the thermostat.
Clouds and climate
Clouds help to keep Earth cool by reflecting sunlight back out to space before it can reach the ground. But not all clouds are equal.
Shiny, white clouds reflect away more sunlight – especially when they are closer to the equator, in the parts of Earth that receive the most sun. Grey, broken clouds reflect less sunlight, as do clouds closer to the poles where less light falls.
Research published last year showed that Earth has been absorbing more sunlight than the greenhouse effect alone can explain. Clouds were involved, but it wasn’t clear exactly how.
Bright cloud zones are shrinking
Our new study shows what is happening. The areas covered by highly reflective clouds are shrinking. At the same time, the areas containing broken, less reflective clouds are growing.
The net effect is that additional energy from sunlight is reaching Earth’s surface. Here it is absorbed, leading to extra heating.
We also looked at the effect of changes in the properties of the highly reflective clouds, caused by things such as changes in the amount of aerosol pollution in the atmosphere. However, we found these effects are much smaller than the effect of the change in area.
The global picture
In the big picture, Earth’s wind patterns are driven by hot air rising near the equator and the rotation of the planet. This creates huge, looping currents of atmospheric circulation around the globe.
Local weather systems – the kind that determine the location and type of clouds – depend on these major, large-scale wind systems. The major circulation patterns in the atmosphere are changing as a result of global warming.
We found much of the cloud action is taking place at the edges of these major wind systems.
Highly reflective clouds are on the decline in a region near the equator called the intertropical convergence zone, and also two other bands called the storm tracks, which lie between 30 and 40 degrees of latitude.
At the same time the subtropical trade-wind regions, home to ever-present but less reflective broken clouds, are expanding.
A feedback loop
In short, the global warming induced by increased greenhouse gases changes the major wind systems on Earth. This in turn reduces the area of highly reflective clouds, leading to additional warming.
Warming changes wind patterns, which changes cloud patterns, which results in more warming. This is what we call a “positive feedback” in the climate system: warming leads to more warming.
We still have a lot to learn about the details of this feedback loop. Our research will use ongoing satellite-based observations of clouds and how much energy Earth receives and radiates back out to space.
Christian Jakob receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Extreme heat can become lethal quickly. A young man cools off at Washington, D.C.’s Yards Park during a heat wave in 2021.Olivier Douliery/AFP via Getty Images
For many people, summer is their favorite season, a time for cookouts, beach trips and other outdoor activities. However, summer also brings the risk of dangerously high temperatures and humidity.
The Weather Prediction Center’s heat forecast shows the maximum temperatures states can expect to see at some point during the week of June 23-27, 2025. NOAA Weather Prediction Center
Even in places where heat is recognized as a dangerous health threat, people can be caught off guard as the thermometer creeps higher, on average, each year. In some cases, dangerous heat can arise quickly. In 2021, a young family died of heat stroke on a California trail after setting out for a hike when temperatures were still in the 70s Fahrenheit (low to mid 20s Celsius).
I study health risks in a warming climate as a professor of public health, and I’ve seen heat become a growing concern. Here are some of the key warning signs to watch for when temperatures rise – and ways to keep cool when the heat and humidity get too high.
Mild forms of heat-related illness include heat cramps and heat rash, both of which can be caused by extensive sweating during hot conditions. Cooling the body and drinking cool fluids can help.
When heat-related illnesses progress into heat exhaustion, the situation is more serious. Heat exhaustion includes symptoms such as dizziness, nausea, excessive sweating, feeling weak, thirst and getting a headache.
Construction workers are often out in the heat for long periods of time, including during this heat wave in Los Angeles in July 2024. Etienne Laurent/AFP via Getty Images
Heat exhaustion is a signal that the body is losing its ability to maintain a stable core temperature. Immediate action such as moving to a cool, ideally air-conditioned space, drinking liquids, loosening clothes and applying wet cloths are some of the recommended steps that can help keep heat exhaustion from progressing to the most dangerous form of heat-related illness, heat stroke.
Signs of heat exhaustion and heat stroke, from the National Weather Service and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. NOAA/CDC
Typically, someone suffering heat stroke has exhausted their reserves of sweat and salt to stay cool, so sweating eventually stops during heat stroke. Their cognitive ability fails, and they cannot remove themselves from danger. Heat stroke can cause seizures or put someone into a coma as their core temperature rises. If the condition is not treated immediately, and the core temperature continues to rise, heat stroke becomes fatal.
Because heat exhaustion can lead to heat stroke, addressing heat-related illnesses before they progress is vital.
How to tell when the heat is too high
Heat risk isn’t just about temperature – humidity also increases the risk of heat-related illnesses because it affects how well sweating will cool the human body when it gets hot.
Instead of just looking at temperature when planning outdoor activities, check the heat index, which accounts for heat illness risk associated with temperature and relative humidity.
It doesn’t take very high temperatures or very high humidity for the heat index to enter dangerous territory.
A heat index chart shows how heat and humidity combine for dangerous conditions. NOAA
However, the heat index is still a conservative measure of the impact of heat on humans, particularly for outdoor workers and athletes at summer practices. This is because temperature measurements used in weather forecasting are taken in the shade and are not exposed to direct sunlight. If someone is outside and exposed to the direct sun, the actual heat index can be as much as 15 F higher than the heat index chart indicates.
A more sophisticated measurement of heat effects on human health is what’s known as the wet-bulb globe temperature, which takes into account other variables, such as wind speed and cloud cover. Neither takes into account a person’s physical exertion, which also raises their body temperature, whether working at a construction site or playing soccer.
Tips for staying safe in a heat wave
How can you stay cool when heat waves set in? The answer depends in part on where you are, but the main points are the same:
Avoid strenuous outdoor activities in high temperatures if possible. If you start to feel symptoms of heat-related illnesses, drink fluids that will hydrate you. Find shade, rest, and use cool, damp cloths to lower your body temperature. If you see signs of heat stroke in someone else, call for medical help.
Be careful with fans. Fans can be useful if the temperature isn’t too high because they wick sweat away from the body and induce evaporative cooling. But at very high temperatures, they can accelerate heat buildup in the body and lead to dangerous conditions. If indoor temperatures reaches 95 degrees or higher, using fans can actually be dangerous and raise the risk of heat-related illnesses.
Find a cooling center, library or community center where you can get inside and rest in an air-conditioned space in the hottest hours. In places such as Phoenix, where high temperatures are a regular hazard, cooling centers are typically opened in summer. Northern cities are also opening cooling centers as heat waves occur there more frequently than they did in the past. Urban areas with a lot of pavement and buildings – known as heat islands – can have temperatures well above the city’s average.
Hydrate, hydrate, hydrate! Drink plenty of fluids, and don’t forget about the importance of electrolytes. Heat-related dehydration can occur when people sweat excessively, losing water and necessary salts from the body. Some sports drinks or rehydration fluids restore electrolytes and hydration levels.
Older adults and people with disabilities often face higher risks from heat waves, particularly if they can’t easily move to a cooler environment. Communities and neighbors can help protect vulnerable populations by providing cooling centers and bottled water and making regular wellness checks during high heat.
Summer can be a season of fun. Just remember the risks, keep an eye on your friends and neighbors when temperatures rise, and plan ahead so you can beat the heat.
This article, originally published June 19, 2025, has been updated with new heat advisories and forecasts.
Brian Bossak is not currently receiving relevant external funding for heat-related illness research. In 2017-2019, he served as a consultant on a heat-related research award from the Southeastern Coastal Center for Agricultural Health and
Safety at the University of Florida.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jeffrey Fields, Professor of the Practice of International Relations, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences
People observe fire and smoke from an Israeli airstrike on an oil depot in Tehran, Iran, on June 15, 2025. Stringer/Getty Images
The two countries have been particularly hostile to each other since Iranian students took over the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in November 1979, resulting in economic sanctions and the severing of formal diplomatic relations between the nations.
Some of the major events in U.S.-Iran relations highlight the differences between the nations’ views, but others arguably presented real opportunities for reconciliation.
In 1951, the Iranian Parliament chose a new prime minister, Mossadegh, who then led lawmakers to vote in favor of taking over the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, expelling the company’s British owners and saying they wanted to turn oil profits into investments in the Iranian people. The U.S. feared disruption in the global oil supply and worried about Iran falling prey to Soviet influence. The British feared the loss of cheap Iranian oil.
President Dwight Eisenhower decided it was best for the U.S. and the U.K. to get rid of Mossadegh. Operation Ajax, a joint CIA-British operation, convinced the Shah of Iran, the country’s monarch, to dismiss Mossadegh and drive him from office by force. Mossadegh was replaced by a much more Western-friendly prime minister, handpicked by the CIA.
Demonstrators in Tehran demand the establishment of an Islamic republic. AP Photo/Saris
1979: Revolutionaries oust the shah, take hostages
After more than 25 years of relative stability in U.S.-Iran relations, the Iranian public had grown unhappy with the social and economic conditions that developed under the dictatorial rule of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
Iranian students at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran show a blindfolded American hostage to the crowd in November 1979. AP Photo
In October 1979, President Jimmy Carter agreed to allow the shah to come to the U.S. to seek advanced medical treatment. Outraged Iranian students stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran on Nov. 4, taking 52 Americans hostage. That convinced Carter to sever U.S. diplomatic relations with Iran on April 7, 1980.
Two weeks later, the U.S. military launched a mission to rescue the hostages, but it failed, with aircraft crashes killing eight U.S. servicemembers.
The shah died in Egypt in July 1980, but the hostages weren’t released until Jan. 20, 1981, after 444 days of captivity.
An Iranian cleric, left, and an Iranian soldier wear gas masks to protect themselves against Iraqi chemical-weapons attacks in May 1988. Kaveh Kazemi/Getty Images
The U.S. was concerned that the conflict would limit the flow of Middle Eastern oil and wanted to ensure the conflict didn’t affect its close ally, Saudi Arabia.
U.S. officials moderated their usual opposition to those illegal and inhumane weapons because the U.S. State Department did not “wish to play into Iran’s hands by fueling its propaganda against Iraq.” In 1988, the war ended in a stalemate. More than 500,000 military and 100,000 civilians died.
1981-1986: US secretly sells weapons to Iran
The U.S. imposed an arms embargo after Iran was designated a state sponsor of terrorism in 1984. That left the Iranian military, in the middle of its war with Iraq, desperate for weapons and aircraft and vehicle parts to keep fighting.
The last shipment, of anti-tank missiles, was in October 1986. In November 1986, a Lebanese magazine exposed the deal. That revelation sparked the Iran-Contra scandal in the U.S., with Reagan’s officials found to have collected money from Iran for the weapons and illegally sent those funds to anti-socialist rebels – the Contras – in Nicaragua.
At a mass funeral for 76 of the 290 people killed in the shootdown of Iran Air 655, mourners hold up a sign depicting the incident. AP Photo/CP/Mohammad Sayyad
Either during or just after that exchange of gunfire, the Vincennes crew mistook a passing civilian Airbus passenger jet for an Iranian F-14 fighter. They shot it down, killing all 290 people aboard.
The U.S. called it a “tragic and regrettable accident,” but Iran believed the plane’s downing was intentional. In 1996, the U.S. agreed to pay US$131.8 million in compensation to Iran.
1997-1998: The US seeks contact
In August 1997, a moderate reformer, Mohammad Khatami, won Iran’s presidential election.
U.S. President Bill Clinton sensed an opportunity. He sent a message to Tehran through the Swiss ambassador there, proposing direct government-to-government talks.
Shortly thereafter, in early January 1998, Khatami gave an interview to CNN in which he expressed “respect for the great American people,” denounced terrorism and recommended an “exchange of professors, writers, scholars, artists, journalists and tourists” between the United States and Iran.
However, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei didn’t agree, so not much came of the mutual overtures as Clinton’s time in office came to an end.
In his 2002 State of the Union address, President George W. Bush characterized Iran, Iraq and North Korea as constituting an “Axis of Evil” supporting terrorism and pursuing weapons of mass destruction, straining relations even further.
Inside these buildings at the Natanz nuclear facility in Iran, technicians enrich uranium. AP Photo/Vahid Salemi
That was a violation of the terms of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which Iran had signed, requiring countries to disclose their nuclear-related facilities to international inspectors.
One of those formerly secret locations, Natanz, housed centrifuges for enriching uranium, which could be used in civilian nuclear reactors or enriched further for weapons.
Starting in roughly 2005, U.S. and Israeli government cyberattackers together reportedly targeted the Natanz centrifuges with a custom-made piece of malicious software that became known as Stuxnet.
An excerpt of the document sent from Iran, via the Swiss government, to the U.S. State Department in 2003, appears to seek talks between the U.S. and Iran. Washington Post via Scribd
In May 2003, senior Iranian officials quietly contacted the State Department through the Swiss embassy in Iran, seeking “a dialogue ‘in mutual respect,’” addressing four big issues: nuclear weapons, terrorism, Palestinian resistance and stability in Iraq.
Hardliners in the Bush administration weren’t interested in any major reconciliation, though Secretary of State Colin Powell favored dialogue and other officials had met with Iran about al-Qaida.
When Iranian hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected president of Iran in 2005, the opportunity died. The following year, Ahmadinejad made his own overture to Washington in an 18-page letter to President Bush. The letter was widely dismissed; a senior State Department official told me in profane terms that it amounted to nothing.
After a decade of unsuccessful attempts to rein in Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the Obama administration undertook a direct diplomatic approach beginning in 2013.
Iran, the U.S., China, France, Germany, Russia and the United Kingdom signed the deal in 2015. It severely limited Iran’s capacity to enrich uranium and mandated that international inspectors monitor and enforce Iran’s compliance with the agreement.
In return, Iran was granted relief from international and U.S. economic sanctions. Though the inspectors regularly certified that Iran was abiding by the agreement’s terms, President Donald Trump withdrew from the agreement in May 2018.
2020: US drones kill Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani
At the time, the Trump administration asserted that Soleimani was directing an imminent attack against U.S. assets in the region, but officials have not provided clear evidence to support that claim.
Hamas’ brazen attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, provoked a fearsome militarized response from Israel that continues today and served to severely weaken Iran’s proxies in the region, especially Hamas – the perpetrator of the attacks – and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
2025: Trump 2.0 and Iran
Trump saw an opportunity to forge a new nuclear deal with Iran and to pursue other business deals with Tehran. Once inaugurated for his second term, Trump appointed Steve Witkoff, a real estate investor who is the president’s friend, to serve as special envoy for the Middle East and to lead negotiations.
Negotiations for a nuclear deal between Washington and Tehran began in April, but the countries did not reach a deal. They were planning a new round of talks when Israel struck Iran with a series of airstrikes on June 13, forcing the White House to reconsider is position.
On June 22, in the early morning hours, the U.S. chose to act decisively in an attempt to cripple Iran’s nuclear capacity, bombing three nuclear sites and causing what Pentagon officials called “severe damage.” Iran vowed to retaliate.
This story has been updated to reflect the U.S. bombing of Iranian nuclear sites on June 22, 2025.
Jeffrey Fields receives funding from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and Schmidt Futures.
In the early hours of June 22, 2025, local time, the United States attacked three nuclear facilities in Iran with “bunker buster” bombs and Tomahawk missiles.
The Conversation U.S. turned to Javed Ali, an expert on Middle East affairs at the University of Michigan and a former senior official at the National Security Council during the first Trump administration, to talk through why Trump chose now to act and what the potential repercussions could be.
What do we know about the nature and timing of US involvement?
President Trump has been forcefully hinting for days days that such a strike could happen, while at the same time opening up a window of negotiation by suggesting as late as June 20 that he would make a decision “within the next two weeks.” We know Trump can be very unpredictable, but he must have assessed that the current conditions presented an opportunity for U.S. action.
Trump met with the National Security Council twice in the days leading up to the strike. Typically at such meetings the president is presented with a menu of military options, which usually boil down to three: a narrow option, a middle ground and a “if you really want to go big” strike.
The one he picked, I would argue, is somewhere between the narrow option and the middle ground one.
The “go big” options would have been an attack on nuclear sites and Iranian leadership – be that senior members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, or possibly the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The more narrow approach would have been just one facility, likely to have been Fordo – a deeply fortified uranium enrichment site buried within a mountain.
What did occur was a strike there, but also at two other sites – Isfahan and Natanz.
U.S. military chiefs confirmed that that 12 GBU-57s – the so-called 30,000-pound bunker busters – were dropped by B-2 bombers on Fordo, and two on Isfahan.
That suggests to me that the military goal of the operation was to destroy Iran’s ability to produce and or store highly enriched uranium in a one-time strike rather than drag the U.S. into a more prolonged conflict.
Has the strike achieved Trump’s objectives?
It will take some time to properly assess the extent to which Iran’s ability to produce or store highly enriched uranium has been damaged.
Certainly we know that the bombs hit their targets, and they have been damaged – but to what extent is not immediately clear. General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that all three target sites had suffered “extremely severe damage and destruction” – possibly rolling back from Trump’s “fully obliterated” assessment. Perhaps most tellingly, Iran has not commented yet on the extent of the damage.
But to Trump, the objective was not just military but political, too. Trump has long said “no” to a nuclear Iran while at the same time has expressed that he has no desire to drag the U.S. into another war.
And this strike may allow Trump to achieve those seemingly contradictory goals. If U.S. initial assessments are correct, Iran’s nuclear program will have been severely compromised. But the strikes won’t necessarily pull U.S. into the conflict fully – unless Iran retaliates in such a way that necessitates further U.S. action.
And that is what Iran’s supreme leader and his military generals will need to work out: Should Iran retaliate and, if so, is it prepared to deal with a heavier U.S. military response – especially when there is no end in sight to its current conflict with Israel.
An operational timeline of a strike on Iran is displayed during a news conference with U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine and U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on June 22, 2025. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
What options does Iran have to retaliate against US?
Iran has in the past tried to respond proportionately to any attack. But here is the problem for Iran’s leaders: There is no feasible proportionate response to the United States. Iran has no capability to hit nuclear plants in the U.S. – either conventionally or through unconventional warfare.
But there are tens of thousands of U.S. troops in the region, stationed in Iraq, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Qatar and Jordan. All are in range of Iran’s ballistic, drones or cruise missiles.
But that military inventory has been depleted – both by using ballistic missiles in waves of attacks against Israel and by Israel hitting missile launch and storage sites in Iran.
Similarly, Tehran’s capacity to respond through one of its proxy or aligned groups in the region has been degraded. Hezbollah in Lebanon and Gaza’s Hamas – both of whom have ties to Iran – are in survival mode following damaging attacks from Israel over the past 18 months.
The Houthis in Yemen are in many ways the “last man standing” in Iran’s so-called “Axis of Resistance.” But the Houthis have limited capability and know that if they do attack U.S. assets, they will likely get hit hard. During Operation Rough Rider from March to May this year, the Trump administration launched over 1,000 strikes against the Houthis.
Meanwhile Shia militias in Iraq and Syria that could be encouraged to attack U.S. bases haven’t been active in months.
Of course, Iran could look outside the region. In the past the country has been involved in assassinations, kidnappings and terror attacks abroad that were organized through its Quds Force or via operatives of MOIS, its intelligence service.
But for Iran’s leaders, it is increasingly looking like a lose-lose proposition. If they don’t respond in a meaningful way, they look weak and more vulnerable. But if they do hit U.S. targets in any meaningful way, they will invite a stronger U.S. involvement in the conflict, as Trump has warned.
On that occasion, Iran promised a strong retaliation. Its retaliatory attack against the U.S. Ain al-Asad air base in Iraq involved 27 ballistic missiles and caused the physical destruction of some of the facilities on base as well as traumatic brain injury-type symptoms to dozens of troops and personnel, but no deaths. Nevertheless, after this both the U.S. and Iran then backed off from deepening the conflict.
The circumstances now are very different. Iran is already at war with Israel. Moreover, the U.S. went after Iran’s crown jewels – its nuclear program – and it was on Iranian territory. Nonetheless, Khameini knows that if he retaliates, he risks provoking a larger response.
Trump suggested ‘further attacks’ could occur. What could that entail?
The U.S. has suggested that it has the intelligence and ability to hit senior leadership in Iran. And any “go big option” would have likely involved strikes on key personnel. Similarly there could be plans to hit the Iranian economy by attacking oil and gas targets.
A satellite image of the Fordo nuclear facility in Iran prior to the U.S. strike on June 22, 2025. Maxar/Getty
But such actions risk either damaging the global economy or drawing the U.S. deeper into the conflict – it would evolve from a “one and done” strike to a cycle of attacks and responses. And that could widen political cracks between hawks in the administration and parts of Trump’s MAGA faithful who are against the U.S. being involved in overseas wars.
Is there any opportunity of a return to diplomacy?
Trump has not closed his “two weeks” window for talks – theoretically it is still open.
But will Iran come to table? Leaders there had already said they were not willing to entertain any deal while under attack from Israel. Araghchi, Iran’s foreign minister, said after the U.S. strikes that the time for diplomacy had now passed.
In any event, you have to ask, what can Iran come to the table with? Do they have much of a nuclear program anymore? And if not, what would they try to negotiate? It would seem, using one of Trump’s phrases, they “don’t have the cards” to make much of a deal.
Javed Ali 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.
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By James Horncastle, Assistant Professor and Edward and Emily McWhinney Professor in International Relations, Simon Fraser University
Segment on Trump’s threats against Iran’s leader. (BBC News)
The American military can certainly make an impact in any air campaign against Iran. The problem from a military standpoint, however, is that the U.S., based on its forces’ deployment, will almost certainly seek to keep its involvement limited to its air force to avoid another Iraq-like quagmire.
While doing so could almost certainly disrupt Iran’s nuclear program, it will likely fall short of Israel’s goal of regime change.
In fact, it could reinforce the Iranian government and draw the U.S. into a costly ground war.
The initial stated reason for Israel’s bombing campaign — Iran’s nuclear capabilities — appears specious at best.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has argued several times in the past, without evidence, that Iran is close to achieving a nuclear weapon. U.S. intelligence, however, have assessed that Iran is three years away from deploying a nuclear weapon.
Regardless of the veracity of the claims, Israel initiated the offensive and requires American support.
Israel’s need for U.S. assistance rests on two circumstances:
While Israel succeeded in eliminating key figures from the Iranian military in its initial strikes, Iran’s response appears to have exceeded Israel’s expectations with their Arrow missile interceptors nearing depletion.
Israel’s air strikes can only achieve so much in disrupting Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Most analysts note that Israel’s bombings are only likely to delay the Iranian nuclear program by a few months. This is due to the fact that Israeli missiles are incapable of penetrating the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, which estimates place close to 300 feet underground.
Nonetheless, the efficacy of air power has been vastly overrated in the popular media and various air forces of the world. Air power is great at disrupting an opponent, but has significant limitations in influencing the outcome of a war.
Specifically, air power is likely to prove an inadequate tool for one of the supposed Israeli and American objectives in the war: regime change. For air power to be effective at bringing about regime change, it needs to demoralize the Iranian people to the point that they’re willing to oppose their own government.
Early air enthusiasts believed that a population’s demoralization would be an inevitable consequence of aerial bombardment. Italian general Giulio Douhet, a prominent air power theorist, argued that air power was so mighty that it could destroy cities and demoralize an opponent into surrendering.
Douhet was correct on the first point. He was wrong on the second.
Recent history provides evidence. While considerableink has been spilled to demonstrate the efficacy of air power during the Second World War, close examination of the facts demonstrate that it had a minimal impact. In fact, Allied bombing of German cities in several instances created the opposite effect.
More recent bombing campaigns replicated this failure. The U.S. bombing of North Vietnam during the Vietnam War did not significantly damage North Vietnamese morale or war effort. NATO’s bombing of Serbia in 1999, likewise, rallied support for the unpopular Slobodan Milosevic due to its perceived injustice — and continues to evoke strong emotions to this day.
Iran’s political regime may be unpopular with many Iranians, but Israeli and American bombing may shore up support for the Iranian government.
Nationalism is a potent force, particularly when people are under attack. The attacks on Iran will rally segments of the population to the government that would otherwise oppose it.
Few positive options
The limitations of air power to fuel significant political change in Iran should have given Trump pause about intervening in the conflict.
Some American support, such as providing weapons, is a given due to the close relationship between the U.S. and Israel. But any realization of American and Israeli aspirations of a non-nuclear Iran and a new government will likely require ground forces.
Recent American experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq show such a ground forces operation won’t lead to the swift victory that Trump desires, but could potentially stretch on for decades.
James Horncastle 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.
This political support stands in sharp contrast to the many businesses that have reduced or ended their support for the 2SLGBTQIA+ community this Pride season.
Multinational corporations like Google, as well as Canadian-owned companies like Molson Coors, have divested from supporting festivals, while Target has scaled back its Pride merchandise due to threats against employees and large-scale conservative backlash.
The impact is already being felt. Pride Toronto is currently facing a $900,000 funding gap. Executive director Kojo Modeste recently told CBC News this corporate divestment appears to be linked to the larger backlash against diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.
Fear of punitive measures
In January, United States President Donald Trump issued an executive order to dismantle DEI initiatives in federal agencies and target private companies that support DEI measures. In the executive order, Trump’s administration called DEI measures and mandates “immoral discrimination programs.”
Major private corporations, including IBM, quickly bent to the pressure of Trump’s anti-DEI orders by gutting their programs and shifting corporate donorship away from “woke” initiatives.
The pressure to comply with anti-DEI measures hasn’t ended with corporations. More recently, Trump has set his sights on the U.S. post-secondary system, freezing US$2.2 million in federal grants and US$60 million in contracts after Harvard University refused to comply with the administration’s demands related to its DEI programs.
Following in the footsteps of the U.S., Alberta’s United Conservative Party membership passed a resolution to eliminate DEI programs and training in the public service. The party has also indicated it will remove government funding from post-secondary institutions that continue to do DEI work.
Declining public support
In addition to the rollback of DEI programs, the ongoing corporate reductions in Pride support are taking place amid increasing anti-2SLGBTQIA+ sentiment.
A 2024 poll reported that, in Canada, support for 2SLGBTQIA+ visibility — like representation on screens and in sports — is lower than it was in 2021. Compared to previous years, Canadians also expressed less support for transgender rights, and this level of support was lower than the 26 other countries surveyed.
Public attitudes don’t change in a vacuum. They are deeply influenced by hate movements, political rhetoric and the spread of misinformation and disinformation weaponized by politicians and leaders to dehumanize the 2SLGBTQIA+ community, particularly transgender people.
This dehumanization incites fear, violence and support for anti-2SLGBTQIA+ hate. It has coincided with companies silently withdrawing their support for the 2SLGBTQIA+ community.
Where we live, in Alberta, the provincial government has passed the most draconian anti-trans laws Canada has ever seen. As we (Corinne L. Mason and Leah Hamilton) have previously written, Premier Danielle Smith’s government has unveiled a suite of policies targeting transgender, intersex and gender diverse children and youth in Alberta, and the 2SLGBTQIA+ community more broadly.
In this environment of reduced public and political support, it’s not surprising to see companies backing away from the 2SLGBTQIA+ community.
Getting back to Pride’s roots
The fact that companies have quickly backed away from their support of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community — by halting production of Pride merchandise or reducing sponsorship in Pride festivals — illustrates the conditionality of their support.
Rather than beg big business to come back to the table, some members of the community are using this moment to reflect on how corporate “Love is Love” campaigns haven’t actually led to increased quality of life or justice for our communities.
Pride Month is rooted in protest and resistance against police violence and systemic oppression. It was led by Black trans women and can be traced back to the Stonewall Riots. Today, Pride still isn’t simply a party and parade.
Authentic ‘rainbow dollars’
In this sociopolitical climate of legislated DEI rollbacks and declining public support for the 2SLGBTQIA+ community, organizations that want to support the 2SLGBTQIA+ community should back up their messaging with meaningful actions and structural support.
Some organizations have shown a commitment to structural support for the 2SLGBTQIA+ community from its beginning, including the Northern Super League, the top-division professional women’s soccer league in Canada. The league openly and consistently amplifies and supports its 2SLGBTQIA+ players, coaches, staff and fans. Founded by Diana Matheson, an openly queer woman, the league is founded on inclusion as a core value.
When it comes to creating Pride merchandise, Social Made Local is a queer-owned Canadian apparel company in Saskatoon that focuses on gender-inclusive sizing, sustainability and community. They donate a portion of their sales to Canadian non-profits like Rainbow Railroad.
Companies that want to show their support can spend their rainbow dollars in good faith through actions that meaningfully support the 2SLGBTQIA+ community. This could include creating programs that support queer entrepreneurs, donating to legal funds that are fighting discriminatory legislation, and partnering with 2SLGBTQIA+ organizations to amplify their work.
Leah Hamilton receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
Corinne L. Mason receives funding from Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.
Gini (Virginia) Weber 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 – Canada – By Shannon D. M. Moore, Assistant professor of social studies education, Department of Curriculum Teaching and Learning, Faculty of Education, University of Manitoba
The sexual assault trial of five former World Juniors hockey players has spotlighted issues around sexual assault and consent.
We argue for harnessing popular media to advance sexuality education. Children and youth learn about a great deal about gender, relationships, sexuality and consent from popular media.
Although there is strong theoretical rationale for using popular media to confront sexual assault, many teachers identify and experience barriers to putting this into practice in their classrooms.
Talking about sex in society and in schools is often taboo. Discussions of healthy relationships and consent are often highly controlled, minimized or relegated to a sexual education curriculum that is not universally taught. This is due to parental opt-outs/ins in many provinces.
Not surprisingly, neglecting comprehensive sexuality education has many adverse consequences. Students learn that eliminating sexual violence is not a societal priority. Those who have experienced assault and other forms of violence learn that they are not important, as their stories are often silenced, ignored or distrusted.
As a result, rape culture and gender-based violence remains unchallenged in schools, while it is normalized, legitimized and endorsed in popular media.
What youth watch, play, listen to or create on social media has a significant role in teaching dominant understandings that normalize sexual violence, misogyny and the patriarchy.
As teacher educators and educational researchers, the teachers we have worked with across grades and subject areas recognize how popular media is always and already present in classrooms, and many embrace the opportunities it affords for necessary conversations that are relevant to students.
Challenges with using popular media
The teacher participants in our study revealed that classroom culture wars have had a chilling impact on their practice, making them feel more wary about tackling particular topics.
We found that despite research-informed rationale for using popular media to ground sexuality education, teachers encounter several barriers and complications in doing so.
Teachers’ discomfort was exacerbated when school leaders did not support their efforts to advance these lessons, even though they were anchored to the provincial curriculum. Teacher participants also spoke of a lack of professional development or preparation to talk about healthy relationships and consent in teacher education contexts.
1. Start with media constructions of gender: As popular media contributes to societal expectations of gender, students should begin by interrogating how masculinities and femininities are constructed and mobilized in popular media.
This can include examining how male, female and non-binary characters are constructed and presented to audiences, their position within the broader storyline and their level of dialogue and how varied intersections of identity impact these depictions.
2. Begin with unfamiliar content: Students can initially become defensive when they are asked to critically engage with media content that deeply connect with their identity and give them a sense of joy.
While the goal is to move to the interrogation of students’ own media diets, it can positively generate student participation when educators begin analytical and critical discussions about media with unfamiliar, or at least not cherished, material (like popular songs, video or social media).
3. Offer a feminist lens: As teacher educators, we recognize that there is no single method or approach that tends to every aspect of sexual assault and other forms of gender-based violence. Yet, we also know that educators seek resources to engage more meaningfully with students.
Cards to foster conversation
We constructed a deck of educational playing cards that educators can use to foster conversations about media portrayals of gender, healthy relationships and consent (or lack thereof).
These cards employ a feminist lens, based on Sarah Ahmed’s Living a Feminist Life. We advocate for teachers to have time in professional learning spaces to try out the cards with other educators before they facilitate complex conversations related to gender-based violence with students.
If as a society we want to see fewer instances of gender-based violence, teachers need provincial curriculum documents that align with the research on comprehensive sex education. They also need school leaders who will support their work and model consent in the broader school culture, and more professional development and preparation in teacher education.
Shannon D. M. Moore receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council
Jennifer Watt receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council .
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Mohammadamin Ahmadfard, Postdoctoral Fellow, Mechanical & Industrial Engineering, Toronto Metropolitan University
Artificial intelligence (AI) is quietly transforming how cities generate, store and distribute energy, acting as the invisible conductor that orchestrates cleaner, smarter and more resilient cities.
By integrating renewables — from solar panels and wind turbines to geothermal grids, hydrogen plants, electric vehicles and batteries — AI can enable cities to manage diverse energy sources as a single, intelligent system.
One striking example is the Oya Hybrid Power Station in South Africa. Here, AI-driven controls seamlessly co-ordinate solar, wind and battery storage to deliver reliable power to up to 320,000 households. Using AI makes this kind of integration not only possible, but dramatically more efficient.
Recent research shows AI can also optimize how batteries, solar and the grid interact in buildings. A 2023 study found that deep learning and real-time data helped a boarding school in Turin, Italy increase low-cost energy purchases and cut its electricity bill by more than half.
Cleaner, smarter energy grids
AI models are increasingly able to predict weather with greater precision. These predictions allow electric grid operators to plan hours ahead, storing excess energy in batteries or adjusting supply to meet demand before a storm or heatwave hits.
Using AI to respond strategically to weather is a game-changer. In Cambridge, England, a system called Aardvark uses satellite and sensor data to generate rapid, accurate forecasts of sun and wind patterns.
Unlike traditional supercomputer-driven weather models, Aardvark’s AI can deliver precise local forecasts in minutes on an ordinary computer. This makes advanced weather prediction more accessible and affordable for cities, utilities and even smaller organizations — potentially transforming how communities everywhere plan for and respond to changing weather.
AI models are increasingly able to predict weather with greater precision, allowing electric grid operators to plan ahead, storing excess energy in batteries or adjusting supply to meet demand before a storm or heat wave hits. (Shutterstock)
AI for smarter district heating and cooling
In Munich, Germany, AI is improving geothermal district heating by using underground sensors to monitor temperature and moisture levels in the ground.
The collected data feeds into a digital simulation model that helps optimize network operations. In more advanced versions, during winter cold snaps, such systems can suggest lowering flow to underused spaces like half-empty offices and boosting heat where demand is higher, such as in crowded apartments.
This intelligent, self-optimizing approach extends the life of equipment and delivers more warmth with the same energy input.
This is a breakthrough with enormous potential for cities in cold climates with established geothermal networks, such as Winnipeg in Canada and Iceland’s Reykjavik.
Although these cities have not yet adopted AI-driven monitoring systems, they could benefit from AI’s real-time improvements in efficiency, comfort and energy savings during harsh winters — a principle that holds true wherever geothermal district heating and cooling exists.
Inside the home, AI-managed smart climate systems can factor in how many people are in each room, which appliances are in use, how much natural sunlight each space receives. (Shutterstock)
Smart buildings
Inside the home, AI-managed smart climate systems can factor in how many people are in each room, which appliances are in use, how much natural sunlight each space receives and how much electricity or heat a home’s solar panels generate throughout the day.
Based on this, AI determines how to heat or cool rooms efficiently, and can transfer energy from one space to another, balancing comfort with minimal energy use.
Coastal cities and those in wind-heavy regions are using AI in other creative ways. In Orkney, Scotland, excess wind and tidal energy are converted into green hydrogen. Instead of letting that surplus power go to waste, an AI system called HyAI controls when to generate hydrogen based on wind forecasts, electricity prices and how full the hydrogen storage tanks are.
When winds are strong at night and electricity is cheap, the AI can divert surplus power to produce hydrogen and store it for later use. On calmer days, that stored hydrogen can power fuel cells or buses.
Energy storage
AI is transforming energy storage into a smart, revenue-generating force. In Finland, a startup called Capalo AI has developed Zeus VPP, an AI-powered virtual power plant that aggregates distributed batteries from homes, businesses and other sites.
Zeus VPP uses advanced forecasting and AI algorithms to decide when batteries should charge or discharge, factoring in energy prices, local consumption and weather forecasts. This enables battery owners to earn revenue by participating in electricity markets, while also supporting grid stability and making better use of renewable energy.
AI-powered dynamic line rating adjusts how much electricity a line can carry in real time, boosting capacity by 15 to 30 per cent when conditions allow. This helps utilities maximize the use of existing infrastructure instead of relying on costly upgrades.
At the local level, AI analyzes smart metre data to predict which transformers are overheating due to rising EV and heat pump use.
By forecasting these stress points, utilities can proactively upgrade equipment before failures happen — a shift from reactive to predictive maintenance that makes the grid stronger and cities more resilient.
AI-powered public transit and mobility
Transportation innovation is becoming part of the energy solution, with AI at the centre of this transformation. In New York City, energy company Con Edison has installed major battery storage systems to help manage peak electricity demand and reduce reliance on polluting peaker plants, which supply energy only during high-demand periods.
More broadly, Con Edison is deploying advanced AI-powered analytics software across its electric grid — optimizing voltage, enhancing reliability and enabling predictive maintenance. Together, these efforts show how combining energy storage and AI-driven analytics can make even the world’s busiest cities more resilient and efficient.
AI is also powering “vehicle-to-grid” innovations in California, where an AI-driven platform manages electric school buses that can supply stored energy back to the grid during periods of high demand.
By carefully managing when buses charge and discharge, these systems help keep the grid reliable and ensure vehicles are ready for their daily routes. As this technology expands, parked electric vehicles could serve as valuable backup resources for the electricity system.
Transportation innovation is becoming part of the energy solution. (Shutterstock)
AI for clean energy initiatives
AI is rapidly transforming cities by revolutionizing how energy is used and managed. Google, for example, has slashed cooling energy at its data centres by up to 40 per cent using AI that fine-tunes fans, pumps and windows more efficiently than any human operator.
Organizations like the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), in collaboration with NVIDIA, Microsoft and others, have launched the Open Power AI Consortium, which is creating open-source AI tools for utilities worldwide.
These tools will enable even the most resource-constrained cities to deploy advanced AI capabilities, without having to start from scratch, helping to level the playing field and accelerate the global energy transition.
The result is not just cleaner air and lower energy bills, but a path to fewer blackouts and more resilient homes.
Mohammadamin Ahmadfard receives funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and Mitacs Inc. for his postdoctoral research at Toronto Metropolitan University.
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Sara Bannerman, Professor and Canada Research Chair in Communication Policy and Governance, McMaster University
In Canada, federal political parties are not governed by basic standards of federal privacy law. If passed, Bill C-4, also known as the Making Life More Affordable for Canadians Act, would also make provincial and territorial privacy laws inapplicable to federal political parties, with no adequate federal law in place.
Federal legislation in the form of the Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act sets out privacy standards for government and business, based on the fair information principles that provide for the collection, use and disclosure of Canadians’ personal information.
At the moment, these laws don’t apply to political parties. Some provinces — especially British Columbia — have implemented laws that do. In May 2024, the B.C. Supreme Court upheld the provincial Information Commissioner’s ruling that B.C.’s privacy legislation applies to federal political parties. That decision is currently under appeal.
Bill C-4 would undermine those B.C. rights. It would make inapplicable to federal parties the standard privacy rights that apply in other business and government contexts— such as the right to consent to the collection, use and disclosure of personal information — and to access and correct personal information held by organizations.
Why should we be concerned about Bill C-4’s erasure of these privacy protections for Canadians? There are four reasons:
Until now, Canadian parties and governments have been content to use American platforms, data companies and datified campaign tactics. Bill C-4 would leave federal parties free to do more of the same. This is the opposite of what’s needed.
The politics that resulted in Trump being elected twice to the Oval Office was spurred in part by the datafied campaigning of Cambridge Analytica in 2016 and Elon Musk in 2024. These politics are driven by micro-targeted and arguably manipulative political campaigns.
Do Canadians want Canada to go in the same direction?
Are political parties spying and experimenting on Canadians via personal data collection? (Unsplash/Arthur Mazi), FAL
2. Threats to Canada’s future
Bill C-4 would undermine one of the mechanisms that makes Canada a society: collective political decisions.
Datified campaigning and the collection of personal information by political parties change the nature of democracy. Rather than appealing to political values or visions of what voters may want in the future or as a society — critically important at this historical and troubling moment in history — datified campaigning operates by experimenting on unwitting individual citizens who are alone on their phones and computers. It operates by testing their isolated opinions and unvarnished behaviours.
For example, a political campaign might do what’s known as A/B testing of ads, which explores whether ad A or ad B is more successful by issuing two different versions of an ad to determine which one gets more clicks, shares, petition signatures, donations or other measurable behaviour. With this knowledge, a campaign or party can manipulate the ads through multiple versions to get the desired behaviour and result. They also learn about ad audiences for future targeting.
In other words, political parties engaging in this tactic aren’t engaging with Canadians — they’re experimenting on them to see what type of messages, or even what colour schemes or visuals, appeal most. This can be used to shape the campaign or just the determine the style of follow-up messaging to particular users.
University researchers, to name just one example, are bound by strict ethical protocols and approvals, including the principle that participants should consent to the collection of personal information, and to participation in experiments and studies. Political parties have no such standards, despite the high stakes — the very future of democracy and society.
Most citizens think of elections as being about deliberation and collectively deciding what kind of society they want to live in and what kind of future they want to have together as they decide how to cast their ballots.
But with datified campaigning, citizens may not be aware of the political significance of their online actions. Their data trail might cause them to be included, or excluded, from a party’s future campaigning and door-knocking, for example. The process isn’t deliberative, thoughtful or collective.
3. Secret personal data collection
Political parties collect highly personal data about Canadians without their knowledge or consent. Most Canadians are not aware of the extent of the collection by political parties and the range of data they collect, which can include political views, ethnicity, income, religion or online activities, social media IDs, observations of door-knockers and more.
Some governments can and do use data to punish individuals politically and criminally, sometimes without the protection of the rule of law.
Breaches and misuses of data, cybersecurity experts say, are no longer a question of “if,” but “when.”
Worse, what would happen if the wall between political parties and politicians or government broke down and the personal information collected by parties became available to governments? What if the data were used for political purposes, such as for vetting people for political appointments or government benefits? What if it were used against civil servants?
What if it were to be used at the border, or passed to other governments? What if it were passed to and used by authoritarian governments to harass and punish citizens?
What if it was passed to tech companies and further to data brokers?
OpenMedia recently revealed that Canadians’ data is being passed to the many different data companies political parties use. That data is not necessarily housed in Canada or by Canadian companies.
If provincial law is undermined, there are few protections against any of these problems.
Strengthening democracy
Bill C-4 would erase the possibility of provincial and territorial privacy laws being applied to federal political parties, with virtually nothing remaining. Privacy protection promotes confidence and engagement with democratic processes — particularly online. Erasing privacy protections threatens this confidence and engagement.
The current approach of federal political parties in terms of datified campaigning and privacy law is entirely wrong for this political moment, dangerous to Canadians and dangerous to democracy. Reforms should instead ensure federal political parties must adhere to the same standards as businesses and all levels of government.
Data privacy is important everywhere, but particularly so for political parties, campaigns and democratic engagement. It is important at all times — particularly now.
Sara Bannerman receives funding from the Canada Research Chairs program, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, and McMaster University. She has previously received funding from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner’s Contributions Program and the Digital Ecosystem Research Challenge.
When US B-2 bombers hit Iran’s nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, Donald Trump declared the strikes a success and urged the Islamic Republic to make peace or face even more devastating strikes. The US president proclaimed the might of the US military, operating in full coordination with Israel, before taking to truth social.
Trump and the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, will hope that the strikes will end Iran’s nuclear programme once and for all. It may, it may not. More certain is that the operation will sound the death knell for the post-second world war global order.
After the horrors of the that war and the cold war that followed, a global order emerged seemingly predicated on a set of largely liberal rules and norms that sought to prevent a retreat into global conflict. Predicated on non-intervention, diplomacy and a respect for the rule of law, this global order was idealistic and – ultimately – aspirational.
But in recent years, this vision of global politics has come crashing down. Now America joining Israel in its attacks on Iran will rightly provoke serious questions about the future of global order and what comes next.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox.Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
Trump’s decision to use US air power to land heavy blows against Iran’s nuclear programme is the latest event on a continuum which arguably reaches back to the Hamas terror attack of October 7.
Israel’s destruction of Gaza, its decapitation of Hamas and disabling of Hezbollah’s military capacity and its strikes against the Houthi rebels have consolidated Israel’s position of strength in the region, to generally positive acclaim from global audiences. Yet the spectre of Iran continued to loom large, even as its proxies were defeated
Iran has long been framed as an nefarious puppet master controlling a complex web of “proxy actors” across the Middle East each accused of doing the bidding of Tehran. The reality is rather different. While the Islamic Republic undeniably wields influence over such groups, it is not the perfidious mastermind that some would suggest, nor is it the source of all ills in the region.
Instead, Iran is in a perilous position. The Islamic Republic faces serious social and economic pressures, with the “women life freedom movement” galvanising popular opposition, while unrest across Iran’s peripheral provinces which are home to ethnic and religious minorities continues to ferment.
In recent years, diplomacy has shown it can work, ameliorating longstanding and deep-seated animosities. This was bearing fruits as seen in the gradual rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia from 2023, which had been preceded by the signing of the Abraham accords in 2020.
Seen by many as a key achievement of Trump’s first presidency, this was a series of agreements between Israel and Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Morocco and Sudan in which the Arab countries recognised Israel and all sides signed a declaration of principles focused on mutual understanding, respect for human dignity, and cooperation.
While many in Israel and the US hoped that Saudi Arabia would officially recognise Israel, the events of October 7 and the destruction of Gaza that followed ended those hopes. Now the possibility of all-out conflict between Iran and Israel and the US risks blowing a major regional conflict with global implications.
Serious questions must be asked as to the longer-term strategy here. While Israeli officials have articulated a need for strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities to prevent the Islamic Republic from getting a nuclear weapons capability, Iran is a signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (although it has threatened recently to quit) and key officials have regularly declared that nuclear weapons have no place in Iran’s strategic portfolio.
Israel is not a signatory to the treaty. In fact, it is thought to possess between 75 and 400 nuclear warheads. It’s hard to tell, as the country has maintained a steadfast policy of nuclear opacity, never actually admitting the extent of its nuclear capability.
New impunity?
Is this the start of a new order of impunity across the region, backed by western powers? And if so, what does this mean for the war in Ukraine and the potential for an aggressive Russia engaging in further dangerous adventurism? What does it mean for the possibility of China taking advantage in this breakdown to perhaps fulfil its generations-old ambition to unite with Taiwan, by force, if necessary? Are we seeing the shift to a world in which Donald Trump’s threats to annex Greenland – even perhaps Canada – must be taken seriously?
The contours of global politics are changing before our eyes. Gone are the norms that have served as the bedrock of the so-called liberal international order. The risk is that while this period has itself featured tragedy and suffering on an almost unimaginable scale, tearing up the rule book will be far worse.
Simon Mabon receives funding from Carnegie Corporation of New York and the Henry Luce Foundation. He is a Senior Research Fellow with the Foreign Policy Centre.
After prevaricating about whether the United States would enter Israel’s war on Iran, President Donald Trump finally made a decision.
Early Sunday, US warplanes and submarines struck three of Iran’s nuclear sites at Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow, where the Iranians have a uranium enrichment plant buried about 80 metres beneath a mountain.
These strikes have to be viewed as part of an overall continuum that began with the Gaza war following Hamas’ attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, and then continued with Israel’s attacks on Hezbollah (the Iran-backed militant group in Lebanon) and the fall of the Iran-backed Assad regime in Syria.
Iran has never been weaker than it is now. And when Trump said it may take two weeks for him to decide whether to bomb Iran, the Israelis likely pushed him to act sooner.
We can assume there was a lot of Israeli pressure on Trump to use the massive ordnance penetrators, the 30,000-pound (13,600-kilogram) “bunker buster” bombs that only the US can deploy with its B2 bombers.
Now that Trump has taken the significant step of entering the US in yet another Middle East war, where could things go from here? There are a few possible scenarios.
Iran strikes back
The Iranians know they don’t have the strength to take on the US, and that the Americans can do enormous damage to their country and even put the Iranian regime’s stability at risk.
This is always the prime consideration of the clerical regime led by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei – everything else is subordinate to that.
To gauge Iran’s possible reaction, we can look at the how it responded to the first Trump administration’s assassination of the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ elite Quds Force, Qassem Soleimani, in January 2020.
Iran said there would be a major reaction, but all it did was launch a barrage of missiles at two American bases in Iraq, which caused no US fatalities and very little damage. After that token retaliation, Iran said the matter was closed.
Iran’s reaction to the new US strikes will likely be along these lines. It probably won’t want to get into a tit-for-tat with the US by launching attacks against American facilities in the region. Trump has promised to respond with force:
Iran, a bully of the Middle East, must now make peace. If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.
It’s also unclear how long Iran will be able to prosecute this war. This depends largely on how many ballistic missiles and launchers it has left.
There are various estimates as to how many ballistic missiles Iran may have remaining in its stockpiles. It was believed to have about 2,000 missiles capable of reaching Israel at the start of the war. Some estimates say Iran has fired 700 of them; others say around 400. Whatever the number is, its stockpiles are dwindling quickly.
Israel has also destroyed about a third of Iran’s ballistic missile launchers. If Israel is able to destroy all of them, Iran would have very limited ability to fight back.
Iran backs down
Before the US got involved in the conflict, Iran said it was prepared to negotiate, but it wouldn’t do so while Israel was still attacking.
So, one scenario is that some sort of compromise can now be worked out, in which Israel announces a ceasefire and Iran and the US agree to resume negotiations on Tehran’s nuclear program.
The big problem is that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said he doesn’t trust the negotiating process and he doesn’t want to stop Israel’s military actions until all of Iran’s nuclear facilities have been completely destroyed. He’s also been bombing Iran’s oil terminals and gas facilities to put even more pressure on the regime.
But the regime has shown itself to be incredibly determined not to lose face. It was under great pressure at different times during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s and never considered surrendering until a US missile mistakenly took down an Iranian passenger jet, killing 290 people.
Iran then agreed to a UN-brokered ceasefire. But the Iran-Iraq war lasted eight years, causing an estimated one million deaths. And when the then-supreme leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, agreed to the ceasefire, he said it was “worse than drinking poison”.
Given the state of Iran’s military capabilities, Khamenei, the current supreme leader, might surrender simply to try to preserve the regime. But this would be quite a climbdown as far as he’s concerned, and he has been very obstinate in the past.
The regime is very unpopular, but the Iranian people, in my experience, are strongly patriotic – loyal to their country, if not the regime. Though it’s difficult to gauge opinion in a country of 90 million people, a lot of Iranians would not want to be ordered to do anything by the US or Israel, and would rather fight on.
Netanyahu has said he wants to create the conditions for the Iranian people to rise up against the regime.
But it’s worth bearing in mind that the opposite of autocracy is not necessarily democracy. It could possibly be chaos. Iran has a number of different ethnic groups and there may be huge disagreements over what should take the place of the clerical regime, were it to fall.
Though we don’t know his probable successor, the regime has had plenty of time to plan for this. Those in senior positions will also know that a post-Khamenei succession struggle really would put the regime at risk.
The US engagement is limited
According to the new polling by The Economist and YouGov, released on June 17, 60% of Americans were opposed to joining the conflict between Israel and Iran, with just 16% in favour. Among Republicans, 53% opposed military action.
So, these strikes were not an obviously popular move among Americans at this stage. However, if this is an isolated event and succeeds in bringing a swift end to the war, Trump will probably be applauded by a majority of Americans.
If the US has to go back with more bombers – or there are serious attacks on US interests in the region – there could be more adverse reactions among Americans.
If it hasn’t been destroyed, and depending how much damage has been done to its centrifuges, Iran may be able to reconstruct its nuclear program relatively quickly. And it could have more incentive to further enrich this uranium to 90% purity, or weapons-grade level, to build a nuclear device.
Ian Parmeter 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.
The jagged silhouette of a B2 stealth bomber seen during a 2015 flyover in the US.Jonathan Daniel / Getty Images
Late on Saturday night, local time, the United States carried out strikes against Iranian nuclear enrichment sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, marking its open participation in the conflict between Iran and Israel.
The US says it fired 30 submarine-launched missiles at the sites in Natanz and Isfahan, as well as dropping more than a dozen “bunker buster” bombs at Fordow and Natanz.
The kind of bomb in question is the extremely destructive GBU-57 Massive Ordance Penetrator, or MOP, which weighs around 13.5 tonnes.
The attacks raise a lot of questions. What are these enormous bombs? Why did the US feel it had to get involved in the conflict? And, going forward, what does it mean for Iran’s nuclear ambitions?
What are ‘bunker busters’, and why are they used?
Bunker busters are weapons designed to destroy heavily protected facilities such as bunkers deep underground, beyond the reach of normal bombs.
Bunker busters are designed to bury themselves into the ground before detonating. This allows more of the explosive force to penetrate into the ground, rather than travelling through the air or across the surface.
Iran’s nuclear enrichment sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan are built deep underground. Estimates suggest that Fordow for example could be 80m beneath the surface, and capped with layers of reinforced concrete and soil.
What is the MOP?
The bunker buster used in this particular operation is the largest in the US arsenal. Leaving aside nuclear weapons, the MOP is the largest known buster buster in the world.
Weighing some 13.5 tonnes, the MOP is believed to be able to penetrate up to 60 metres below ground in the right conditions. It is not known how many the US possesses, but the numbers are thought to be small (perhaps 20 or so in total).
We also don’t know exactly how many were used in Iran, though some reports say it was 14. However, it is likely to be a significant portion of the US MOP arsenal.
Why does only the US possess this capability?
The US is not the only state with bunker-busting weaponry. However, the size of MOP means it requires very specialised bombers to carry and drop it.
Only the B2 stealth bomber is currently able to deploy the MOP. Each B2 can carry at most two MOPs at a time. Around seven of America’s 19 operational B2s were used in the Iran operation.
There has been some consideration whether large transport aircraft such as the C-130 Hercules could be modified to carry and drop the MOP from its rear cargo doors. While this would allow other countries (including Israel) to deploy the MOP, it is for now purely hypothetical.
Why has the US (apparently) used them in Iran
The Trump administration claims Iran may be only a few weeks from possessing a nuclear weapon, and that it needed to act now to destroy Iranian nuclear enrichment sites. This claim is notably at odds with published assessments from the US intelligence community.
However, Israel lacks bunker busting weaponry sufficient to damage the deeply buried and fortified enrichment sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.
An F-15E Strike Eagle releases a GBU-28 ‘bunker buster’ laser-guided bomb, a smaller equivalewnt of the 13,600 kg GBU-57 ‘Massive Ordnance Penetrator’ believed to have been used in Iran. Michael Ammons / US Air Force
Only the MOP could do the job (short of using nuclear weapons). Even then, multiple MOPs would have been required to ensure sufficient damage to the underground facilities.
The US has claimed that these sites have been utterly destroyed. We cannot conclusively say whether this is true.
Iran may also have other, undeclared nuclear sites elsewhere in the country.
Iran’s reaction
The US has reportedly reached out to Iran via diplomatic channels to emphasise that this attack was a one-off, not part of a larger project of regime change. It is hard to say what will happen in the next few weeks.
Iran may retaliate with large strikes against Israel or against US forces in the region. It could also interrupt shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, which would affect a large portion of global oil shipments, with profound economic implications.
Alternatively, Iran could capitulate and take steps to demonstrate it is ending its nuclear program. However, capitulation would not necessarily mean the end of Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
The value of nuclear weapons
Perhaps a greater concern is that the attack will reinforce Iran’s desire to go nuclear. Without nuclear weapons, Iran was unable to threaten the US enough to deter today’s attack.
Iran may take lessons from the fate of other states. Ukraine (in)famously surrendered its stockpile of former Soviet nuclear weapons in the early 1990s. Russia has since felt emboldened to annex Crimea in 2014 and launch an ongoing invasion in 2022. Other potential nuclear states, such as Iraq and Gadaffi’s regime in Libya, also suffered from military intervention.
By contrast, North Korea successfully tested its first nuclear weapon in 2006. Since then there has been no serious consideration of military intervention in North Korea.
Iran may yet have the ability to produce useful amounts of weapons-grade uranium. It may now aim to buy itself time to assemble a relatively small nuclear device, similar in scale to the bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Depending on what facilities and resources have survive the US strikes, the attack has likely reinforced that the only way the Iranian regime can guarantee its survival is to possess nuclear weapons.
James Dwyer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The jagged silhouette of a B2 stealth bomber seen during a 2015 flyover in the US.Jonathan Daniel / Getty Images
Late on Saturday night, local time, the United States carried out strikes against Iranian nuclear enrichment sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, marking its open participation in the conflict between Iran and Israel.
The US says it fired 30 submarine-launched missiles at the sites in Natanz and Isfahan, as well as dropping more than a dozen “bunker buster” bombs at Fordow and Natanz.
The kind of bomb in question is the extremely destructive GBU-57 Massive Ordance Penetrator, or MOP, which weighs around 13.5 tonnes.
The attacks raise a lot of questions. What are these enormous bombs? Why did the US feel it had to get involved in the conflict? And, going forward, what does it mean for Iran’s nuclear ambitions?
What are ‘bunker busters’, and why are they used?
Bunker busters are weapons designed to destroy heavily protected facilities such as bunkers deep underground, beyond the reach of normal bombs.
Bunker busters are designed to bury themselves into the ground before detonating. This allows more of the explosive force to penetrate into the ground, rather than travelling through the air or across the surface.
Iran’s nuclear enrichment sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan are built deep underground. Estimates suggest that Fordow for example could be 80m beneath the surface, and capped with layers of reinforced concrete and soil.
What is the MOP?
The bunker buster used in this particular operation is the largest in the US arsenal. Leaving aside nuclear weapons, the MOP is the largest known buster buster in the world.
Weighing some 13.5 tonnes, the MOP is believed to be able to penetrate up to 60 metres below ground in the right conditions. It is not known how many the US possesses, but the numbers are thought to be small (perhaps 20 or so in total).
We also don’t know exactly how many were used in Iran, though some reports say it was 14. However, it is likely to be a significant portion of the US MOP arsenal.
Why does only the US possess this capability?
The US is not the only state with bunker-busting weaponry. However, the size of MOP means it requires very specialised bombers to carry and drop it.
Only the B2 stealth bomber is currently able to deploy the MOP. Each B2 can carry at most two MOPs at a time. Around seven of America’s 19 operational B2s were used in the Iran operation.
There has been some consideration whether large transport aircraft such as the C-130 Hercules could be modified to carry and drop the MOP from its rear cargo doors. While this would allow other countries (including Israel) to deploy the MOP, it is for now purely hypothetical.
Why has the US (apparently) used them in Iran
The Trump administration claims Iran may be only a few weeks from possessing a nuclear weapon, and that it needed to act now to destroy Iranian nuclear enrichment sites. This claim is notably at odds with published assessments from the US intelligence community.
However, Israel lacks bunker busting weaponry sufficient to damage the deeply buried and fortified enrichment sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.
An F-15E Strike Eagle releases a GBU-28 ‘bunker buster’ laser-guided bomb, a smaller equivalewnt of the 13,600 kg GBU-57 ‘Massive Ordnance Penetrator’ believed to have been used in Iran. Michael Ammons / US Air Force
Only the MOP could do the job (short of using nuclear weapons). Even then, multiple MOPs would have been required to ensure sufficient damage to the underground facilities.
The US has claimed that these sites have been utterly destroyed. We cannot conclusively say whether this is true.
Iran may also have other, undeclared nuclear sites elsewhere in the country.
Iran’s reaction
The US has reportedly reached out to Iran via diplomatic channels to emphasise that this attack was a one-off, not part of a larger project of regime change. It is hard to say what will happen in the next few weeks.
Iran may retaliate with large strikes against Israel or against US forces in the region. It could also interrupt shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, which would affect a large portion of global oil shipments, with profound economic implications.
Alternatively, Iran could capitulate and take steps to demonstrate it is ending its nuclear program. However, capitulation would not necessarily mean the end of Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
The value of nuclear weapons
Perhaps a greater concern is that the attack will reinforce Iran’s desire to go nuclear. Without nuclear weapons, Iran was unable to threaten the US enough to deter today’s attack.
Iran may take lessons from the fate of other states. Ukraine (in)famously surrendered its stockpile of former Soviet nuclear weapons in the early 1990s. Russia has since felt emboldened to annex Crimea in 2014 and launch an ongoing invasion in 2022. Other potential nuclear states, such as Iraq and Gadaffi’s regime in Libya, also suffered from military intervention.
By contrast, North Korea successfully tested its first nuclear weapon in 2006. Since then there has been no serious consideration of military intervention in North Korea.
Iran may yet have the ability to produce useful amounts of weapons-grade uranium. It may now aim to buy itself time to assemble a relatively small nuclear device, similar in scale to the bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Depending on what facilities and resources have survive the US strikes, the attack has likely reinforced that the only way the Iranian regime can guarantee its survival is to possess nuclear weapons.
James Dwyer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
After prevaricating about whether the United States would enter Israel’s war on Iran, President Donald Trump finally made a decision.
Early Sunday, US warplanes struck three of Iran’s nuclear sites at Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow, where the Iranians have a uranium enrichment plant buried about 80 metres beneath a mountain.
These strikes have to be viewed as part of an overall continuum that began with the Gaza war following Hamas’ attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, and then continued with Israel’s attacks on Hezbollah (the Iran-backed militant group in Lebanon) and the fall of the Iran-backed Assad regime in Syria.
Iran has never been weaker than it is now. And when Trump said it may take two weeks for him to decide whether to bomb Iran, the Israelis likely pushed him to act sooner.
We can assume there was a lot of Israeli pressure on Trump to use the massive ordnance penetrators, the 30,000-pound (13,600-kilogram) “bunker buster” bombs that only the US can deploy with its B2 bombers.
Now that Trump has taken the significant step of entering the US in yet another Middle East war, where could things go from here? There are a few possible scenarios.
Iran strikes back
The Iranians know they don’t have the strength to take on the US, and that the Americans can do enormous damage to their country and even put the Iranian regime’s stability at risk.
This is always the prime consideration of of the clerical regime led by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei – everything else is subordinate to that.
To gauge Iran’s possible reaction, we can look at the how it responded to the first Trump administration’s assassination of the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ elite Quds Force, Qassem Soleimani, in January 2020.
Iran said there would be a major reaction, but all it did was launch a barrage of missiles at two American bases in Iraq, which caused no US fatalities and very little damage. After that token retaliation, Iran said the matter was closed.
Iran’s reaction to the new US strikes will likely be along these lines. It probably won’t want to get into a tit-for-tat with the US by launching attacks against American facilities in the region. Trump has promised to respond with force:
Iran, a bully of the Middle East, must now make peace. If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.
It’s also unclear how long Iran will be able to prosecute this war. This depends largely on how many ballistic missiles and launchers it has left.
There are various estimates as to how many ballistic missiles Iran may have remaining in its stockpiles. It was believed to have about 2,000 missiles capable of reaching Israel at the start of the war. Some estimates say Iran has fired 700 of them; others say around 400. Whatever the number is, its stockpiles are dwindling quickly.
Israel has also destroyed about a third of Iran’s ballistic missile launchers. If Israel is able to destroy all of them, Iran would have very limited ability to fight back.
Iran backs down
Before the US got involved in the conflict, Iran said it was prepared to negotiate, but it wouldn’t do so while Israel was still attacking.
So, one scenario is that some sort of compromise can now be worked out, in which Israel announces a ceasefire and Iran and the US agree to resume negotiations on Tehran’s nuclear program.
The big problem is that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said he doesn’t trust the negotiating process and he doesn’t want to stop Israel’s military actions until all of Iran’s nuclear facilities have been completely destroyed. He’s also been bombing Iran’s oil terminals and gas facilities to put even more pressure on the regime.
But the regime has shown itself to be incredibly determined not to lose face. It was under great pressure at different times during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s and never considered surrendering until a US missile mistakenly took down an Iranian passenger jet, killing 290 people.
Iran then agreed to a UN-brokered ceasefire. But the Iran-Iraq war lasted eight years, causing an estimated one million deaths. And when the then-supreme leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, agreed to the ceasefire, he said it was “worse than drinking poison”.
Given the state of Iran’s military capabilities, Khamenei, the current supreme leader, might surrender simply to try to preserve the regime. But this would be quite a climbdown as far as he’s concerned, and he has been very obstinate in the past.
The regime is very unpopular, but the Iranian people, in my experience, are strongly patriotic – loyal to their country, if not the regime. Though it’s difficult to gauge opinion in a country of 90 million people, a lot of Iranians would not want to be ordered to do anything by the US or Israel, and would rather fight on.
Netanyahu has said he wants to create the conditions for the Iranian people to rise up against the regime.
But it’s worth bearing in mind that the opposite of autocracy is not necessarily democracy. It could possibly be chaos. Iran has a number of different ethnic groups and there may be huge disagreements over what should take the place of the clerical regime, were it to fall.
Though we don’t know his probable successor, the regime has had plenty of time to plan for this. Those in senior positions will also know that a post-Khamenei succession struggle really would put the regime at risk.
The US engagement is limited
According to the new polling by The Economist and YouGov, released on June 17, 60% of Americans were opposed to joining the conflict between Israel and Iran, with just 16% in favour. Among Republicans, 53% opposed military action.
So, these strikes were not an obviously popular move among Americans at this stage. However, if this is an isolated event and succeeds in bringing a swift end to the war, Trump will probably be applauded by a majority of Americans.
If the US has to go back with more bombers – or there are serious attacks on US interests in the region – there could be more adverse reactions among Americans.
If it hasn’t been destroyed, and depending how much damage has been done to its centrifuges, Iran may be able to reconstruct its nuclear program relatively quickly. And it could have more incentive to further enrich this uranium to 90% purity, or weapons-grade level, to build a nuclear device.
Ian Parmeter 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 – Africa – By Rachel Ama Asaa Engmann, Associate Professor and Director of Christiansborg Archaeological Heritage Project, Associate Graduate Faculty, Rutgers University
Thousands of sculpted heads – captive African men, women, and children – meticulously created by the artist Kwame Akoto-Bamfo, emerge from the soil at the Nkyinkyim Museum, as a sacred gathering of ancestors. Together, they form a powerful monument to the horror, violence, and resistance to enslavement, as well as the ongoing work of remembrance and healing.
Kwame Akoto-Bamfo is a Ghanaian multidisciplinary artist who engages with the histories and legacies of the transatlantic slave trade and colonialism at home and, increasingly, internationally, on both sides of the Atlantic.
As an archaeologist who works in the field of critical heritage studies, Akoto-Bamfo’s work is important for its powerful engagement with memory, material culture and restorative justice. I feature it in a chapter of a new book that I co-edited called Architectures of Slavery: Ruins and Reconstructions.
Who is Kwame Akoto-Bamfo?
Akoto-Bamfo studied at the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology in Kumasi. He obtained his bachelor’s and master of fine arts degrees, both in sculpture. After graduating, the artist worked as a school teacher and a university lecturer.
In 2015, Akoto-Bamfo rose to international fame through a series of large-scale installations. He called it ‘Nkyinkyim’ (“twisting” in the Ghanaian Twi language, as in the proverb, “Life’s journey is twisted”).
Four years later, he established the ‘Nkyinkyim Museum’, a non-profit organisation known as the ‘Ancestor Project’. This open-air museum is located in Nuhalenya-Ada, a two-hour drive from Accra. It has become a space for people of African descent to engage in restorative healing through art and education.
Nkyinkyim Museum
At the site’s entrance, three twenty-five-foot monuments are displayed. They are made of stone, concrete and wood. The first is inspired by North and Eastern Africa, and the second by Sudano-Sahelian architecture. The third is inspired by the Forest regions in Central and West Africa.
The collection includes multiple installations in collaboration with the local community. They illustrate “the diversity in our narratives surrounding history, philosophy, and religious beliefs”. The artist himself, demonstrates a mastery of multimedia art forms, working in cement, terracotta, brass, copper, and wood, noting “one can reach different heights with different technologies.”
Today, the museum features a sacred healing space with a compelling display of thousands of unique concrete life size heads and 7,000 terracotta miniature sculpted heads. They include captive Africans abducted, sold and forcibly trafficked during the transatlantic slave trade.
His sculptures capture captives’ shock, horror, anger, distress and fear—emotions. This is communicated through their facial expressions in an installation that is disturbingly evocative and profoundly haunting. It is inspired by ‘nsodie’, an Akan funerary sculpture tradition, that dates back to approximately the twelfth century. Akoto-Bamfo explains during our conversations relating to the research for book:
I wanted to draw upon Akan belief in commemoration and remembrance after death in order to honour the young, old, men and women, who originated from various ethnic groups and who died in the Atlantic Ocean during the Middle Passage and did not get that chance.
Each year, the annual ‘Ancestor Veneration’ ceremony takes place under the guidance of chiefs, priests, and priestess from various ethnic groups.
Visitors are invited to participate in certain Akan rites and ceremonies – free from photography and selfies that undermine or commercialise sacred funerary art practices. Says Akoto-Bamfo:
I am Akan, so initially I began with Akan traditional rites, but now our ceremonies welcome other African ethnic groups including the Ga-Dangme, Ewe, and Yoruba, from Ghana and Nigeria, as well as African descendant people in the African diaspora.
In contrast, the ‘Freedom Parade Festival’ allows participants to creatively express and contribute to an evolving heritage tradition, without the specified observances. For example, painted bodily adornment applied directly onto the skin, yet without the necessary spiritual rites.
A protest monument
Akoto-Bamfo’s sculptures have also gained recognition beyond Ghana’s borders. For instance, the permanent installation at the Legacy Museum and National Museum for Peace and Justice in Montgomery, Alabama in the US.
More recently, in 2021, his Blank Slate Project Monument toured throughout the United States. This included stops at Times Square in New York and the King Center in Atlanta. It depicts an enslaved ancestor, bent forward with his hands behind his back, head turned sideways, face on the ground, with a booted foot on his head.
Akoto-Bamfo describes this work as “a noisy one — a protest piece that speaks against racist Civil War monuments.” The work was completed prior to the police killing of George Floyd that led to widespread protests in the US in 2020. It was first unveiled in a private viewing in Ghana, prior to its shipment to the United States.
He says:
We had a lot of discussions among those involved in the project: some feared it might incite violence, others said that it was a prediction.
The work is interactive. It holds a removable placard that invites viewers to inscribe their reactions to the statue, which are then exhibited. Akoto-Bamfo emphasises:
I wanted ordinary people, both individuals and communities, to relate, and to contribute to, not only towards my artwork but also to the wider ongoing discussions. As an artist, I believe that I do not have the sole right to speak. I wanted ordinary Americans to add their voices because I am already contributing.
In Europe too, his work is featured at the 169 Museum in Germany.
In Ghana, Akoto-Bamfo’s work was initially seen as too controversial. The artist shares:
At first, I had to be extremely resilient because my work was concerned with the slave trade, slavery, colonialism, racism, and human rights. I embraced uncomfortable dialogue. Yet these were difficult topics for galleries and the art world at that time in Ghana.
He adds:
Today, however, some even view me as a spiritual leader… but I have always had an innate antipathy towards injustice. My work is not only about the past but what is unfolding now.
Akoto-Bamfo offers a closing reflection on why this kind of memory work matters:
I just want to use the little knowledge that I have to contribute towards the work of restorative and transformative justice.
Rachel Ama Asaa Engmann 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 – Africa – By Rachel Ama Asaa Engmann, Associate Professor and Director of Christiansborg Archaeological Heritage Project, Associate Graduate Faculty, Rutgers University
Thousands of sculpted heads – captive African men, women, and children – meticulously created by the artist Kwame Akoto-Bamfo, emerge from the soil at the Nkyinkyim Museum, as a sacred gathering of ancestors. Together, they form a powerful monument to the horror, violence, and resistance to enslavement, as well as the ongoing work of remembrance and healing.
Kwame Akoto-Bamfo is a Ghanaian multidisciplinary artist who engages with the histories and legacies of the transatlantic slave trade and colonialism at home and, increasingly, internationally, on both sides of the Atlantic.
As an archaeologist who works in the field of critical heritage studies, Akoto-Bamfo’s work is important for its powerful engagement with memory, material culture and restorative justice. I feature it in a chapter of a new book that I co-edited called Architectures of Slavery: Ruins and Reconstructions.
Who is Kwame Akoto-Bamfo?
Akoto-Bamfo studied at the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology in Kumasi. He obtained his bachelor’s and master of fine arts degrees, both in sculpture. After graduating, the artist worked as a school teacher and a university lecturer.
In 2015, Akoto-Bamfo rose to international fame through a series of large-scale installations. He called it ‘Nkyinkyim’ (“twisting” in the Ghanaian Twi language, as in the proverb, “Life’s journey is twisted”).
Four years later, he established the ‘Nkyinkyim Museum’, a non-profit organisation known as the ‘Ancestor Project’. This open-air museum is located in Nuhalenya-Ada, a two-hour drive from Accra. It has become a space for people of African descent to engage in restorative healing through art and education.
Nkyinkyim Museum
At the site’s entrance, three twenty-five-foot monuments are displayed. They are made of stone, concrete and wood. The first is inspired by North and Eastern Africa, and the second by Sudano-Sahelian architecture. The third is inspired by the Forest regions in Central and West Africa.
The collection includes multiple installations in collaboration with the local community. They illustrate “the diversity in our narratives surrounding history, philosophy, and religious beliefs”. The artist himself, demonstrates a mastery of multimedia art forms, working in cement, terracotta, brass, copper, and wood, noting “one can reach different heights with different technologies.”
Today, the museum features a sacred healing space with a compelling display of thousands of unique concrete life size heads and 7,000 terracotta miniature sculpted heads. They include captive Africans abducted, sold and forcibly trafficked during the transatlantic slave trade.
His sculptures capture captives’ shock, horror, anger, distress and fear—emotions. This is communicated through their facial expressions in an installation that is disturbingly evocative and profoundly haunting. It is inspired by ‘nsodie’, an Akan funerary sculpture tradition, that dates back to approximately the twelfth century. Akoto-Bamfo explains during our conversations relating to the research for book:
I wanted to draw upon Akan belief in commemoration and remembrance after death in order to honour the young, old, men and women, who originated from various ethnic groups and who died in the Atlantic Ocean during the Middle Passage and did not get that chance.
Each year, the annual ‘Ancestor Veneration’ ceremony takes place under the guidance of chiefs, priests, and priestess from various ethnic groups.
Visitors are invited to participate in certain Akan rites and ceremonies – free from photography and selfies that undermine or commercialise sacred funerary art practices. Says Akoto-Bamfo:
I am Akan, so initially I began with Akan traditional rites, but now our ceremonies welcome other African ethnic groups including the Ga-Dangme, Ewe, and Yoruba, from Ghana and Nigeria, as well as African descendant people in the African diaspora.
In contrast, the ‘Freedom Parade Festival’ allows participants to creatively express and contribute to an evolving heritage tradition, without the specified observances. For example, painted bodily adornment applied directly onto the skin, yet without the necessary spiritual rites.
A protest monument
Akoto-Bamfo’s sculptures have also gained recognition beyond Ghana’s borders. For instance, the permanent installation at the Legacy Museum and National Museum for Peace and Justice in Montgomery, Alabama in the US.
More recently, in 2021, his Blank Slate Project Monument toured throughout the United States. This included stops at Times Square in New York and the King Center in Atlanta. It depicts an enslaved ancestor, bent forward with his hands behind his back, head turned sideways, face on the ground, with a booted foot on his head.
Akoto-Bamfo describes this work as “a noisy one — a protest piece that speaks against racist Civil War monuments.” The work was completed prior to the police killing of George Floyd that led to widespread protests in the US in 2020. It was first unveiled in a private viewing in Ghana, prior to its shipment to the United States.
He says:
We had a lot of discussions among those involved in the project: some feared it might incite violence, others said that it was a prediction.
The work is interactive. It holds a removable placard that invites viewers to inscribe their reactions to the statue, which are then exhibited. Akoto-Bamfo emphasises:
I wanted ordinary people, both individuals and communities, to relate, and to contribute to, not only towards my artwork but also to the wider ongoing discussions. As an artist, I believe that I do not have the sole right to speak. I wanted ordinary Americans to add their voices because I am already contributing.
In Europe too, his work is featured at the 169 Museum in Germany.
In Ghana, Akoto-Bamfo’s work was initially seen as too controversial. The artist shares:
At first, I had to be extremely resilient because my work was concerned with the slave trade, slavery, colonialism, racism, and human rights. I embraced uncomfortable dialogue. Yet these were difficult topics for galleries and the art world at that time in Ghana.
He adds:
Today, however, some even view me as a spiritual leader… but I have always had an innate antipathy towards injustice. My work is not only about the past but what is unfolding now.
Akoto-Bamfo offers a closing reflection on why this kind of memory work matters:
I just want to use the little knowledge that I have to contribute towards the work of restorative and transformative justice.
Rachel Ama Asaa Engmann 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.
