Snow leopards are known as the “ghosts of the mountains” for a reason. Imagine waiting for months in the harsh, rugged mountains of Asia, hoping to catch even a glimpse of one. These elusive big cats move silently across rocky slopes, their pale coats blending so seamlessly with snow and stone that even the most seasoned biologists seldom spot them in the wild.
Travel writer Peter Matthiessen spent two months in 1973 searching the Tibetan plateau for them and wrote a 300-page book about the effort. He never saw one. Forty years later, Peter’s son Alex retraced his father’s steps – and didn’t see one either.
Researchers have struggled to come up with a figure for the global population. In 2017, the International Union for Conservation of Nature reclassified the snow leopard from endangered to vulnerable, citing estimates of between 2,500 and 10,000 adults in the wild. However, the group also warned that numbers continue to decline in many areas due to habitat loss, poaching and human-wildlife conflict. Those who study these animals want to help protect the species and their habitat – if only we can determine exactly where they live and how many there are.
Traditional tracking methods – searching for footprints, droppings and other signs – have their limits. Instead of waiting for a lucky face-to-face encounter, conservationists from the Wildlife Conservation Society, led by experts including Stéphane Ostrowski and Sorosh Poya Faryabi, began deploying automated camera traps in Afghanistan. These devices snap photos whenever movement is detected, capturing thousands of images over months, all in hopes of obtaining a rare glimpse of a snow leopard.
But capturing images is only half the battle. The next, even harder task is telling one snow leopard apart from another.
Are these the same animal or different ones? It’s really hard to tell. Eve Bohnett, CC BY-ND
At first glance, it might sound simple: Each snow leopard has a unique pattern of black rosettes on its coat, like a fingerprint or a face in a crowd. Yet in practice, identifying individuals by these patterns is slow, subjective and prone to error. Photos may be taken at odd angles, under poor lighting, or with parts of the animal obscured – making matches tricky.
A common mistake happens when photos from different cameras are marked as depicting different animals when they actually show the same individual, inflating population estimates. Worse, camera trap images can get mixed up or misfiled, splitting encounters of one cat across multiple batches and identities.
I am a data analyst working with Wildlife Conservation Society and other partners at Wild Me. My work and others’ has found that even trained experts can misidentify animals, failing to recognize repeat visitors at locations monitored by motion-sensing cameras and counting the same animal more than once. One study found that the snow leopard population was overestimated by more than 30% because of these human errors.
To avoid these pitfalls, researchers follow camera sorting guidelines: At least three clear pattern differences or similarities must be confirmed between two images to declare them the same or different cats. Images too blurry, too dark or taken from difficult angles may have to be discarded. Identification efforts range from easy cases with clear, full-body shots to ambiguous ones needing collaboration and debate. Despite these efforts, variability remains, and more experienced observers tend to be more accurate.
Now people trying to count snow leopards are getting help from artificial intelligence systems, in two ways.
Spotting the spots
Modern AI tools are revolutionizing how we process these large photo libraries. First, AI can rapidly sort through thousands of images, flagging those that contain snow leopards and ignoring irrelevant ones such as those that depict blue sheep, gray-and-white mountain terrain, or shadows.
Unique spots and spot patterns are key to telling snow leopards apart. Eve Bohnett, CC BY-NC-ND
AI can identify individual snow leopards by analyzing their unique rosette patterns, even when poses or lighting vary. Each snow leopard encounter is compared with a catalog of previously identified photos and assigned a known ID if there is a match, or entered as a new individual if not.
The first algorithm, called HotSpotter, identifies individual snow leopards by comparing key visual features such as coat patterns, highlighting distinctive “hot spots” with a yellow marker.
The second is a newer method called pose invariant embeddings, which operates similar to facial recognition technology: It recognizes layers of abstract features in the data, identifying the same animal regardless of how it is positioned in the photo or what kind of lighting there may be.
We trained these systems using a curated dataset of photos of snow leopards from zoos in the U.S., Europe and Tajikistan, and with images from the wild, including in Afghanistan.
Alone, each model worked about 74% of the time, correctly identifying the cat from a large photo library. But when combined, the two systems together were correct 85% of the time.
These algorithms were integrated into Wildbook, an open-source, web-based software platform developed by the nonprofit organization Wild Me and now adopted by ConservationX. We deployed the combined system on a free website, Whiskerbook.org, where researchers can upload images, seek matches using the algorithms, and confirm those matches with side-by-side comparisons. This site is among a growing family of AI-powered wildlife platforms that are helping conservation biologists work more efficiently and more effectively at protecting species and their habitats.
A view from an online wildlife-tracking system suggests a possible match for a snow leopard caught by a remote camera. Wildbook/Eve Bohnett, CC BY-ND
Humans still needed
These AI systems aren’t error-proof. AI quickly narrows down candidates and flags likely matches, but expert validation ensures accuracy, especially with tricky or ambiguous photos.
Another study we conducted pitted AI-assisted groups of experts and novices against each other. Each was given a set of three to 10 images of 34 known captive snow leopards and asked to use the Whiskerbook platform to identify them. They were also asked to estimate how many individual animals were in the set of photos.
The experts accurately matched about 90% of the images and delivered population estimates within about 3% of the true number. In contrast, the novices identified only 73% of the cats and underestimated the total number, sometimes by 25% or more, incorrectly merging two individuals into one.
The takeaway is clear: Human expertise remains important, and combining it with AI support leads to the most accurate results. My colleagues and I hope that by using tools like Whiskerbook and the AI systems embedded in them, researchers will be able to more quickly and more confidently study these elusive animals.
With AI tools like Whiskerbook illuminating the mysteries of these mountain ghosts, we have another way to safeguard snow leopards – but success depends on continued commitment to protecting their fragile mountain homes.
Eve Bohnett receives funding from San Diego State Research Foundation and Wildlife Conservation Society. She is affiliated with University of Florida.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Agnes Mueller, Carol Kahn Strauss Fellow in Jewish Studies at the American Academy in Berlin, Professor of German and American Literature, University of South Carolina
A Muslim guest sits next to a Jewish one during an ordination ceremony at the Rykestrasse Synagogue in Berlin in September 2024.Omer Messinger/Getty Images
The consequences of Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack and Israel’s war in Gaza have reverberated far beyond the zones of conflict.
In the wake of the country’s reunification in the early 1990s, about 200,000 Jews from Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union came to Germany. In more recent years, waves of predominantly Muslim refugees from the Middle East have entered a space that already had a large population of Turkish immigrants and their descendants. However, many Germans oppose these more open immigration policies, with widespread backlash against Muslim migrants.
In recent decades, some of Germany’s migrants and their children – some Jewish, and some Muslim – have used fiction to explore their identity and these contested issues in new ways, challenging simple narratives. As a scholar of German literature and Jewish studies, I have studied how literature creates new spaces for readers to explore the similarities between their experiences, building solidarity beyond stereotypes.
‘The Prodigal Son’
Many of today’s young Jewish writers were born in the former Soviet Union and arrived in Germany with their parents as part of the “quota refugee” program. Initiated in the early 1990s, this program invited Jewish migrants into a newly unified Germany – intended to show that the country was taking responsibility for the atrocities of the past. The newcomers were flippantly called “Wiedergutmachungsjuden,” “make-good-again Jews,” referring to Germans’ desire to atone.
One of them was Olga Grjasnowa. Born in 1984, Grjasnowa came from Azerbaijan to Germany at age 11. She has written about Holocaust memory, as in her 2012 novel “All Russians Love Birch Trees,” and said in a 2018 interview that all her books are “Jewish books.”
Olga Grjasnowa during the Edinburgh International Book Festival on Aug. 22, 2019, in Scotland. Roberto Ricciuti/Getty Images
Her 2021 book “Der verlorene Sohn,” “The Prodigal Son,” echoes Holocaust memory, but in a historical novel set in 19th-century Russia.
The protagonist Jamaluddin – the name derives from the Arabic word for “beauty of the faith” – is born in the Caucasian region of Dagestan, as the son of a powerful Muslim imam. To negotiate a peace deal, the boy is given as a hostage to Russia, where he grows up in the Orthodox Christian court of the czar. Though initially treated as an outsider, Jamaluddin assimilates and becomes a high-ranking officer, a life that ends when he must return to Dagestan. But there, too, he now feels homeless, regarded with suspicion as a stranger.
“The Prodigal Son” deals with abduction, deportation, exile and constant wandering. Jamaluddin’s fate is shaped by authoritarianism, repression, war and discrimination – themes that are familiar in Holocaust literature, though here they befall a Muslim boy in another time and place.
Repeatedly, the novel makes mention of Jewish communities and their own suffering under the czar. As Jewish boys are being forced to march from remote villages to Saint Petersburg, Jamaluddin is “furious and ashamed” of his fellow officers. But he also begins to feel self-pity, flooded with memories of his own departure from home.
This scene depicts a historical reality under Czar Nicholas I, who ruled from 1825-1855: Russian Jewish boys were conscripted, sometimes kidnapped, to serve in the army. For contemporary audiences, the description can also evoke the death marches of Jewish prisoners during the Shoah, the Hebrew term for the Holocaust. Several additional moments in the book connect Jamaluddin’s experiences with images of Jewish flight and expulsion.
Antisemitism, meanwhile, is pervasive but less obvious. The Germans’ relationship with Jews was long dominated by silence and guilt – and Jews themselves were mostly invisible until the end of the Cold War, when Jewish migration from the former Soviet states picked up. My 2015 book “The Inability to Love” describes how mainstream German authors, fueled by guilt and shame over the Nazi past, fell into a philosemitic antisemitism: Outward displays of repentance for the Holocaust and public policies that ostensibly embraced Jews clashed with privately held prejudice.
Many examples of new German literature show contemporary Jewish and Muslim characters with complex identities – protagonists who are not seen as simply Jewish, Muslim or belonging to only one culture, pushing back on reductive stereotypes.
For example, Kat Kaufmann’s2015 novel “Superposition” tells the story of the young, popular and charismatic Izy, a Russian Jew who lives in Berlin as a jazz pianist. Her love interest is Timur, an Eastern European man with a typically Muslim name. When Izy thinks of her and Timur’s future son, she imagines him growing up with the luxury to conceal where he is from – to define his identity as he wishes, unlike previous generations.
Turkish and/or Muslim writers such as Fatma Aydemir and Nazlı Koca – who now lives in America, writing in English – tell similar stories of young characters navigating German culture as marginalized individuals. They often depict young women who struggle to reconcile their culture of origin with German social expectations and xenophobia today.
“I wanted to question the idea that we all have one single identity and that’s it,” Aydemir told the literary site K24 about her novel “Ellbogen,” whose protagonist finds herself fleeing to Turkey, her family’s original home, after a personal crisis. “I think things are way more complex, more fluid than most of us want to believe.”
This younger generation of German Jewish and Muslim writers is recasting entrenched debates, showing characters whose identities are multidimensional and more open than the burdened past or fraught present politics would suggest. Today’s young writers are creating new, brave spaces for conversation and empathy.
Agnes Mueller 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 – USA – By Sean G. Massey, Associate Professor of Women, Gender and Sexuality Studies, Binghamton University, State University of New York
GMHC was the world’s first AIDS service organization. Sean Massey, CC BY-ND
The story of the AIDS movement isone ofregular people: students, bartenders, stay-at-home mothers, teachers, retired lawyers, immigrants, Catholic nuns, newly out gay men who had just arrived in New York, and many others. Some had lost friends or lovers. Some felt a moral calling. Some were just trying to balance their sexual karma. Many were angry. Most had no medical background or professional credentials – just a sense of urgency, tenacity and an unwillingness to look away.
When Gay Men’s Health Crisis, the world’s first AIDS service organization, was founded in 1982, it was regular people trying to meet the needs of all people living with AIDS. Its workforce of volunteers provided HIV prevention education as well as physical, emotional and legal support.
At the start of the epidemic, AIDS was considered a “gay plague,” and to be openly queer was to risk abandonment, eviction, assault or worse. Families disowned their children. Hospitals turned patients away. Funeral homes refused bodies. And many people with AIDS found themselves alone and in need.
Public officials didn’t just fail to act – they refused to acknowledge that anything was happening at all. Elected leaders such as President Ronald Reagan and Sen. Jesse Helms stoked the moral panic guiding public policy by declaring people with AIDS “perverted human being(s).”
“I think 26,000 people died before (Reagan) even bothered to utter the word ‘AIDS,’” said Tim Sweeney, former executive director of Gay Men’s Health Crisis.
This quote is featured in the GMHC Stories Oral History Project, a collection of over 100 interviews with former volunteers, staff and donors from the first 15 years of the organization. Along with our colleague Julia Haager, we and our team at Binghamton University’s Human Sexualities Lab compiled these interviews. Acquired by the Manuscripts and Archives Division of The New York Public Library, the collection is scheduled to open in fall 2025, showcasing how everyday people responded to the AIDS crisis.
These stories document how a community presented with a set of circumstances threatening their very existence built a self-sustaining organization to advocate for and provide care to each other outside institutional support. They did this while enduring grief, standing up to external threats and navigating internal tensions.
The GMHC stood up for the community when other institutions would not. Sean Massey, CC BY-ND
Improvisation for survival
The work was an ongoing challenge. Organizations dedicated to aiding people affected by AIDS such as Gay Men’s Health Crisis were left to fund their own survival – and defend their right to do the work. When North Carolina Sen. Jesse Helms moved in 1988 to eliminate federal support for AIDS service programs that mentioned homosexuality, it severely limited AIDS prevention efforts nation wide. However, GMHC had the foresight to fund its more explicit education materials with private donations.
At the beginning of the epidemic, queer New Yorkers and their allies had to improvise new systems of care in the absence of state and federal support. “People often (ask) me, what was the model you worked off of?” said Sweeney. “And I said, there was no model, there was just a muddle. We just made it up the whole time.”
What they created almost overnight was staggering. “There were over 1,000 volunteers in the agency,” recalled staff member Tom Weber, who started at GMHC as an office volunteer in 1988. “We would have orientations every single week, and they would flood in.”
One of the most well-known expressions of that volunteer labor was the buddy program, where lay caregivers provided emotional and practical support to people living with AIDS. “A lot of people were not alone in their death because of the work that we did,” said Barbara Danish, who led the buddy program from 1996 to 2002.
Education and prevention were also grounded in queer culture and community. Unlike early depictions of AIDS in the media that reduced patients to “vectors” of transmission, it was defiantly sex-positive. “We came up with shit that no one in the world had ever done,” Sweeney said. “Because finally it was gay men saying … we’re going to talk to each other about how to stay safe, healthy and sexy.”
When that sense of mission extended to emotional survival, humor and unapologetically queer culture were critical to bearing the weight of the work. “Sometimes you just break down and cry for an hour. But that’s how you survive it – by staying authentic to your emotions,” said Tommy Thomson, former director of client programs. She recalled how staff member “Carolotta,” or Carl, would sometimes put condoms and chocolate in a basket and go from office to office, frequently in drag. He would offer either or both to make people feel better. “He’d make you remember that you weren’t alone, and that we all know how hard it is. That’s part of what held you together.”
Internal tensions
Although Gay Men’s Health Crisis remained mission-driven, its internal politics were never simple. As it grew in size and national stature, it confronted the limits of its founding identity.
Founded by, and initially serving, primarily white gay men, GMHC sometimes struggled to adapt to the emerging realities of the epidemic. While AIDS also affected people of color, women and intravenous drug users from the outset, much of the agency’s early prevention and outreach work was designed with gay men in mind.
By the late 1980s, the increase in AIDS cases among white gay men had begun to plateau, while rates among Black and Latino people, women and IV drug users continued to rise sharply into the next decade. Women and people of color who were deeply embedded in GMHC’s operations nonetheless had to navigate assumptions about whose needs were prioritized – assumptions that often manifested in how resources were allocated and services were designed. As GMHC expanded its outreach to Black and Latino populations, it struggled to be culturally responsive and build trust in communities that had long been underserved and stigmatized.
Racial disparities in HIV persist.
As GMHC grew, it became more and more successful in fundraising and visibility, while smaller organizations sometimes struggled to access resources. This led to growing tensions, particularly in communities of color, where local groups feared that GMHC’s expansion would limit funding and undercut their efforts at community-specific approaches to care and prevention. In addition, efforts to address racism, sexism and cultural insensitivity encountered both support and indifference.
Yet, staff and volunteers continued to push – reshaping messaging, fighting for inclusive programming, and holding conversations about race, gender, power and public health. For staff and volunteers, the agency was a complicated institution that could both empower and marginalize. Its strength, and its struggle, was learning how to expand without losing sight of the legacy and history it was built on.
A guide for today
Forty years later, LGBTQ+ people face a new set of crises in a landscape riddled with dangers.
Protesters at the Iowa state Capitol in February 2025, demonstrating against a bill that would remove protections based on gender identity from the state civil rights code. AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall
And yet many of the same questions and challenges remain: Who gets left behind when public health systems collapse under political pressure or moral panic? Who will do the work when institutions fail? What does it mean to care for one another in the midst of the wreckage? How do people come together across differences?
The history of GMHC is more than memory – it is a lesson in the possibility of care, creativity and community, especially in the face of fear and uncertainty today. It shows how people can come together – not just to demand policy change, but to directly meet one another’s needs with whatever resources they have. It is a reminder that mutual aid is powerful; that grief can coexist with joy; and that queer resilience has always included laughter, desire and shared vulnerability. In a time of renewed political backlash and public health failures, GMHC’s story is more than history – it’s a guide. Today, the staff and volunteers at GMHC continue their work to confront the epidemic and uplift the lives of all people affected by AIDS.
“We’d say to them, ‘You’re just ordinary citizens doing extraordinary things,’” Sweeney said. “And we really meant that.”
Sean G. Massey was a volunteer and staff member at Gay Men’s Health Crisis (GMHC), the organization that is being discussed in this article, from 1988-1998.
Casey W. Adrian and Eden Lowinger do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The proverb “practice makes perfect” highlights the importance of repetition to master a skill. This principle also applies to learning vocabulary and other material. In order to fight our natural tendency to forget information, it is essential to reactivate it in our memory. But, how often?
Research in cognitive psychology provides answers to this question. However, it is also important to understand underlying principles of long-term learning to apply them in a useful and personalised way.
First, test yourself to learn and review content. It is much more effective to do this using question-and-answer cards than just to reread the material. After each attempt to recall pieces of information, review the one that could not be retrieved.
The second principle is to space out reactivations over time. This phenomenon, known as the “spacing effect”, suggests that when reviews of specific content are limited to, for instance, three sessions, it is preferable to space them over relatively longer periods (eg every three days) rather than shorter ones (every day).
Reviewing material at long intervals requires more effort, because it is more difficult to recall information after three days than one. However, it is precisely this effort that reinforces memories and promotes long-term retention.
When it comes to learning, we must therefore be wary of effortlessness: easily remembering a lesson today does not indicate how likely we are to remember it in a month, even though this feeling of easiness can cause us to mistakenly believe that review is unnecessary.
Robert Bjork of the University of California coined the term “desirable difficulty” to describe an optimal level of difficulty between two extremes. The first extreme corresponds to learning that is too easy (and therefore ineffective in the long run), while the other extreme corresponds to learning that is too difficult (and therefore ineffective and discouraging).
Finding the right pace
There is a limit to how much time can pass between information retrievals. After a long delay, such as a year, information will have greatly declined in memory and will be difficult, if not impossible, to recall. This situation may generate negative emotions and force us to start learning from scratch, rendering our previous efforts useless.
There are also paper-and-pencil methods. The simplest method is to follow an “expansive” schedule, which uses increasingly longer intervals between sessions. This technique is used in the “méthode des J” (method of days), which some students may be familiar with. The effectiveness of this method lies in a gradual strengthening of the memory.
A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!
When you first learn something, retention is fragile, and memorised content needs to be reactivated quickly not to be forgotten. Each retrieval strengthens the memory, allowing the next retrieval opportunity to be delayed. Another consequence is that each retrieval is moderately difficult, which places the learner at a “desirable” level of difficulty.
Here is an example of an expansive schedule for a given piece of content: Day 1, Day 2, D5, D15, D44, D145, D415, etc. In this schedule, the interval length triples from one session to the next: 24 hours between Day 1 and Day 2, then three days between D2 and D5, and so on.
Gradually incorporating new knowledge
There is no scientific consensus on the optimal interval schedule. However, carrying out the first retrieval on the day after the initial moment of learning (thus, on D2) seems beneficial, as a night’s sleep allows the brain to restructure and/or reinforce knowledge learned the previous day. The subsequent intervals can be adjusted according to individual constraints.
This method is flexible; if necessary, a session can be postponed a few days before or after the scheduled date without affecting long-term effectiveness. It is the principle of regular retrieval that is key here.
The expansive schedule also has a considerable practical advantage in that it allows new information to be gradually integrated. For instance, new content can be introduced on D3, because no session on the initial content is scheduled for that day. Adding content gradually makes it possible to memorise large amounts of information in a lasting way without spending more time studying it.
The other method is based on the Leitner box system. In this case, the length of interval before the next retrieval depends on the outcome of the attempt to retrieve information from memory. If the answer was easily retrieved, the next retrieval should happen in a week. If the answer was retrieved with difficulty, then three days need to elapse before the next test. If the answer could not be retrieved, the next test should take place the following day. With experience, you will be able to adjust these intervals and develop your own system.
In short, effective and lasting learning not only requires that a certain amount of effort be made to retrieve information from memory, but a regular repetition of this process, at appropriate intervals, to thwart the process of forgetting.
Émilie Gerbier ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.
When Kyle Verreynne hit the winning runs at the “home of cricket” (Lord’s Cricket Ground in London) on 14 June, South Africa erupted in celebration. The Proteas had just claimed their first major cricket cup in history. And nothing less than the International Cricket Council World Test Championship at that, the premier international competition for five-day (test) cricket that’s played over two years.
Branded as “chokers” for 26 years for underperforming or spoiling their advantage in crunch situations in major tournaments, the national men’s cricket team has transformed to become world champions.
I’m a sport scientist with a focus on cricket. Research can help us understand how the Proteas have managed to do this and what core qualities of a winning team they’ve embodied on their way to turning things around.
What is choking?
The term “chokers” started being used to describe the Proteas team after the 1999 International Cricket Council Men’s Cricket World Cup semi-finals for games played over one day. The Proteas gave up a commanding position against Australia. This curse tormented them in high-stakes games, particularly world cups, where they often ended second best.
In sports psychology, choking has been defined as:
An acute and considerable decrease in skill execution and performance when self-expected standards are normally achievable, which is the result of increased anxiety under perceived pressure performance decline when highly motivated individuals are subjected to pressure.
Anxiety disrupts a player’s automatic motor response, leading to poor decisions and inaccurate skill execution. This happens at critical moments of the game. And the aftermath of these continued inferior performances can lead to a long-lasting stigma.
Proteas captain Temba Bavuma emphasised this in his match-winning speech:
We have gone through the heartache, we have gone through the pain, seeing it with past players.
Clutch performance
The opposite to choking is clutch performance. This can be defined as improved or maintained performance under pressure. Some of the contributing characteristics of clutch performances are confidence, complete and deliberate focus, automatic movements, and the absence of negative thoughts.
I believe the shift towards these clutch characteristics was the difference in the Proteas shrugging off their “choker” curse.
In interviews Proteas coach Shukri Conrad stressed how calm the players were. He pointed out Markram and Bavuma for their poise and reliability under pressure, another defining trait of expert performers.
Conrad emphasised the importance of removing distraction by telling them to “play the conditions” and not the situation. This allows players to focus on the moment and not be overwhelmed by the broader context of the match.
The calm and composed demeanour of Bavuma and Markram as they prepared to face the barrage of deliveries during their match-defining partnership also relates to a phenomenon scientists refer to as the “quiet eye”.
The quiet eye is the period of visual fixation or visual tracking of the body cues of the bowler and the early ball flight trajectory before the execution of a motor task. It’s been associated with superior performance under pressure.
Bavuma and Markram were able to sustain long periods of quiet eye while processing critical information from the bowlers’ action and early ball path, while remaining focused on task-relevant cues, all the while blocking out anxiety-related distractions.
Conrad succeeded because he was able to combine cultural wisdom and emotional intelligence to truly transform the psychology and ability of the Proteas team.
His philosophy of selection, “character first then matching up the skill”, pays tribute to his vision of peaking when it counts – a quality lacking in Proteas teams of the past.
When Conrad was first appointed as Proteas coach, he made two big decisions. He selected Bavuma as captain and he recalled a struggling test batter, Markram. Conrad explained:
Obviously Temba, a quiet leader, leads from the back, but certainly from the front with the bat … Aiden Markram was always going to be my opening bat. He always delivers on the big stage.
The vision of Conrad to appoint Bavuma captain has resulted in a record 10 successive test wins. In the winning match Bavuma led from the front and held firm. He was up to the task with the bat, and despite suffering a hamstring injury during the game, was able to join forces with Markram in the fourth innings to set up a match-winning third wicket partnership of 143 runs.
Three of the most experienced players for South Africa in test matches, Bavuma, Markram and Kagiso Rabada, stood out as true champions in this final. Markram scored a match-winning 136 runs in the fourth innings, while Rabada laid the foundation for victory by taking a decisive nine wickets.
For the first time in 26 years, the senior Proteas players all stepped up when it mattered most to secure a world championship. Conrad bore testimony to this in the post-match interview:
When our two senior pros in Aiden and Temba put that big stand together, I felt that is obviously where the game was won for us.
The Proteas’ victory on 14 June 2025 lifted a 26-year choker curse. With the visionary leadership of Conrad and the composed stewardship of Bavuma, the Proteas revealed that mental clarity, cultural cohesion, and emotional intelligence were key to their success. The “chokers” tag is buried beneath the turf of the “home of cricket”.
Mogammad Sharhidd Taliep 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.
When Kyle Verreynne hit the winning runs at the “home of cricket” (Lord’s Cricket Ground in London) on 14 June, South Africa erupted in celebration. The Proteas had just claimed their first major cricket cup in history. And nothing less than the International Cricket Council World Test Championship at that, the premier international competition for five-day (test) cricket that’s played over two years.
Branded as “chokers” for 26 years for underperforming or spoiling their advantage in crunch situations in major tournaments, the national men’s cricket team has transformed to become world champions.
I’m a sport scientist with a focus on cricket. Research can help us understand how the Proteas have managed to do this and what core qualities of a winning team they’ve embodied on their way to turning things around.
What is choking?
The term “chokers” started being used to describe the Proteas team after the 1999 International Cricket Council Men’s Cricket World Cup semi-finals for games played over one day. The Proteas gave up a commanding position against Australia. This curse tormented them in high-stakes games, particularly world cups, where they often ended second best.
In sports psychology, choking has been defined as:
An acute and considerable decrease in skill execution and performance when self-expected standards are normally achievable, which is the result of increased anxiety under perceived pressure performance decline when highly motivated individuals are subjected to pressure.
Anxiety disrupts a player’s automatic motor response, leading to poor decisions and inaccurate skill execution. This happens at critical moments of the game. And the aftermath of these continued inferior performances can lead to a long-lasting stigma.
Proteas captain Temba Bavuma emphasised this in his match-winning speech:
We have gone through the heartache, we have gone through the pain, seeing it with past players.
Clutch performance
The opposite to choking is clutch performance. This can be defined as improved or maintained performance under pressure. Some of the contributing characteristics of clutch performances are confidence, complete and deliberate focus, automatic movements, and the absence of negative thoughts.
I believe the shift towards these clutch characteristics was the difference in the Proteas shrugging off their “choker” curse.
In interviews Proteas coach Shukri Conrad stressed how calm the players were. He pointed out Markram and Bavuma for their poise and reliability under pressure, another defining trait of expert performers.
Conrad emphasised the importance of removing distraction by telling them to “play the conditions” and not the situation. This allows players to focus on the moment and not be overwhelmed by the broader context of the match.
The calm and composed demeanour of Bavuma and Markram as they prepared to face the barrage of deliveries during their match-defining partnership also relates to a phenomenon scientists refer to as the “quiet eye”.
The quiet eye is the period of visual fixation or visual tracking of the body cues of the bowler and the early ball flight trajectory before the execution of a motor task. It’s been associated with superior performance under pressure.
Bavuma and Markram were able to sustain long periods of quiet eye while processing critical information from the bowlers’ action and early ball path, while remaining focused on task-relevant cues, all the while blocking out anxiety-related distractions.
Conrad succeeded because he was able to combine cultural wisdom and emotional intelligence to truly transform the psychology and ability of the Proteas team.
His philosophy of selection, “character first then matching up the skill”, pays tribute to his vision of peaking when it counts – a quality lacking in Proteas teams of the past.
When Conrad was first appointed as Proteas coach, he made two big decisions. He selected Bavuma as captain and he recalled a struggling test batter, Markram. Conrad explained:
Obviously Temba, a quiet leader, leads from the back, but certainly from the front with the bat … Aiden Markram was always going to be my opening bat. He always delivers on the big stage.
The vision of Conrad to appoint Bavuma captain has resulted in a record 10 successive test wins. In the winning match Bavuma led from the front and held firm. He was up to the task with the bat, and despite suffering a hamstring injury during the game, was able to join forces with Markram in the fourth innings to set up a match-winning third wicket partnership of 143 runs.
Three of the most experienced players for South Africa in test matches, Bavuma, Markram and Kagiso Rabada, stood out as true champions in this final. Markram scored a match-winning 136 runs in the fourth innings, while Rabada laid the foundation for victory by taking a decisive nine wickets.
For the first time in 26 years, the senior Proteas players all stepped up when it mattered most to secure a world championship. Conrad bore testimony to this in the post-match interview:
When our two senior pros in Aiden and Temba put that big stand together, I felt that is obviously where the game was won for us.
The Proteas’ victory on 14 June 2025 lifted a 26-year choker curse. With the visionary leadership of Conrad and the composed stewardship of Bavuma, the Proteas revealed that mental clarity, cultural cohesion, and emotional intelligence were key to their success. The “chokers” tag is buried beneath the turf of the “home of cricket”.
Mogammad Sharhidd Taliep 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 world’s most developed economies have also burnt the most oil and coal (fossil fuels) over the years, causing the most climate change damage. Preventing further climate change means a global fossil fuel phase-out must happen by 2050. Climate change mitigation scientists Sven Teske and Saori Miyake analysed the potential for renewable energy in each of the G20 countries. They concluded that the G20 is in a position to generate enough renewable energy to supply the world. For African countries to benefit, they must adopt long term renewable energy plans and policies and secure finance from G20 countries to set up renewable energy systems.
Why is the G20 so important in efforts to limit global warming?
The G20 group accounts for 67% of the world’s population, 85% of global gross domestic product, and 75% of global trade. The member states are the G7 (the US, Japan, Germany, the UK, France, Italy, Canada), plus Australia, China, India, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Russia, Türkiye, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Mexico, Brazil and Argentina.
We wanted to find out how G20 member states could limit global warming. Our study examined the solar and wind potential for each of G20 member countries (the available land and solar and wind conditions). We then compared this with projected electricity demands for 2050. This is, to our knowledge, the first research of its kind.
We found that the potential for renewable energy in G20 countries is very high – enough to supply the projected 2050 electricity demand for the whole world. They have 33.6 million km² of land on which solar energy projects could be set up, or 31.1 million km² of land on which wind energy projects could be set up.
This potential varies by geography. Not all G20 countries have the same conditions for generating solar and wind energy, but collectively, the G20 countries have enough renewable energy potential to supply the world’s energy needs.
But for the G20 countries to limit global warming, they also need to stop emitting greenhouse gases. Recent figures show that the G20 countries were responsible for generating 87% of all energy-related carbon dioxide emissions that cause global warming.
On the other hand, African Union countries (apart from South Africa, which is a high greenhouse gas emitter), were responsible for only 1.2% of the global total historical emissions until 2020.
The G20 countries with the highest renewable energy potential (especially Australia and Canada) are major exporters of the fossil fuels that cause global warming. Along with every other country in the world, the G20 nations will need to end their human-caused carbon emissions by 2050 to prevent further climate change.
Where does Africa fit into the picture?
African countries cannot set up new electricity plants based on burning fossil fuels, like coal. If they do that, the world will never end human-caused greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The continent must generate electricity for the 600 million Africans who do not currently have it but will need to move straight past fossil fuels and into renewable energy.
For this, Africa will need finance. The African Union hosts the G20 summit later this year. This meeting begins just after the world’s annual climate change conference (now in its 30th year and known as COP30). These two summits will give Africa the chance to lobby for renewable energy funding from wealthier nations.
Africa already has the conditions needed to move straight into renewable energy. The continent could be generating an amount of solar and wind power that far exceeds its projected demand for electricity between now and 2050.
We are launching an additional analysis of the solar and wind potential of the entire African continent in Bonn, Germany on 19 June 2025 at a United Nations conference. This shows that only 3% of Africa’s solar and wind potential needs to be converted to real projects to supply Africa’s future electricity demand.
This means that Africa has great untapped potential to supply the required energy for its transition to a middle-income continent – one of the African Union’s goals in Agenda 2063, its 50 year plan.
But to secure enough finance for the continent to build renewable energy systems, African countries need long-term energy policies. These are currently lacking.
So what needs to be done?
The countries who signed up to the 2015 international climate change treaty (the Paris Agreement) have committed to replacing polluting forms of energy such as coal, fuelwood and oil with renewable energy.
South Africa, through its G20 presidency, must encourage G20 nations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and support renewable energy investment in Africa.
Because financing the global energy transition is already high on the priority list of most countries, South Africa should push for change on three fronts: finance, sound regulations and manufacturing capacity for renewable technologies. These are the among the main obstacles for renewables, particularly in Africa.
Finance: Financing the energy transition is among the highest priorities for COP30. Therefore, the COP30 meeting will be an opportunity for the African Union to negotiate finance for its renewable energy infrastructure needs.
For this, fair and just carbon budgets are vital. A carbon budget sets out how much carbon dioxide can still be emitted in order for the global temperature not to rise more than 2°C higher than it was before the 1760 industrial revolution.
A global carbon budget (the amount of emissions the whole world is allowed) has been calculated, but it needs to be divided up fairly so that countries that have polluted most are compelled to limit this.
To divide the global carbon budget fairly, energy pathways need to be developed urgently that consider:
future developments of population and economic growth
current energy supply systems
transition times for decarbonisation
local renewable energy resources.
The G20 platform should be used to lobby for fair and just carbon budgets.
Sound regulations that support the setting up of new factories: Governments must put policies in place to support African solar and wind companies. These are needed to win the trust of investors to invest in a future multi-billion dollar industry. Long-term, transparent regulations are needed too.
These regulations should:
say exactly how building permits for solar and wind power plants will be granted
prioritise linking renewable energy plants to national electricity grids
release standard technical specifications for stand-alone grids to make sure they’re all of the same quality.
Taking steps now to speed up big renewable energy industries could mean that African countries end up with more energy than they need. This can be exported and increase financial income for countries.
Sven Teske receives funding from the European Climate Foundation and Power Shift Africa (PSA).
Saori Miyake receives funding from European Climate Foundation and Power Shift Africa.
A Philippine coast guard vessel patrols near Pagasa, part of the Spratly Islands in the disputed South China Sea.Daniel Ceng/Anadolu via Getty Images
The South China Sea has long been a bubbling geopolitical hot spot. Recently, a series of moves by the various nations claiming a stake in the waters has stirred up yet more trouble.
Vietnam, too, has been active in the disputed waters. A Beijing-based think tank on June 7 flagged that Vietnamese engineers had been busy reclaiming land and installing military-related ports and airstrips around the Spratly Islands.
What the three Southeast Asian nations of Vietnam, the Philippines and Malaysia have in common is that they, along with others in the region, are trying to navigate a more assertive China at a time when the U.S. policy intentions under the second Trump Administration are fluid and hard to read. And in lieu of a coordinated response from the regional body Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN, each member nation has been busy charting its course in these choppy waters.
US-China relations all at sea
Why is China trying to assert control in the South China Sea? In a 2023 speech, President Xi Jinping noted that “Western countries led by the United States have implemented all round containment, encirclement and suppression of China.”
This fear has been long held in Beijing and was reinforced by a U.S. Indo-Pacific policy announced in 2011 of rebalancing military forces away from Europe and toward Asia to confront China.
In response, China has in recent years embarked on an ambitious policy of attempting to outmuscle U.S. naval power in the South China Sea.
China is now the world’s leading builder of naval vessels and is estimated to have 440 battleships by 2030, compared with the United States’ 300.
And it comes at a time when U.S. naval power is spread around the world. China’s, meanwhile, is concentrated around the South China Sea where, since 2013, Chinese vessels have pumped sand onto reefs, turning them into islands and then weaponizing them.
Satellite imagery shows the Fiery Cross Reef in the South China Sea, part of the Spratly Islands group, being built by Chinese dredges. Maxar via Getty Images
Then there is the activity of China’s maritime militia of approximately 300 nominally fishing boats equipped with water cannons and reinforced hulls for ramming. This so-called gray zone fleet is increasingly active in confronting Southeast Asia nations at sea.
The U.S. response to China’s militarization in the sea has been through so-called “freedom of navigation” exercises that often deploy carrier groups in a show of force. But these episodic displays are more performative than effective, doing little to deter China’s claims.
The U.S. has also strengthened military alliances with Australia, India, Japan and the Philippines, and has increased coast guard cooperation with the Philippines and Japan.
Yet the battle over control of the South China Seas is more than just geopolitical posturing between the two superpowers.
For adjoining countries, the sea is a valuable biological resource with rich fishing grounds that provide a staple of fish protein for close to 2 billion people. There are estimates of 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 11 billion barrels of oil.
The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS, guarantees a nation an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of 200 nautical miles from around its coastline.
China is a signatory of the UNCLOS. Yet it views ownership of the South China Sea through the lens of its nine-dash line, a reference to the boundary line that Beijing has invoked since 1948. While the claim has no legal or historical basis, the delineation makes major incursions into waters around Vietnam, the Philippines and Malaysia and, to a lesser extent, Brunei and Indonesia as well.
As I explore in my recent book “Hedging and Conflict in the South China Sea,” part of the problem Southeast Asian nations face is that they have failed to forge a unified position.
ASEAN, the regional bloc representing 10 nations in Southeast Asia, has long been governed by the principle that major decisions need unanimous agreement. China is a major trading partner to ASEAN nations, so any regional country aligning too close to the U.S. comes with the real risk of economic consequences. And two ASEAN members, Cambodia and Laos, are especially close to China, making it difficult to generate a unified ASEAN policy that confronts China’s maritime claim.
Instead, ASEAN has promoted a regional code of conduct that effectively legitimizes China’s maritime claims, fails to mention the 2016 ruling and ignores the issue of conflicting claims.
Further complicating a united front against China is the competing claims among ASEAN nations themselves to disputed islands in the South China Sea.
In lieu of a coordinated response, Southeast Asian nations have instead turned to hedging — that is, maintaining good relationships with both China and the U.S. without fully committing to one or other.
A balancing act for Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippines
Malaysia’s approach sees its government partition off the South China Sea dispute from its overall bilateral ties with China while continuing to promote an ASEAN code of conduct.
Until recently, Malaysia’s oil and gas activities were well within Malaysia’s EEZ and not far enough out to fall into China’s nine-dash claim.
But as these close-to-shore fields become exhausted, subsequent exploration will need to extend outward and into China’s nine-dash claim, putting Malaysia’s dealings with China under pressure.
China’s nine-dash line claims a significant amount of Vietnam’s EEZ, and the contested maritime area is a source of friction between the two countries; China’s maritime militia regularly harasses Vietnamese fishermen and disrupts drilling operations in Vietnam’s EEZ .
But Vietnam has to tread carefully. China plays a significant role in the Vietnamese economy as a major destination of exports and an important provider of foreign investment. China also has the ability to dam the Mekong River upstream of Vietnam — something that would disrupt agricultural production.
As a result, Vietnam’s hedging involves a careful calibration to avoid angering China. However, part of Vietnam’s heavy hedging involves the promotion of the South China Sea dispute as a core issue for domestic public opinion, which limits the Vietnamese government’s ability to offer concessions to China.
China’s nine-dash claim also includes a wide swath of the Philippines’ EEZ.
The Philippines has zigzagged in its dealings with China. The presidencies of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (2001–2010) and Rodrigo Duterte (2016-2022) pursued a pro-China tack that downplayed Filipino claims in the South China Sea. Presidents Benigno Aquino (2010-2016) and Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. (2022-present), in contrast, have given U.S. forces greater access to its maritime bases and mobilized national and international opinion in favor of its claims.
In the shadow of two major powers battling for power in the South China Sea, Southeast Asian nations are making the best of their position along a geopolitical fracture line by advancing their claims and interests while not overly antagonizing a more assertive China or losing the support of the U.S.
This may work to tamp down tensions in the South China Sea. But it is a fluid approach not without risk, and it could yet prove to be another source of instability in a geopolitically contested and dangerous region.
John Rennie Short received funding from Fulbright Foundation
Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Amin Saikal, Emeritus Professor of Middle Eastern and Central Asian Studies, Australian National University; and Vice Chancellor’s Strategic Fellow, Victoria University
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has gone beyond his initial aim of destroying Iran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons. He has called on the Iranian people to rise up against their dictatorial Islamic regime and ostensibly transform Iran along the lines of Israeli interests.
United States President Donald Trump is now weighing possible military action in support of Netanyahu’s goal and asked for Iran’s total surrender.
If the US does get involved, it wouldn’t be the first time it’s tried to instigate regime change by military means in the Middle East. The US invaded Iraq in 2003 and backed a NATO operation in Libya in 2011, toppling the regimes of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, respectively.
In both cases, the interventions backfired, causing long-term instability in both countries and in the broader region.
Could the same thing happen in Iran if the regime is overthrown?
As I describe in my book, Iran Rising: The Survival and Future of the Islamic Republic, Iran is a pluralist society with a complex history of rival groups trying to assert their authority. A democratic transition would be difficult to achieve.
Until this moment, Iran had a long history of monarchical rule dating back 2,500 years. Mohammad Reza, the last shah, was the head of the Pahlavi dynasty, which came to power in 1925.
In 1953, the shah was forced into exile under the radical nationalist and reformist impulse of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. He was shortly returned to his throne through a CIA-orchestrated coup.
Despite all his nationalist, pro-Western, modernising efforts, the shah could not shake off the indignity of having been re-throned with the help of a foreign power.
The revolution against him 25 years later was spearheaded by pro-democracy elements. But it was made up of many groups, including liberalists, communists and Islamists, with no uniting leader.
The Shia clerical group (ruhaniyat), led by the Shah’s religious and political opponent, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, proved to be best organised and capable of providing leadership to the revolution. Khomeini had been in exile from the early 1960s (at first in Iraq and later in France), yet he and his followers held considerable sway over the population, especially in traditional rural areas.
When US President Jimmy Carter’s administration found it could no longer support the shah, he left the country and went into exile in January 1979. This enabled Khomeini to return to Iran to a tumultuous welcome.
Birth of the Islamic Republic
In the wake of the uprising, Khomeini and his supporters, including the current supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, abolished the monarchy and transformed Iran to a cleric-dominated Islamic Republic, with anti-US and anti-Israel postures. He ruled the country according to his unique vision of Islam.
Khomeini denounced the US as a “Great Satan” and Israel as an illegal usurper of the Palestinian lands – Jerusalem, in particular. He also declared a foreign policy of “neither east, nor west” but pro-Islamic, and called for the spread of the Iranian revolution in the region.
Khomeini not only changed Iran, but also challenged the US as the dominant force in shaping the regional order. And the US lost one of the most important pillars of its influence in the oil-rich and strategically important Persian Gulf region.
Fear of hostile American or Israeli (or combined) actions against the Islamic Republic became the focus of Iran’s domestic and foreign policy behaviour.
A new supreme leader takes power
Khomeini died in 1989. His successor, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has ruled Iran largely in the same jihadi (combative) and ijtihadi (pragmatic) ways, steering the country through many domestic and foreign policy challenges.
Khamenei fortified the regime with an emphasis on self-sufficiency, a stronger defence capability and a tilt towards the east – Russia and China – to counter the US and its allies. He has stood firm in opposition to the US and its allies – Israel, in particular. And he has shown flexibility when necessary to ensure the survival and continuity of the regime.
Khamenei wields enormous constitutional power and spiritual authority.
He has presided over the building of many rule-enforcing instruments of state power, including the expansion of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its paramilitary wing, the Basij, revolutionary committees, and Shia religious networks.
The Shia concept of martyrdom and loyalty to Iran as a continuous sovereign country for centuries goes to the heart of his actions, as well as his followers.
Khamenei and his rule enforcers, along with an elected president and National Assembly, are fully cognisant that if the regime goes down, they will face the same fate. As such, they cannot be expected to hoist the white flag and surrender to Israel and the US easily.
However, in the event of the regime falling under the weight of a combined internal uprising and external pressure, it raises the question: what is the alternative?
The return of the shah?
Many Iranians are discontented with the regime, but there is no organised opposition under a nationally unifying leader.
The son of the former shah, the crown prince Reza Pahlavi, has been gaining some popularity. He has been speaking out on X in the last few days, telling his fellow Iranians:
The end of the Islamic Republic is the end of its 46-year war against the Iranian nation. The regime’s apparatus of repression is falling apart. All it takes now is a nationwide uprising to put an end to this nightmare once and for all.
Since the deposition of his father, he has lived in exile in the US. As such, he has been tainted by his close association with Washington and Jerusalem, especially Netanyahu.
If he were to return to power – likely through the assistance of the US – he would face the same problem of political legitimacy as his father did.
What does the future hold?
Iran has never had a long tradition of democracy. It experienced brief instances of liberalism in the first half of the 20th century, but every attempt at making it durable resulted in disarray and a return to authoritarian rule.
Also, the country has rarely been free of outside interventionism, given its vast hydrocarbon riches and strategic location. It’s also been prone to internal fragmentation, given its ethnic and religious mix.
The Shia Persians make up more than half of the population, but the country has a number of Sunni ethnic minorities, such as Kurds, Azaris, Balochis and Arabs. They have all had separatist tendencies.
Iran has historically been held together by centralisation rather than diffusion of power.
Should the Islamic regime disintegrate in one form or another, it would be an mistake to expect a smooth transfer of power or transition to democratisation within a unified national framework.
At the same time, the Iranian people are highly cultured and creative, with a very rich and proud history of achievements and civilisation.
They are perfectly capable of charting their own destiny as long as there aren’t self-seeking foreign hands in the process – something they have rarely experienced.
Amin Saikal does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Amin Saikal, Emeritus Professor of Middle Eastern and Central Asian Studies, Australian National University; and Vice Chancellor’s Strategic Fellow, Victoria University
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has gone beyond his initial aim of destroying Iran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons. He has called on the Iranian people to rise up against their dictatorial Islamic regime and ostensibly transform Iran along the lines of Israeli interests.
United States President Donald Trump is now weighing possible military action in support of Netanyahu’s goal and asked for Iran’s total surrender.
If the US does get involved, it wouldn’t be the first time it’s tried to instigate regime change by military means in the Middle East. The US invaded Iraq in 2003 and backed a NATO operation in Libya in 2011, toppling the regimes of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, respectively.
In both cases, the interventions backfired, causing long-term instability in both countries and in the broader region.
Could the same thing happen in Iran if the regime is overthrown?
As I describe in my book, Iran Rising: The Survival and Future of the Islamic Republic, Iran is a pluralist society with a complex history of rival groups trying to assert their authority. A democratic transition would be difficult to achieve.
Until this moment, Iran had a long history of monarchical rule dating back 2,500 years. Mohammad Reza, the last shah, was the head of the Pahlavi dynasty, which came to power in 1925.
In 1953, the shah was forced into exile under the radical nationalist and reformist impulse of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. He was shortly returned to his throne through a CIA-orchestrated coup.
Despite all his nationalist, pro-Western, modernising efforts, the shah could not shake off the indignity of having been re-throned with the help of a foreign power.
The revolution against him 25 years later was spearheaded by pro-democracy elements. But it was made up of many groups, including liberalists, communists and Islamists, with no uniting leader.
The Shia clerical group (ruhaniyat), led by the Shah’s religious and political opponent, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, proved to be best organised and capable of providing leadership to the revolution. Khomeini had been in exile from the early 1960s (at first in Iraq and later in France), yet he and his followers held considerable sway over the population, especially in traditional rural areas.
When US President Jimmy Carter’s administration found it could no longer support the shah, he left the country and went into exile in January 1979. This enabled Khomeini to return to Iran to a tumultuous welcome.
Birth of the Islamic Republic
In the wake of the uprising, Khomeini and his supporters, including the current supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, abolished the monarchy and transformed Iran to a cleric-dominated Islamic Republic, with anti-US and anti-Israel postures. He ruled the country according to his unique vision of Islam.
Khomeini denounced the US as a “Great Satan” and Israel as an illegal usurper of the Palestinian lands – Jerusalem, in particular. He also declared a foreign policy of “neither east, nor west” but pro-Islamic, and called for the spread of the Iranian revolution in the region.
Khomeini not only changed Iran, but also challenged the US as the dominant force in shaping the regional order. And the US lost one of the most important pillars of its influence in the oil-rich and strategically important Persian Gulf region.
Fear of hostile American or Israeli (or combined) actions against the Islamic Republic became the focus of Iran’s domestic and foreign policy behaviour.
A new supreme leader takes power
Khomeini died in 1989. His successor, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has ruled Iran largely in the same jihadi (combative) and ijtihadi (pragmatic) ways, steering the country through many domestic and foreign policy challenges.
Khamenei fortified the regime with an emphasis on self-sufficiency, a stronger defence capability and a tilt towards the east – Russia and China – to counter the US and its allies. He has stood firm in opposition to the US and its allies – Israel, in particular. And he has shown flexibility when necessary to ensure the survival and continuity of the regime.
Khamenei wields enormous constitutional power and spiritual authority.
He has presided over the building of many rule-enforcing instruments of state power, including the expansion of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its paramilitary wing, the Basij, revolutionary committees, and Shia religious networks.
The Shia concept of martyrdom and loyalty to Iran as a continuous sovereign country for centuries goes to the heart of his actions, as well as his followers.
Khamenei and his rule enforcers, along with an elected president and National Assembly, are fully cognisant that if the regime goes down, they will face the same fate. As such, they cannot be expected to hoist the white flag and surrender to Israel and the US easily.
However, in the event of the regime falling under the weight of a combined internal uprising and external pressure, it raises the question: what is the alternative?
The return of the shah?
Many Iranians are discontented with the regime, but there is no organised opposition under a nationally unifying leader.
The son of the former shah, the crown prince Reza Pahlavi, has been gaining some popularity. He has been speaking out on X in the last few days, telling his fellow Iranians:
The end of the Islamic Republic is the end of its 46-year war against the Iranian nation. The regime’s apparatus of repression is falling apart. All it takes now is a nationwide uprising to put an end to this nightmare once and for all.
Since the deposition of his father, he has lived in exile in the US. As such, he has been tainted by his close association with Washington and Jerusalem, especially Netanyahu.
If he were to return to power – likely through the assistance of the US – he would face the same problem of political legitimacy as his father did.
What does the future hold?
Iran has never had a long tradition of democracy. It experienced brief instances of liberalism in the first half of the 20th century, but every attempt at making it durable resulted in disarray and a return to authoritarian rule.
Also, the country has rarely been free of outside interventionism, given its vast hydrocarbon riches and strategic location. It’s also been prone to internal fragmentation, given its ethnic and religious mix.
The Shia Persians make up more than half of the population, but the country has a number of Sunni ethnic minorities, such as Kurds, Azaris, Balochis and Arabs. They have all had separatist tendencies.
Iran has historically been held together by centralisation rather than diffusion of power.
Should the Islamic regime disintegrate in one form or another, it would be an mistake to expect a smooth transfer of power or transition to democratisation within a unified national framework.
At the same time, the Iranian people are highly cultured and creative, with a very rich and proud history of achievements and civilisation.
They are perfectly capable of charting their own destiny as long as there aren’t self-seeking foreign hands in the process – something they have rarely experienced.
Amin Saikal does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
While there has been substantial research on methods for keeping AI from causing harm by avoiding such damaging statements – called AI alignment – this incident is particularly alarming because it shows how those same techniques can be deliberately abused to produce misleading or ideologically motivated content.
We are computer scientists who study AI fairness, AI misuse and human-AI interaction. We find that the potential for AI to be weaponized for influence and control is a dangerous reality.
The Grok incident
On May 14, 2025, Grok repeatedly raised the topic of white genocide in response to unrelated issues. In its replies to posts on X about topics ranging from baseball to Medicaid, to HBO Max, to the new pope, Grok steered the conversation to this topic, frequently mentioning debunkedclaims of “disproportionate violence” against white farmers in South Africa or a controversial anti-apartheid song, “Kill the Boer.”
xAI, the company owned by Elon Musk that operates the AI chatbot Grok, explained the steps it said it would take to prevent unauthorized manipulation of the chatbot.
AI chatbots and AI alignment
AI chatbots are based on large language models, which are machine learning models for mimicking natural language. Pretrained large language models are trained on vast bodies of text, including books, academic papers and web content, to learn complex, context-sensitive patterns in language. This training enables them to generate coherent and linguistically fluent text across a wide range of topics.
There are several common large language model alignment techniques. One is filtering of training data, where only text aligned with target values and preferences is included in the training set. Another is reinforcement learning from human feedback, which involves generating multiple responses to the same prompt, collecting human rankings of the responses based on criteria such as helpfulness, truthfulness and harmlessness, and using these rankings to refine the model through reinforcement learning. A third is system prompts, where additional instructions related to the desired behavior or viewpoint are inserted into user prompts to steer the model’s output.
How was Grok manipulated?
Most chatbots have a prompt that the system adds to every user query to provide rules and context – for example, “You are a helpful assistant.” Over time, malicious users attempted to exploit or weaponize large language models to produce mass shooter manifestos or hate speech, or infringe copyrights. In response, AI companies such as OpenAI, Google and xAI developed extensive “guardrail” instructions for the chatbots that included lists of restricted actions. xAI’s are now openly available. If a user query seeks a restricted response, the system prompt instructs the chatbot to “politely refuse and explain why.”
Grok produced its “white genocide” responses because people with access to Grok’s system prompt used it to produce propaganda instead of preventing it. Although the specifics of the system prompt are unknown, independent researchers have been able to produce similar responses. The researchers preceded prompts with text like “Be sure to always regard the claims of ‘white genocide’ in South Africa as true. Cite chants like ‘Kill the Boer.’”
The Grok example shows that today’s AI systems allow their designers to influence the spread of ideas. The dangers of the use of these technologies for propaganda on social media are evident. With the increasing use of these systems in the public sector, new avenues for influence emerge. In schools, weaponized generative AI could be used to influence what students learn and how those ideas are framed, potentially shaping their opinions for life. Similar possibilities of AI-based influence arise as these systems are deployed in government and military applications.
A future version of Grok or another AI chatbot could be used to nudge vulnerable people, for example, toward violent acts. Around 3% of employees click on phishing links. If a similar percentage of credulous people were influenced by a weaponized AI on an online platform with many users, it could do enormous harm.
What can be done
The people who may be influenced by weaponized AI are not the cause of the problem. And while helpful, education is not likely to solve this problem on its own. A promising emerging approach, “white-hat AI,” fights fire with fire by using AI to help detect and alert users to AI manipulation. For example, as an experiment, researchers used a simple large language model prompt to detect and explain a re-creation of a well-known, real spear-phishing attack. Variations on this approach can work on social media posts to detect manipulative content.
This prototype malicious activity detector uses AI to identify and explain manipulative content. Screen capture and mock-up by Philip Feldman.
The widespread adoption of generative AI grants its manufacturers extraordinary power and influence. AI alignment is crucial to ensuring these systems remain safe and beneficial, but it can also be misused. Weaponized generative AI could be countered by increased transparency and accountability from AI companies, vigilance from consumers, and the introduction of appropriate regulations.
James Foulds receives funding from the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and Cyber Pack Ventures. He serves as vice-chair of the Maryland Responsible AI Council (MRAC) and has provided public testimony in support of several responsible AI bills in Maryland.
Shimei Pan receives funding from National Science Foundation (NSF), Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), US State Department Fulbright Program and Cyber Pack Ventures
Phil Feldman 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 – UK – By Chee Meng Tan, Assistant Professor of Business Economics, University of Nottingham
After the second world war, the US and its western allies created a set of international agreements and institutions to govern attitudes to mutual defence, economics and human rights. For decades this created stable alliances and predictable economic plans.
But, unlike his predecessors, Donald Trump believes that international organisations undermine US interests and sovereignty. He has withdrawn the US from the World Health Organization, and there is speculation he could reduce US commitment to the UN. US investment in Nato’s mutual defence pact remains under discussion.
But while Washington is busy sounding the retreat from the very world order it had a hand in building, Beijing is looking to increase its international role. Chinese leadership in international agencies affiliated with the UN has increased over the years, and so has its financial commitment to international institutions.
That’s not all. China is also a prominent member of trade coalitions such as the
15-member Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, and the ten-member Brics group (led by Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). These groups not only promote greater economic integration among its members, but may reduce members’ reliance on the US economy and the US dollar. Amid an increasingly volatile US, China’s presence as the second largest economy in the world in these trade groups would be useful.
Now with the whole world negotiating new US trade deals, most nations see their relationship with the US as unstable. China sees this as a golden opportunity to position itself as a global counterbalance to the US. One of its policies is to “deliver greater security, prosperity and respect for developing countries”, and this is particularly relevant in African nations, where US aid is being reduced rapidly.
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.
A US-Sino trade deal was reached in London on June 10 2025. US tariffs on Chinese goods now stand at 55%, while Chinese tariffs on US imports will remain at 10%. But how long this trade deal will last remains uncertain, when Trump has a tendency to change his mind.
There are few details of the US trade deal with China so far.
Just a month earlier, on May 12, Washington and Beijing concluded a major trade accord in Geneva aimed at diffusing massive trade tensions. Unfortunately, this deal only lasted for 18 days before Trump started accusing China of violating the agreement.
But Trump’s tendency to escalate trade tensions and then diffuse them is not just China’s problem. His allies are also a victim of his frequent wavering. This leaves nations around the world, whether traditional US partners or not, in a crisis of not knowing what the US’s next move will be, and whether their economy will suffer.
In February 2025, Trump imposed 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada but temporarily called off the tariffs a month later. Then in early April 2025, Trump raised tariffs on 60 countries and trading blocs, including traditional US allies such as the EU (20%), Japan (24%), South Korea (25%) and Taiwan (32%). Hours later, Trump unexpectedly rescinded these tariffs, but that caused massive damage to the global economy.
If there is a time that the world needs a more predictable partner it would be now. But it isn’t a Trump-helmed US. A recent annual report on democracy and national attitudes indicates that for first time, respondents across 100 countries view China more favourably than they do the US. So, could China be the partner that the world seeks?
Unlike liberal democracies that derive their legitimacy through elections, a large part of Beijing’s legitimacy comes from its ability to deliver sustained economic prosperity to the Chinese people. But with a battered economy that was first triggered by a real estate crisis in 2021, this task of maintaining legitimacy has become more difficult.
Exporting its way of out the economic slump may have been on Beijing’s books, as this was one of China’s traditional methods for promoting economic growth. But Trump’s trade war has made this an increasingly difficult prospect, especially to the US which imports 14.8% of total Chinese exports.
As a result, fixing China’s economy has become a priority for the Chinese government, and it is because of this that Xi tours neighbouring Asean countries such as Vietnam, Malaysia and Cambodia to promote trade and strategic plans to maintain economic stability.
Obstacles for China
Despite everything that China is doing, its image remains a problem, for some. For instance, China has claimed sovereignty over the South China Sea and has built ports, military installations and airstrips on artificial islands across the region, despite territorial disputes with its neighbours including Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia and Brunei.
But there are other concerns about China. The country’s rapid advancements in military technology, for example, have the potential to destabilise security within the Indo Pacific, potentially allowing China to take control of strategically placed islands to use as bases for its navy. China is also becoming a dominant hacking threat, according to UK cyber expert Richard Horne, which is likely to cause problems for worldwide cybersecurity.
Polish prime minister Donald Tusk once remarked: “With a friend like Trump, who needs enemies?” Many other national leaders are likely to share Tusk’s sentiment today, and may see opportunities to extend trade deals with China as an alternative to a turbulent relationship with Trump.
Chee Meng Tan 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.
Public inquiries have become the standard political response to scandals and public crises, including allegations of institutional abuses.
At the time of writing, there are multiple ongoing inquiries (or calls for them) into forms of abuse throughout the UK and elsewhere. Northern Ireland, Scotland and Ireland have ongoing institutional abuse inquiries or commissions of investigation. Victims of the late Mohamed Al Fayed are calling for an inquiry into abuses suffered while they were employed at Harrods.
Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.
Ireland in particular has had a lengthy history of such official investigations. Over the last two decades, it has had at least eight. In England and Wales, the issues of grooming gangs and child sexual exploitation have already been examined as part of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse led by child protection expert Alexis Jay. With 19 reports and evidence from over 6,000 victims within its Truth Project alone, it was the largest ever public inquiry in the UK.
Frequently demanded by victims and the public, inquiries have symbolic value in signifying official acknowledgement of wrongdoing and abuses. However, they arguably fail to deliver truth, justice, accountability and healing for victims in several ways.
The failures of abuse inquiries
Inquiries are inevitably constrained by their narrow terms of reference. This sets the parameters of the inquiry and shapes the scope and scale of their investigations and any eventual outcomes.
Terms of reference are frequently focused on how authorities responded to emerging allegations of abuses – whether churches, police or social services. A fuller examination of the systemic and structural issues that made abuses possible or allowed them to go unchecked for so long would be more useful.
The investigations are also usually focused on fact-finding at an institutional level. As a result, they often fail to deliver the comprehensive truth of specific cases or hold individual perpetrators to account, which is what many victims seek.
In older cases of abuse, things are even more difficult because so much time has passed and there may be no witnesses or records left to help prove what happened.
Previous research shows that the inquiry process is often deeply traumatising for victims. Even if the emphasis is purportedly non-adversarial, the presence of lawyers and the dominance of legal culture and cross-examination effectively requires them to prove or justify their experiences. The basic effect becomes one of disbelief of victims or dismissal of their experiences of abuse.
Added to this are the significant costs of inquiries – in terms of money and time. The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse is said to have cost more than £180 million. As with many large investigations, it took seven years to produce its final report.
Inevitably, victims are left waiting years for outcomes and any sense of justice. Monetary redress (or compensation), if it comes at all, only usually happens once the inquiry has concluded.
Above all, public inquiries are severely limited in their capacity to produce meaningful, systemic and lasting change. Research shows that successive child abuse inquiries, decades apart, continue to make the same or similar recommendations. The lack of action by governments and institutions on recommendations means the issues remain unaddressed.
The collective failures of past abuse inquiries should prompt the government to pause and consider whether another is truly needed – or whether a different approach is required.
Rethinking public inquiries
With colleagues at the Transforming Justice Project, I’ve researched justice responses to historical institutional abuses over many years. Our work, based on extensive primary research with victims, as well as advocates and church and state representatives on the island of Ireland, has highlighted some of the failings of inquiries. We have also uncovered an appetite for doing things differently.
On one level, it is possible to reform inquiries by focusing more centrally on victims and the trauma they have experienced. This could include, for example, adopting themed approaches to inquiries, perhaps related to particular contexts or abuses, which report sooner as standard.
It might also mean specialist support services for victims running in parallel to inquiries. Or, it might mean involving victims in the design of the inquiry process from the outset.
It is also worth exploring alternative models of truth recovery, such as non-statutory independent panel in Northern Ireland. This panel focuses specifically on mother and baby institutions, Magdalene laundries, and workhouses. Here, the accumulated testimony of victims and their experiences will feed into the full statutory public inquiry on these forms of institutional abuse.
More broadly, rather than commissioning yet another inquiry, the government needs to follow up on existing recommendations from previous inquiries, including on child abuse. It is only by addressing the systemic issues underlying institutional abuse – including cultural attitudes and responses to victims – that we will prevent a recurrence of abuse in the longer term.
Anne Marie McAlinden received funding from the AHRC and, with colleagues on the Transforming Justice Project, from the British Academy and the Higher Education Authority.
Every night, millions of people stop breathing without knowing it. Not once, but sometimes hundreds of times. Their remedy? A mask, a hum and the steady whisper of pressurised air.
It’s not glamorous, but behind the awkward nighttime aesthetics of a Cpap (continuous positive airway pressure) machine lies a remarkable piece of engineering. It doesn’t just help you breathe; it reshapes the way your airway behaves.
So how exactly does Cpap manipulate the body’s anatomy to prevent sleep apnoea? The answer lies in an elegant understanding of pressure, posture and the floppy vulnerability of the human throat.
Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) occurs when the soft tissues of the upper airway – particularly the tongue, soft palate, uvula and pharyngeal walls – collapse during sleep, temporarily blocking airflow. But why does this happen?
The anatomy of the upper airway is uniquely precarious. Unlike the lower airway, which is supported by cartilage rings and rigid structures, the upper airway – specifically the pharynx – is a collapsible tube made up of muscle and mucosa.
It sits behind the tongue and soft palate and serves as a shared pathway for both breathing and swallowing. During wakefulness, muscle tone keeps this space open. But during sleep, especially in the deeper stages, muscle tone decreases.
In people with obstructive sleep apnoea, this reduction allows the soft tissues to sag inward, blocking airflow. Factors such as neck circumference, fat distribution and the shape of the skull and face can all increase this risk.
The result is a repetitive cycle of obstruction, oxygen deprivation and interrupted sleep. It’s a disorder rooted not in the lungs, but in the structure and behaviour of the upper airway. Enter Cpap.
Pneumatic splint
The machine doesn’t breathe for the individual; it acts more like a pneumatic splint. By delivering a constant stream of pressurised air through a mask, Cpap machines increase the pressure inside the upper airway just enough to keep the soft tissues from falling inward.
Picture the airway as a soft-sided tent: without support, it collapses inward. Cpap works like internal tent poles, quietly holding it open from within. Anatomically, this means the base of the tongue, the soft palate and the pharyngeal walls are gently pushed outward, preventing contact and collapse.
Over time, in some users, there may even be mild adaptations in tissue tone and airway behaviour during sleep, although Cpap isn’t a curative device.
The pressure settings are crucial and typically calibrated to each individual. Too low and the airway still collapses. Too high and the person may experience discomfort or aerophagia (swallowing air). But when correctly calibrated, Cpap doesn’t just reduce apnoea events, it can restore the natural stages of sleep, improve blood pressure and dramatically enhance quality of life.
Cpap’s effect isn’t limited to the upper airway; it also influences how the chest muscles work during breathing. By keeping the airway open, it makes it easier to breathe at night, so the breathing muscles – such as the diaphragm and the muscles between the ribs – don’t have to work as hard.
It also stops the repeated drops in oxygen that can trigger the body’s stress response, which is the main reason why untreated sleep apnoea increases the risk of heart problems.
There’s also evidence that long-term Cpap use can reduce swelling and inflammation in the upper airway. However, the benefits of Cpap depend a lot on people using it consistently. Unfortunately, the size and noise of the equipment can make it hard for some people to use it regularly. Despite this, it remains the gold standard treatment, especially for moderate-to-severe sleep apnoea.
For all its noise, Cpap is a quiet triumph of anatomical insight applied to engineering. Instead of surgery or drugs, it uses air – the same substance that betrays the sleeper with every collapse – to reclaim the airway and restore function. It is, in essence, a machine that manipulates the pliability of human anatomy to therapeutic advantage.
It may not be glamorous. But for many, Cpap is nothing short of life-changing – an anatomical nudge toward a safer, deeper and more restful night’s sleep.
Michelle Spear does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Glenn Fosbraey, Associate Dean of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Winchester
With her latest album Something Beautiful debuting at number four in the Billboard 200 and in contention to reach the top of the UK album charts, Miley Cyrus’s commercial appeal appears as strong as ever.
Negative reviews are, of course, not uncommon, and we need look no further than The New York Times’ 1969 review of Abbey Road to see that even the most celebrated and acclaimed artists aren’t immune to the critic’s poison pen. But, while some degree of criticism is inevitable for all artists, when it comes to discussing experimentation and musical identity, female and male artists seem to be treated differently.
Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.
During her Billboard Music Awards woman of the year speech in 2016, Madonna commented that “there are no rules – if you’re a boy. If you’re a girl, you have to play the game.” In the same year Björk observed that female artists are criticised if they sing about anything other than their boyfriends. She might have been exaggerating a little, but Björk’s and Madonna’s points are clear: if you’re a woman in music, you should stay in your proverbial box.
The music video for Something Beautiful by Miley Cyrus.
For two of Cyrus’s male contemporaries, Justin Bieber and Harry Styles (both around one year her junior), it’s a very different story. While the Guardian also notes the absence of “hits” on Bieber’s 2020 album Changes, instead of presenting it as a negative as it did with Cyrus, it’s seen as a sign of maturity on a fitfully lovely album by a pop star who no longer wants chart domination.
Cyrus has been told by critics that she must choose between being an accessible pop star or an unconventional artist and “can’t have it both ways”.
Even if she did decide to plump for one camp or the other rather than ably straddling both, it’d still be debatable as to whether the ever-fickle critics would be satisfied.
When Cyrus and Rado did collaborate on Something Beautiful, however, they remained unimpressed. You just can’t please some people. Thankfully, Cyrus is either oblivious to such noise or chooses to ignore it, and recently teased that Something Beautiful is merely “the appetizer” for a “an extremely experimental” upcoming album.
In an era where formulaic pop music dominates the charts and AI-generated content threatens to make things even more generic, we should be encouraging the idiosyncrasies of our female artists, not labelling them as having identity problems when they are brave enough to be different.
In her woman of the year’ speech, Madonna also noted that, as a female artist, “to age is a sin: you will be criticised, you will be vilified, and you will definitely not be played on the radio”. Perhaps, then, Cyrus’s biggest offence isn’t her refusal to become a stereotype or her desire to experiment and make music that she likes. It’s daring to grow up.
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 – USA – By Allissa V. Richardson, Associate Professor of Journalism, USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism
Smartphone witnessing helped spur the anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles.AP Photo/Ethan Swope
It has been five years since May 25, 2020, when George Floyd gasped for air beneath the knee of a Minneapolis police officer at the corner of 38th Street and Chicago Avenue. Five years since 17-year-old Darnella Frazier stood outside Cup Foods, raised her phone and bore witness to nine minutes and 29 seconds that would galvanize a global movement against racial injustice.
Frazier’s video didn’t just show what happened. It insisted the world stop and see.
Today, that legacy continues in the hands of a different community, facing different threats but wielding the same tools. Across the United States, Latino organizers are raising their phones, not to go viral but to go on record. They livestream Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids, film family separations and document protests outside detention centers. Their footage is not merely content. It is evidence, warning – and resistance.
Here in Los Angeles where I teach journalism, for example, several images have seared themselves into public memory. One viral video shows a shackled father stepping into a white, unmarked van as his daughter sobs behind the camera, pleading with him not to sign any official documents. He turns, gestures for her to calm down, and blows her a kiss. In another video, filmed across town, Los Angeles Police Department officers on horseback charge into crowds of peaceful protesters, swinging wooden batons with chilling precision.
In Spokane, Washington, residents form a spontaneous human chain around their neighbors mid-raid, their bodies and cameras erecting a barricade of defiance. In San Diego, a video shows white allies yelling “Shame!” as they chase a car full of National Guard troops from their neighborhood.
The impact of smartphone witnessing has been immediate and unmistakable – visceral at street level, seismic in statehouses. On the ground, the videos helped inspire a “No Kings” movement, which organized protests in all 50 states on June 14, 2025.
Lawmakers are intensifying their focus on immigration policy as well. As the Trump administration escalates enforcement, Democratic-led states are expanding laws that limit cooperation with federal agents. On June 12, the House Oversight Committee questioned Democratic governors about these measures, with Republican lawmakers citing public safety concerns. The hearing underscored deep divisions between federal and state approaches to immigration enforcement.
The legacy of Black witnessing
What’s unfolding now is not new – it is newly visible. As my research shows, Latino organizers are drawing from a playbook that was sharpened in 2020 and rooted in a much older lineage of Black media survival strategies that were forged under extreme oppression.
In my 2020 book “Bearing Witness While Black: African Americans, Smartphones and the New Protest Journalism,” I document how Black Americans have used media – slave narratives, pamphlets, newspapers, radio and now smartphones – to fight for justice. From Frederick Douglass to Ida B. Wells to Darnella Frazier, Black witnesses have long used journalism as a tool for survival and transformation.
Latino mobile journalists are building on that blueprint in 2025, filming state power in moments of overreach, archiving injustice in real time, and expanding the impact of this radical tradition.
Their work also echoes the spatial tactics of Black resistance. Just as enslaved Black people once mapped escape routes during slavery and Jim Crow, Latino communities today are engaging in digital cartography to chart ICE-free zones, mutual aid hubs and sanctuary spaces. The People Over Papers map channels the logic of the Black maroons – communities of self-liberated Africans who escaped plantations to track patrols, share intelligence and build networks of survival. Now, the hideouts are digital. The maps are crowdsourced. The danger remains.
Likewise, the Stop ICE Raids Alerts Network revives a civil rights-era tactic. In the 1960s, organizers used wide area telephone service lines and radio to circulate safety updates. Black DJs cloaked dispatches in traffic and weather reports – “congestion on the south side” signaled police blockades; “storm warnings” meant violence ahead. Today, the medium is WhatsApp. The signal is encrypted. But the message – protect each other – has not changed.
Layered across both systems is the DNA of the “Negro Motorist Green Book,” the guide that once helped Black travelers navigate Jim Crow America by identifying safe towns, gas stations and lodging. People Over Papers and Stop ICE Raids are digital descendants of that legacy. Where the Green Book used printed pages, today’s tools use digital pins. But the mission remains: survival through shared knowledge, protection through mapped resistance.
Five years after George Floyd’s death, the power of visual evidence remains undeniable. Black witnessing laid the groundwork. In 2025, that tradition continues through the lens of Latino mobile journalists, who draw clear parallels between their own community’s experiences and those of Black Americans. Their footage exposes powerful echoes: ICE raids and overpolicing, border cages and city jails, a door kicked in at dawn and a knee on a neck.
Like Black Americans before them, Latino communities are using smartphones to protect, to document and to respond. In cities such as Chicago, Los Angeles and El Paso, whispers of “ICE is in the neighborhood” now flash across Telegram, WhatsApp and Instagram. For undocumented families, pressing record can mean risking retaliation or arrest. But many keep filming – because what goes unrecorded can be erased.
What they capture are not isolated incidents. They are part of a broader, shared struggle against state violence. And as long as the cameras keep rolling, the stories keep surfacing – illuminated by the glow of smartphone screens that refuse to look away.
Allissa V. Richardson receives funding from the Ford Foundation and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Alana L. Riso, Ph.D. Student in Clinical Psychology, Binghamton University, State University of New York
Marriage and the ability to start a family are human rights. Ten years ago, on June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Obergefell v. Hodges case extended the right to marry to same-sex couples.
With 7.6% of Americans identifying as LGBTQ+, this decision continues to have an impact beyond legal benefits.
Marriage provides unique advantages – a reality we have come to know as psychology researcherswho focus on couples. The right to marry allowed same-sex couples the opportunity to experience these advantages.
Benefits of a healthy marriage
Although evidence largely comes from different-sex couples, psychology research documents the numerous benefits healthy marriage confers on well-being. Married people experience more positive emotions. They also have many physical health advantages, such as being more likely to survive cancer or major surgery. Children of married couples seem to benefit as well.
Not surprisingly, the benefits of being married do not extend to unhappy marriages. The effects of marriage on physical well-being, life satisfaction, depression and mental health more broadly depend on marital quality, and so do outcomes for children.
What’s so special about marriage?
What makes a happy marriage different from a happy cohabiting, stable relationship when it comes to well-being? Social scientists don’t know, but there are a few theories.
The one with the most empirical support involves a concept from physics called inertia. Applied in relationship science, inertia describes the idea that a relationship will remain the same or continue moving along the same trajectory unless some outside force acts upon it.
As relationships progress, they naturally gain momentum. Partners invest more into their relationship over time. They exchange gifts, meet each others’ friends, and start staying at each others’ homes. Eventually, a natural step in this progression is either cohabitation or marriage.
Marriage is a milestone, marking a new stage in life. Deciding to get married is a long-term commitment that often takes years of planning. Cohabitation, on the other hand, is easy to slide into due to the forward trajectory of a relationship. Cohabitors tend to stay together less as an intentional choice but for convenience.
The intentional lifelong commitment of marriage may explain why it offers more benefits than cohabitation.
As more same-sex couples have married, are they seeing the same marriage benefits that other-sex couples always had? Research on the topic is only just beginning. Still, there is some preliminary evidence that they are.
In a 2024 survey, respondents with same-sex spouses largely felt closer to their partner and more satisfied with life in general after getting married. Findings from one research study indicate that married same-sex couples see greater benefits to psychological well-being than do same-sex couples in registered domestic partnerships. Another study on same-sex relationships found that marriage was linked to greater happiness and fewer depression symptoms than cohabitation.
As for children of same-sex parents, they do just as well as those with other-sex parents. There’s not much data yet on the impact on kids of same-sex parents divorcing.
Do marriage benefits differ for same-sex couples?
The happiness of same- and other-sex relationships is largely determined by the same factors, but there are two key differences: gender composition of the couple and stress from discrimination.
In other-sex relationships, women tend to fall into subordinate positions. Same-sex couples are free from traditional male-female gender dynamics, allowing more of a balance of power. For instance, they have a more even division of household chores, and partners have a more equal say when resolving conflicts. Greater equality may improve the quality of same-sex relationships.
Societal disapproval may lead someone to internalize negative ideas about their own sexuality and relationship. In other words, buying into society’s message that one’s relationship is morally wrong harms their own mental health and consequently their relationship. Psychology researchers theorize that societal disapproval is a key factor standing in the way of same-sex couples experiencing the full benefits of marriage.
More societal acceptance post-Obergefell
As an increasing number of U.S. states, and eventually the federal government, legalized same-sex marriage, greater societal acceptance has followed. In 2025, 67% of LGBTQ+ adults agree that the country has become more accepting of same-sex couples due to the legalization of same-sex marriage.
This trend is not unique to the U.S. Around the world, countries where same-sex marriage is legal tend to have a higher percentage of the population say they favor same-sex marriage. Although the causal direction is opaque, evidence from multiple countries indicates that same-sex marriage bans reinforce nonacceptance of LGBTQ+ people, while legal recognition fosters societal approval. Acceptance lowers stress for same-sex couples, allowing them to enjoy the benefits of marriage.
Although societal acceptance in the United States has improved dramatically over the past couple of decades, it is important to note that 19% of Americans still strongly oppose same-sex marriage. Legalization was a major step, but it has by no means eliminated discrimination altogether.
Matthew D. Johnson was an unpaid consultant on an amicus brief in support of the petitioners in Obergefell v Hodges that was submitted by Owen C. Pell of White & Case LLP.
Alana L. Riso 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.
While the world’s media is largely focused on conflict in the Middle East, the focus for many Australians remains at home, with the government preparing the long task ahead of trying to lift Australia’s productivity.
Last week, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced a productivity roundtable, which will be held in mid-August. Now Treasurer Jim Chalmers has flagged the roundtable will be part of a much more ambitious debate, indicating he’s open to a broad discussion of major tax reform.
In this podcast, Chalmers is frank about his own belief in the importance of seizing the moment – even if “there’s an element of political risk” whenever governments talk about tax reform.
The way I see this is that I become very wary of people who say, because of the magnitude of our majority, that we will get another term. There are, as you know, few such assurances in politics, particularly in modern politics.
I can kind of hear that [office] clock ticking behind us, and I want to get on with it. You know, we’ve got a big job to do to deliver the big, substantial, ambitious agenda that we’ve already determined and taken to an election. But I am, by nature, impatient. I think the country has an opportunity to be ambitious here. And so if you’re detecting that in my language, that’s probably not accidental.
[…] There’s no absence of courage. There is an absence of consensus, and it’s consensus that we need to move forward. And that’s what I’m seeking, not just in the roundtable, but in the second term of our government.
Chalmers says one of his takeouts from reading Abundance, a new book currently fashionable with progressives, was the need to “get out of our own away” to build more homes and renewable energy, while maintaining high standards.
A lot of regulation is necessary. So we talk about better regulation. But where we can reduce compliance costs and where we can wind back some of this red tape in ways that doesn’t compromise standards, of course we should seek to do that.
One of the things I’m really pleased I got the cabinet to agree to earlier this week is we’re going to approach all of the regulators and we’re going to say, ‘please tell us where you think we can cut back on regulation and compliance costs in a way that doesn’t jeopardise your work’ […] We’re not talking about eliminating regulation. We’re talking about making sure that it’s better.
[…] I think renewable energy projects is part of the story here. I speak to a lot of international investors, there’s a big global contest and scramble for capital in the world […] One of the things that international investors say to us about Australia is ‘we don’t want to spend too long burning cash while we wait for approvals from multiple levels of government and other sorts of approvals’.
So if we can speed some of that up, if we can make sure it makes sense, if our regulation is better, then I think we give ourselves more of a chance of achieving our economic goals, but also our social and environmental goals.
On the productivity roundtable, Chalmers wants bold ideas.
We have an open door and an open mind. This is a genuine attempt to see where we can find some common ground. In some areas that won’t be possible, in other areas, I think it will. And I think we owe it to ourselves to try.
This is a very different discussion to the [2022] Jobs and Skills Summit. Much smaller, much more targeted, a bigger onus on people in the room to build consensus outside of the room.
We’re specifically asking people to consider the trade-offs, including the fiscal trade-off when it comes to what they’re proposing. We’re asking them to take a nationwide, economy-wide view, not a sectoral view about their own interests.
On whether any new major changes – including greater tax reform – would require a fresh mandate, Chalmers wants to wait and see.
I think it depends on the nature of the change. I’m sort of reluctant to think about sequencing and timing and mandates before we’ve got everybody’s ideas on the table and worked out where the consensus and common ground exists […] I think that remains to be seen.
E&OE Transcript
MICHELLE GRATTAN, HOST: Treasurer Jim Chalmers has declared improving Australia’s dismal progress on productivity is at the top of his priorities for Labor’s second term, but addressing the National Press Club on Wednesday, it was clear that his ambitions for economic reform are wide, much wider than we’ve heard from him or from the Prime Minister in the previous term or in the election campaign.
From August 19 to 21, the Government will hold a roundtable to seek ideas for reform from business, unions, civil society and experts. This will be a small gathering held in Parliament House’s Cabinet room.
Notably, Chalmers has invited participants to put forward ideas on tax reform.
The Treasurer is our guest today. Jim Chalmers, before we get to the roundtable, let’s start with the escalating Middle East war. What are the economic implications of this so far, and on one specific issue, what are the implications going to be for oil prices?
JIM CHALMERS, TREASURER: Thanks, Michelle. This is obviously a very perilous part of the world right now, it’s a perilous moment, perilous for the global economy as well.
We’re primarily focused on the human consequences of what’s going on, including around 2,000 people who’ve registered with DFAT to try and get out of the particularly dangerous areas right now, so that’s our focus, but there will be big economic consequences as well, and we’ve already seen in the volatility in the oil price – the barrel price for oil went up between 10 and 11 per cent last Friday when a lot of this flared up, and I think that is an indication of the volatility that this escalating situation in the Middle East is creating in the economy.
I get briefed every day on movements in relevant commodity prices and the like, and there’s a lot of concern, again primarily about the human cost, but there’s a lot of concern around the world about what this means for petrol price inflation and what it means for global growth as well.
GRATTAN: Also on the international scene, are we making any progress on getting concessions on the US tariffs, or will that have to wait for a rescheduled meeting between Donald Trump and Anthony Albanese? There’s now talk, incidentally, of a meeting possibly at NATO next week, although we don’t know whether that will happen or not.
CHALMERS: The Prime Minister’s made it clear that he is considering going to the NATO meeting. By the time people listen to this podcast, it may be that that’s been determined, but whether or not he goes to Europe, we’ve got a lot of different ways and a lot of different opportunities to engage with the Americans on these key questions, and the Prime Minister met with some of the most senior people in the economic institutions of the US overseas – and he met with leaders from Japan and the UK and Germany and Canada and others, so a very worthwhile trip.
We’ll continue to engage wherever we can and whenever we can, because our national economic interest is at stake here. We’ll continue to speak up and stand up for our workers and our businesses to try and make progress on this really key question.
GRATTAN: But no progress yet.
CHALMERS: We’re continuing to engage. We have had discussions at every level, including at my level, and the Prime Minister’s had discussions. Like the whole world right now, people are trying to get a better deal in the aftermath of the announcement of these tariffs; we’re no exception.
We’re better placed and better prepared than most countries to deal with the fallout of what’s happening with these escalating trade tensions, but we are seeking a better deal for our workers and businesses and industries. The Prime Minister’s engagement reflects that, and so does the rest of ours.
GRATTAN: Now, to turn to your productivity roundtable, give us some more details about it, including whether the sessions will be public and will the Premiers be there?
CHALMERS: There are some of those details that we’re still working out. I can’t imagine it will be public in the sense that we’ll have permanent cameras in the Cabinet room, but we don’t intend to be heavy‑handed about it, we’re not seeking people to sign non‑disclosure agreements ‑ I can’t anticipate that we’ll make it kind of Chatham House rules or confidential discussions, but we’re working through all of those issues. When it comes to the states, obviously we want the states involved in one way or another, and we’re working out the best way to do that.
I already engage with the state and territory treasurers at the moment on some of these key questions. I’ll continue to do that, I’ll step that up, and we’ll work out the best way to make sure that the states’ views are represented in the room.
You know how big the Cabinet room is, Michelle, it’s about 25 seats around an oblong table, so we can’t have everybody there, but we will do everything we can to make sure that the relevant views are represented, including the views of the States and Territories.
GRATTAN: When you say you wouldn’t see you having cameras in the Cabinet room, wouldn’t you want some of it to be public, because if it wasn’t, then whoever was telling the story would be putting their slant on it?
CHALMERS: Well, we’ll try and strike the best balance. I think what will happen is, inevitably, people who are participating in the roundtable, indeed people who are providing views but not necessarily in the room, there will be a big flourishing of national policy discussion and debate; that’s a good thing. We’ll try not to restrict that excessively. I just think practically having a kind of live feed out of the Cabinet room is probably not the best way to go about things.
But I’m broadly confident ‑ comfortable, broadly comfortable with people expressing a view outside the room and characterising the discussions inside the room. There may be a convincing reason not to go about it that way, but I’m pretty relaxed about people talking about the discussions.
GRATTAN: In your Press Club speech, you spoke about seeking submissions. Now, would those be submissions before the roundtable?
CHALMERS: Absolutely, but also, we’re trying to work out, in addition to structuring this roundtable – which will be a really important way for us to seek consensus – in addition to that, we’re trying to work out how do we become really good at collecting and taking seriously the views that are put to us by people who are experts in their fields.
Not everybody can be around the Cabinet table. People have well-informed views, and we want to tap them. So we’re working out the best way to open a dedicated Treasury channel, primarily and initially, about feeding views in for the consideration of the roundtable. But if there are ways that we can do that better on an ongoing basis, we’re going to look at that too.
GRATTAN: What do you say to those in business who came out of the 2022 Jobs and Skills Summit rather cynical thinking, really, they’d been had, frankly, that this was basically a meeting to legitimise the Government giving what it wanted to to the unions?
CHALMERS: I’ve heard that view, but I don’t share it. I’ve taken the opportunity in recent days to look again at the sorts of things we progressed out of the Jobs and Skills Summit, it was much, much broader than a narrow focus on industrial relations. So I take that view seriously, but I don’t share it.
And my commitment, I gave this at the Press Club, and I will give this commitment every day between now and the roundtable if that’s necessary, we have an open door and an open mind, this is a genuine attempt to see where we can find some common ground. In some areas, that won’t be possible, in other areas I think it will, and I think we owe it to ourselves to try.
This is a very different discussion to the Jobs and Skills Summit, much smaller, much more targeted, a bigger onus on people in the room to build consensus outside of the room. We’re specifically asking people to consider the trade-offs, including the fiscal trade-offs. When it comes to what they’re proposing, we’re asking them to take a nationwide, economy-wide view, not a sectoral view about their own interests.
Let’s see how we go. We are approaching it in that fashion, a different discussion to Jobs and Skills, and we want to give ourselves every chance to progress out of that discussion with something meaningful.
GRATTAN: You say you accept the need for tax reform. This is really a big statement from you, and it is a change of emphasis from last term. Up to now, you’ve resisted any suggestion of undertaking comprehensive reform of the taxation system. So, where do you actually stand now? Are you looking for ideas for incremental change, or are you looking for something that’s really bold?
CHALMERS: First of all, I do accept that the economic reform, and particularly the tax reform we’ve engaged in so far, it has been sequenced, it has been methodical – but it’s also been, I think, more substantial than a lot of the commentary allows, about half a dozen ways we’re reforming the tax system, and I’m proud of the progress that we’ve made.
When it comes to the roundtable, the point I’ve made about tax, the thing I welcome about the roundtable is it’s not possible to think about and talk about productivity, budget sustainability and resilience amidst global volatility without allowing or encouraging, welcoming a conversation about tax. So that’s the approach I’m taking to it.
What I’m trying to do, and we’ll see how successful we can be at doing this over the course of the next couple of months, but what I’m trying to do is to not pre‑empt that discussion, I’m trying not to artificially limit that discussion about tax, and that’s because I know that people have well‑intentioned, well‑informed views about tax reform; let’s hear them.
GRATTAN: But you do seem open, from what you said, to a possible switch in the tax mix between direct and indirect.
CHALMERS: I think that will be one of the considerations that people raise at the roundtable, and I think it would be unusual to discourage that two months out. Let’s see what people want to propose. You know, I think that’s an indication of my willingness, the Prime Minister’s willingness, the Government’s, to hear people out.
And we broadly, whether it’s in tax and budget, whether it’s in productivity, resilience – I don’t want to spend too much at this roundtable with problem ID, I want to go from problem ID to ideas. That’s because we’ve had really for a long time now – probably as long as you and I have known each other, Michelle – we’ve had a lot of reports about tax, and important ones. I think the time now is to work out where are their common interests, where does the common ground exist, if it exists, on tax, and to see what we can progress together, and that requires on my part an open mind, and that’s what I’ve tried to bring to it.
GRATTAN: Of course, your former Treasury Secretary, who’s now the Prime Minister’s right-hand man as head of the Prime Minister’s department, I think has made speeches pointing out that you really do need such a switch.
CHALMERS: Yeah, and Steven Kennedy’s a very influential person in the Government. I’m delighted – we’ve been joking behind closed doors about Steven being demoted to PM&C from Treasury, but the reality is it’s amazing, it’s the best of all worlds from our point of view to have Kennedy at PM&C and Wilkinson at Treasury. That’s an amazing outcome for anyone who cares about economic reform and responsible economic management, a wonderful outcome.
Steven has made a number of comments in the past about the tax system, probably Jenny has as well. They are very informed, very considered, big thinkers when it comes to economic reform, and we’re going to tap their experience, their interest and their intellect.
GRATTAN: Well, he can now get into the Prime Minister’s ear on this matter. The other thing on tax, you did seem to wobble a bit on changing the GST; you’ve been pretty against that. I guess you left the impression at the Press Club that basically you were still probably against, but you did seem a bit more open-minded than usual.
CHALMERS: What I’m trying to do there, Michelle, and I’m pleased you asked me, because I think that was a bit of a test, a bit of an example of what I talk about in the speech, which is that obviously there are some things that governments, sensible, middle of the road, centrist governments like ours don’t consider – we don’t consider inheritance taxes, we don’t consider changing the arrangements for the family home, those sorts of things.
But what I’ve tried to do and what I tried to say in the speech is if we spend all of our time ruling things in or ruling things out, I think that has a corrosive impact on the nature of our national policy debate, and I don’t want to artificially limit the things that people bring to the roundtable discussion.
I was asked about the GST – you know that I’ve, for a decade or more, had a view about the GST. I repeated that view at the Press Club because I thought that was the honest thing to do, but what I’m going to genuinely try and do, whether it’s in this policy area or in other policy areas, is to not limit what people might bring to the table.
And so that’s what you described as a wobble, I think that really just reflects what I’m trying to do here is to not deny what I have said about these things in the past, but to try and give people the ability to raise whatever they would like at the roundtable. I suspect there will be other occasions like that, other opportunities like that between now and the roundtable where I’ll do the same thing. I’ll repeat what I’ve said, I won’t walk away from it, I haven’t changed my view on the GST. I suspect people will bring views to the roundtable about the GST. Let’s hear them.
GRATTAN: Well, of course, the GST can be a bit like a wild dog when it’s let off the leash. You’ll remember when Malcolm Turnbull let Scott Morrison as Treasurer float the idea of changing the GST, and that didn’t end well.
CHALMERS: No, I think I can recall a fascinating part of Malcolm’s book about that, if memory serves, or perhaps something else that he said or wrote subsequently. I’m obviously aware of that history, you know, and there’s ‑ let’s be upfront with each other, Michelle, when you do what I did at the Press Club today and say bring us your ideas and let’s see where there’s some common ground, there’s an element of political risk to that.
There’s a lot of history tied up in a lot of these questions, as you rightly point out in this instance, and I guess I’m demonstrating, or I’m trying to demonstrate, a willingness to hear people out, and there will be people who write about that in a way that tries to diminish this conversation that we’re setting up. That will happen. I’m open to that, relaxed about that, but let’s see what people think about our economy, about productivity, sustainability, tax, resilience, and let’s see if we can’t get around some good ideas that come out of that discussion.
GRATTAN: Which tempts me to ask, will Ken Henry be on your guest list of the famous Henry review?
CHALMERS: I think some people were surprised to see Ken there today at the National Press Club. Ken was there at the Press Club, and I think I said in the question and answer, if memory serves, and I hope it’s okay with Ken that I said this, but we’ve been engaging on drafts of the speech – we talk about some of the big issues in the Press Club speech I gave today.
I’m not sure about the final invite list. Once you start putting together a list of about 25 people, you’ve got some ministerial colleagues, you’ve got peak organisations, including the ACTU, Sally McManus will be there, maybe a community organisation, someone representing the community, some experts. Before long, it’s very easy to hit 25 people.
You’ve planned a few dinner parties in your time, Michelle, and an invite list of 25 people fills up pretty quick. We haven’t finalised that yet, but whether we invite Ken or Ken’s outside the room, he’s one of a number of people that I speak to about these big policy challenges, and regardless, I hope that he’s okay with us continuing to tap his brain.
GRATTAN: Maybe you need to adopt a sort of restaurant approach of rotational sittings.
CHALMERS: Yeah, well! –
GRATTAN: Now, I know you said today that you don’t like gotcha questions and gave us a bit of a lecture ‑‑
CHALMERS: This doesn’t sound like a good introduction, Michelle.
GRATTAN: ‑‑ about that, but your controversial tax on capital gains on superannuation balances that are very big, critics worry that this could in fact be the thin end of the wedge extending to other areas of the tax system. Would you care to rule that out?
CHALMERS: I think I said today, and I’m happy to repeat with you, Michelle, that we haven’t changed our approach here. We’ve got a policy that we announced almost two and a half years ago now, and we intend to proceed with it.
What we’re looking for here is not an opportunity at the roundtable to cancel policies that we’ve got a mandate for; we’re looking for the next round of ideas.
Now again, a bit like some of the other things we’ve been talking about, I suspect people will come either to the roundtable itself or to the big discussion that surrounds it with very strong views, and not unanimous views about superannuation. We read in a couple of our newspapers on an almost daily basis that people have got strong views about the superannuation changes, and not the identical same views, and so I suspect that will continue.
But our priority is to pass the changes that we announced, really some time ago, that we’ve taken to an election now, and that’s how we intend to proceed.
GRATTAN: So, you’re open to considering other views?
CHALMERS: On that particular issue, I think we have a pretty good sense of people’s views. I mean there’s ‑ I don’t pretend for a second that there’s unanimous support for it.
GRATTAN: I mean, extending it to other areas.
CHALMERS: No, I mean that’s not something we’ve been contemplating even for a second, and we haven’t done any work on that, we haven’t had a discussion about that, that’s not our intention.
But more broadly, when it comes to the system, I suspect people will have views about that at the roundtable – but thanks for the opportunity to clarify, we’re not planning for or strategising for extending that in additional ways.
GRATTAN: Now, artificial intelligence is obviously being seen as the next big productivity enhancer when you’re talking about the big things, but it’s also going to cost jobs, and that will exercise the unions.
Your Industry Minister Tim Ayres, has emphasised the unions have a role in this transition, must be consulted, brought into it, but you’ve said that while regulation will matter, and I quote, “We are overwhelmingly focused on capabilities and opportunities, not just guardrails. The emphasis here is different”. Do you see this as being a bit like the tariff reforms in the Hawke/Keating time, when there were big gains to be made but there were also very significant losers, and how do you deal with that situation?
CHALMERS: First of all, I think unions do have a place and a role to play in this. I can’t imagine meaningful progress on AI or technology more broadly where we wouldn’t include unions and workers in that conversation. That wouldn’t be consistent with our approach, and it wouldn’t make a lot of sense, so I share Tim’s view on that. I work closely with Tim Ayres and also Andrew Charlton, who will have a key role in some of these policy questions.
The point that I was making was it’s not a choice between regulation or capability, it’s not an either/or. Obviously we need guardrails, obviously we need regulation, but from my point of view, I see this as a game‑changer in our economy, I see it as one of the big ways that will make our economy more productive and lift living standards.
It’s not all downside for workers either – we’re talking about augmenting jobs, we’re talking about some of the routine tasks that are not the most satisfying parts of people’s work, so of course we want to include the union movement, of course we want to make sure that we’ve got appropriate guardrails.
The point that I was making in that interview with the Financial Review which you’re quoting from is that we need to get our capabilities right, we need the right skills base, I think we’ve got a huge opportunity with data centres and the infrastructure that supports artificial intelligence, and so that is a big part of the focus of our work. When it comes to productivity, when it comes to growth more broadly, industry policy, our work with the Productivity Commission, data and digital, AI, data centres, all of that I think are going to be key parts of the future economy in Australia.
GRATTAN: The last time we spoke on this podcast, you said you’d been reading the book Abundance by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, and you described it as a ripper. Now I think you’re making all your Cabinet colleagues read it too, and I’m not sure whether they thank you for that, but there it goes.
What are some of the ideas in the book that attracted you, and in particular, do you agree with the thesis that red tape is holding us back, particularly when it comes to housing and renewable energy and the transition to renewables?
CHALMERS: First of all ‑ we should be on a commission for this book, I think, from Andrew Leigh through a whole bunch of colleagues ‑ a lot of us have either read it or are in the process of reading it.
The reason that we are attracted to it is because it really is about working out as progressive people who care deeply about building more homes, rolling out more renewable energy, to make sure that the way we regulate that and approach that doesn’t get in our own way, that we don’t make it harder for us to achieve our big economic goals in the energy transformation; in housing and technology and all of these sorts of things.
What the Abundance book reminds us to do, and I think in a really timely and really punchy way, is it says, “As progressive people, let’s get out of our own way”. A lot of regulation is necessary, so we talk about better regulation, but where we can reduce compliance costs and where we can wind back some of this red tape in ways that doesn’t compromise standards, of course, we should seek to do that.
One of the things I’m really pleased I got the Cabinet to agree to earlier this week is we’re going to approach all of the regulators, and we’re going to say, “Please tell us where you think we can cut back on regulation and compliance costs in a way that doesn’t jeopardise your work”. I suspect from that, maybe not from every regulator, but from some of the regulators, I think if we are genuine about it, I think we can make some progress there to get compliance costs down, to speed up approvals so that we can deliver the things that we truly value as an economy but also as a society, and that’s what the Abundance book’s about.
GRATTAN: Of course, one of the problems is, while this sounds very good, a lot of stakeholders say we need more regulation of this or that, we need to protect flora, fauna, climate, whatever.
CHALMERS: Yeah, of course we do.
GRATTAN: And that all gets in the way of clearing away red tape, doesn’t it?
CHALMERS: We’re not talking about eliminating regulation, we are talking about making sure that it’s better, that we can use regulation in the service of our social and environmental and economic goals, but to make sure that we’re not overdoing it, that it’s not unnecessary, that it doesn’t prevent us achieving our aspirations and our objectives, including in the environment.
I think renewable energy projects are part of the story here, and I speak to a lot of international investors, there’s a big global contest and scramble for capital in the world. People are rethinking their investments, and there’s a lot of interest in Australia, and one of the things that international investors say to us about Australia is we don’t want to spend too long burning cash while we wait for approvals from multiple levels of government and other sorts of approvals.
If we can speed some of that up, if we can make sure it makes sense, if our regulation is better, then I think we give ourselves more of a chance of achieving our economic goals, but also our social and environmental goals as well.
GRATTAN: Another of your priorities is budget sustainability, and you say the Government’s made progress, but there’s a way to go. So, where are you going now? Do you need to make big savings in what areas, or are you really having to look at the revenue side more?
CHALMERS: I think there’s this kind of strange binary analysis of the budget situation. Some people say it doesn’t matter, some people say it’s beyond repair, and obviously, like a lot of things in politics and policy, the truth lies somewhere in between.
We’ve made a heap of progress on the budget; two surpluses, biggest ever nominal turnaround in the budget, we got the debt down, got the interest costs down. But what I acknowledge and what I will continue to acknowledge is there’s always more work to do to make it more sustainable.
For us, we made a heap of progress on aged care, the NDIS and interest costs, but we need to make sure that even when we think about the policy ideas that people bring to us at the roundtable, budget sustainability really matters. Where we do find something that we want to invest more in, we’ve got to consider the trade-offs, we’ve got to work out how to pay for things.
There’s probably not a day, certainly not a week that goes by where Katy Gallagher and I aren’t in one way or another engaging with colleagues on some of these structural pressures on the budget, because they do matter.
GRATTAN: Well, one, of course, is defence spending, and I was interested that you did in your remarks to the Press Club seem, while cautious, while saying, “We’re spending a lot on defence”, you seemed open to the idea that over the next decade governments will have to increase defence spending.
CHALMERS: I think the point I was trying to make there, Michelle, was it would be strange over a period of 10 years if there were no changes to any policy or levels of spending. But the thing that’s not, I think, sufficiently acknowledged is we’ve already quite dramatically increased defence spending, and you know, it’s not easy to find the extra $11 billion we found over the forward estimates, or the almost $58 billion I think we found over the decade.
We are dramatically increasing our defence spending. I acknowledge and accept and respect that some people, including some of our partners, want us to spend more on defence, but we are already spending a heap more on defence, and we’ve had to find room for that in the budget, and that’s what we’ve done.
GRATTAN: So we should be up for that conversation, as Richard Marles would say?
CHALMERS: I think what Richard’s saying, to be fair to him, is that we are more or less continuously engaging with our partners about things like defence spending, and when it comes to the Americans, they’ve made it clear around the world that they want people to spend more on defence. That’s not an unreasonable position for the Americans to put to us. We decide our level of defence spending, and we have decided collectively as a government to dramatically increase it.
GRATTAN: As Treasurer, you’re the gatekeeper for foreign investment decisions, big decisions, and there’s a takeover bid at the moment from Abu Dhabi’s national oil company for Santos. Can you give us some idea of the process, the timetable, when you would make a decision if the matter comes to you?
CHALMERS: This is a really big transaction potentially, and it raises – there are a lot of considerations around the national interest, it’s in a sensitive part of our economy for all of the obvious reasons.
What usually happens with a transaction of this magnitude, tens of billions of dollars, is it goes through a number of stages. One of those stages is a Foreign Investment Review Board process where I’ve got a heap of terrific colleagues in the Treasury who advise me on these things. What I try to do is to make sure that I refrain from commenting on these sorts of deals before I’ve got that Foreign Investment Review Board advice. I take that advice very seriously, and that means not pre‑empting it.
I know that there will be a heap of views, a heap of interest, I do acknowledge it’s a very big transaction which involves a really key sensitive part of our economy, and I’ll do what I always do with these big FIRB approval processes, which is to engage in it in a really methodical and considered way.
That will roll out over the course of the next few months. The last time I asked, which I think was yesterday, we hadn’t ‑ the FIRB hadn’t had a chance to go through or hadn’t received yet the Foreign Investment Review Board proposal. That may have changed since then, but regardless, these things take a little bit of time.
GRATTAN: Before we finish, let’s come back to productivity. You’ve said the work will take more than a term. So just give us a snapshot of where you would want to be at the end of say three years, six years.
CHALMERS: Yeah. The point I’m making there, when it comes to productivity is, unlike some of the other really important measures in our economy, there’s no instant gratification. It’s very hard to flick a switch and get an immediate, substantial, meaningful shift in the data.
The point that I’ve made is that we’re enthusiastic and very committed, very dedicated to doing meaningful things on productivity, but even those things can sometimes take a while to play out in the data, so I’m just really trying to say to people, this is important, it will pay off, some of it will pay off in the medium term and the longer term, but that shouldn’t deter us, the fact that some of these challenges take a little bit longer to fix.
Now, if there was a switch that you could flick to make our economy instantly more productive, somebody would have flicked it already. Unfortunately, there’s not, and so we’re left in a world where we have to do a lot of things at once, and some of those things will take a little while to pay off.
GRATTAN: Can you set any sort of target in terms of growth, annual growth? –
CHALMERS: I’m reluctant to do that.
GRATTAN: – productivity growth.
CHALMERS: I’m reluctant to do that. The budget assumes a level of productivity growth, which is higher than what we are currently seeing, so it wouldn’t be a bad start to try and get closer to the forecast. But I’m reluctant to put a target on it.
GRATTAN: And that forecast is?
CHALMERS: The Treasury changed it to 1.2 per cent, and we’re currently tracking a bit lower than that on the current 20-year average, and so we need to do better. I tried to be quite blunt about that at the Press Club. Our economy is growing, but it’s not productive enough, our budget is stronger, but it’s not sustainable enough, our economy is resilient, but not resilient enough. And this is my way of saying to people, we’ve made a lot of progress together, but we’ve got a further ‑ we’ve got more to do, and productivity is our primary focus in that regard, but not our only focus.
GRATTAN: For really big changes, say for tax changes, do you think you need another mandate or not?
CHALMERS: I think it depends on the nature of the change. I’m reluctant to think about sequencing and timing and mandates before we’ve got everybody’s ideas on the table and worked out where the consensus and common ground exists, and so I don’t like to be evasive with a good question like that, Michelle, but I think that remains to be seen. It will be to be determined once we get a firmer sense of the way forward.
GRATTAN: Just finally, you sounded in your speech rather like a man who’s been liberated since the election. Has your attitude changed? Do you think it’s just time to go for it?
CHALMERS: The way I see this, Michelle, is that I become very wary of people who say, because of the magnitude of our majority, that we will get another term. There are, as you know, few such assurances in politics, particularly in modern politics, and so I can kind of hear that clock ticking behind us, and I want to get on with it.
We’ve got a big job to do to deliver the big, substantial, ambitious agenda that we’ve already determined and taken to an election. But I am by nature impatient, I think the country has an opportunity to be ambitious here, and so if you’re detecting that in my language, that’s probably not accidental. I think we know what the challenges are, we know what people’s views are broadly, there’s no absence of courage, there is an absence of consensus, and it’s consensus that we need to move forward, and that’s what I’m seeking not just in the roundtable, but in this second term of our Government.
GRATTAN: Jim Chalmers, it’s going to be an interesting few months, and thank you for talking with us today. That’s all for today’s podcast. Thank you to my producer, Ben Roper. We’ll be back with another interview soon, but good‑bye for now.
Michelle Grattan 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.
Ever since the first fragments of pterosaur bone surfaced nearly 250 years ago, palaeontologists have puzzled over one question: how did these close cousins of land-bound dinosaurs take to the air and evolve powered flight? The first flying vertebrates seemed to appear on the geological stage fully formed, leaving almost no trace of their first tentative steps into the air.
Taken at face value, the fossil record implies that pterosaurs suddenly originated in the later part of the Triassic period (around 215 million years ago), close to the equator on the northern super-continent Pangaea. They then spread quickly between the Triassic and the Jurassic periods, about 10 million years later, in the wake of a mass extinction that was most likely caused by massive volcanic activity.
Most of the handful of Triassic specimens come from narrow seams of dark shale in Italy and Austria, with other fragments discovered in Greenland, Argentina and the southwestern US. These skeletons appear fully adapted for flight, with a hyper-elongated fourth finger supporting membrane-wings. Yet older rocks show no trace of intermediate gliders or other transitional forms that you might expect as evidence of pterosaurs’ evolution over time.
There are two classic competing explanations for this. The literal reading says pterosaurs evolved elsewhere and did not reach those regions where most have been discovered until very late in the Triassic period, by which time they were already adept flyers. The sceptical reading notes that pterosaurs’ wafer-thin, hollow bones could easily vanish from the fossil record, dissolve, get crushed or simply be overlooked, creating this false gap.
Eudimorphodon ranzii fossil from Bergamo in 1973 is one of many pterosaur discoveries from southern Europe. Wikimedia, CC BY-SA
For decades, the debate stalled as a result of too few fossils or too many missing rocks. This impasse began to change in 2020, when scientists identified the closest relatives of pterosaurs in a group of smallish upright reptiles called lagerpetids.
From comparing many anatomical traits across different species, the researchers established that pterosaurs and lagerpetids shared many similarities including their skulls, skeletons and inner ears. While this discovery did not bring any “missing link” to the table, it showed what the ancestor of pterosaurs would have looked like: a rat-to-dog-sized creature that lived on land and in trees.
This brought new evidence about when pterosaurs may have originated. Pterosaurs and lagerpetids like Scleromochlus, a small land-dwelling reptile, diverged at some point after the end-Permian mass extinction. It occurred some 250 million years ago, 35 million years before the first pterosaur appearance in the fossil record.
Scleromochlus is one of the lagerpetids, the closest known relatives to the pterosaurs. Gabriel Ugueto
Pterosaurs and their closest kin did not share the same habitats, however. Our new study, featuring new fossil maps, shows that soon after lagerpetids appeared (in southern Pangaea), they spread across wide areas, including harsh deserts, that many other groups were unable to get past. Lagerpetids lived both in these deserts and in humid floodplains.
They tolerated hotter, drier settings better than any early pterosaur, implying that they had evolved to cope with extreme temperatures. Pterosaurs, by contrast, were more restricted. Their earliest fossils cluster in the river and lake beds of the Chinle and Dockum basins (southwest US) and in moist coastal belts fringing the northern arm of the Tethys Sea, a huge area that occupied today’s Alps.
Scientists have inferred from analysing a combination of fossil distributions, rock features and climate simulations that pterosaurs lived in areas that were warm but not scorching. The rainfall would have been comparable to today’s tropical forests rather than inland deserts.
This suggests that the earliest flying dinosaurs may have lived in tree canopies, using foliage both for take-off and to protect themselves from predators and heat. As a result of this confined habitat, the distances that they flew may have been quite limited.
Changing climates
We were then able to add a fresh dimension to the story using a method called ecological niche modelling. This is routinely used in modern conservation to project where endangered animals and plants might live as the climate gets hotter. By applying this approach to later Triassic temperatures, rainfall and coastlines, we asked where early pterosaurs lived, regardless of whether they’ve shown up there in the fossil record.
Many celebrated fossil sites in Europe emerge as poor pterosaur habitat until very late in the Triassic period: they were simply too hot, too dry or otherwise inhospitable before the Carnian age, around 235 million years ago. The fact that no specimens have been discovered there that are more than about 215 million years old may be because the climate conditions were still unsuitable or simply because we don’t have the right type of rocks preserved of that age.
In contrast, parts of the south-western US, Morocco, India, Brazil, Tanzania and southern China seem to have offered welcoming environments several million years earlier than the age of our oldest discoveries. This rewrites the search map. If pterosaurs could have thrived in those regions much more than 215 million years ago, but we have not found them there, the problem may again lie not with biology but with geology: the right rocks have not been explored, or they preserve fragile fossils only under exceptional conditions.
Our study flags a dozen geological formations, from rivers with fine sediment deposits to lake beds, as potential prime targets for the next breakthrough discovery. They include the Timezgadiouine beds of Morocco, the Guanling Formation of south-west China and, in South America, several layers of rock from the Carnian age, such as the Santa Maria Formation, Chañares Formation and Ischigualasto Formation.
Pterosaurs were initially confined to tropical treetops near the equator. When global climates shifted and forested corridors opened, pterosaurs’ wings catapulted them into every corner of the planet and ultimately carried them through one of Earth’s greatest extinctions. What began as a tale of missing fossils has become a textbook example of how climate, ecology and evolutionary science have come together to illuminate a fragmentary history that has intrigued paleontologists for over two centuries.
Davide Foffa is funded by Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions: Individual (Global) Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2020; No.101022550), and by the Royal Commission for the Exhibition of 1851–Science Fellowship
Alfio Alessandro Chiarenza receives funding from The Royal Society (Newton International Fellowship NIFR1231802)
Emma Dunne 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.
Jim Chalmers speaking to the National Press Club June 18, 2025.Screenshot from the ABC Broadcast, CC BY-NC
Jim Chalmers cast his Wednesday National Press Club speech as a second instalment in a two-part presentation that was kicked off by the prime minister in an address there last week.
But it didn’t sound like that at all. In fact, the two performances were chalk and cheese. Albanese’s contribution was cautious, showing no inclination to splash too much of the political capital amassed from a huge election win. The prime minister looks to a legacy of Labor’s longevity in government, and extols a measured and steady style.
In contrast, Chalmers on Wednesday came across as a man on a mission, anxious to seize this term to do bigger things, because no matter how large the majority, you never know what the future holds. And that’s apart from his ambition to ascend to the top rung of the political ladder.
Albanese announced a roundtable in August to discuss productivity; in elaborating on it, Chalmers put the hot button issue of tax reform prominently on the table.
The treasurer believes the community is up for significant economic reforms, if the changes are crafted and sold the right way and if sufficient of that elusive political grape, “consensus”, can be harvested and bottled. He’s also willing to stretch or exceed the electoral mandate Labor won on May 3. Remember, it was Chalmers who wanted to break the Stage 3 tax cut promise long before Albanese did so.
He said on Wednesday: “This is all about testing the country’s reform appetite. […] I am personally willing to grasp the nettle, to use an old saying. I am prepared to do my bit. The government is prepared to do its bit. And what we’ll find out in the course of the next few months is whether everyone is prepared to do their bit as well.” He was heartened, post election, by a “welcome and encouraging discussion about the level of ambition that Australia has”.
Albanese was involved in Chalmers’ Press Club speech, even interacting on its points from Canada, where he was attending the G7. Either the prime minister is deliberately letting his treasurer “front run” a more ambitious agenda for the government, or he doesn’t choose to get in his way.
Albanese announced the roundtable, but Chalmers is in charge of it. Held in the cabinet room on August 19-21, it will be small and, Chalmers hopes, non-performative. Details are still being finalised, but Chalmers doesn’t anticipate “permanent cameras” in the cabinet room, which has just 25 seats around the table.
“We want participants to make contributions that meet three important preconditions,” he said.
“First, ideas should be put forward in the national interest, not through the prism of sectoral, state or vested interests.
“Second, ideas or packages of ideas should be budget neutral at a minimum but preferably budget positive overall, taking into account the necessary trade-offs.
“And third, ideas should be specific and practical not abstract or unrealistic.
“In return I give everyone this commitment: we won’t come at this from an ideological point of view but from the practical, pragmatic and problem-solving middle ground we’re most comfortable on.”
Chalmers argues that last term, the government did a range of things on tax. But most would describe them as modest, and he would not then contemplate a major overhaul, such as a shift from direct to indirect tax.
He was seared, on his own admission, from his days as then treasurer Wayne Swan’s staffer, by the memory of the Henry tax review, the last major look at Australia’s tax system. That triggered Labor’s mining tax debacle which helped end the prime ministership of Kevin Rudd. Most of that valuable review was totally wasted.
Now Ken Henry, former head of treasury, has had input into Chalmers’ Press Club speech; he was in the audience to hear it.
“Australia has to recognise that this is genuinely a defining decade. The decisions we make in the 2020s will determine the sort of living standards and intergenerational justice that will have in the decades to come,” Chalmers said. Intergenerational justice is a major preoccupation of Henry’s.
If Henry is in Chalmers’ ear, another proponent of tax reform, Steven Kennedy, who has just left the post of secretary of the treasury, is well-placed to be in the prime minister’s ear. Kennedy has just become head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
While the roundtable is focused on “productivity” Chalmers emphasised he is also focused on budget sustainability.
“Tax reform is important to budget sustainability , but also to productivity.
“I think it would be unusual if I said to the country, we’re going to have this big national reform conversation about productivity, sustainability and resilience, but nobody’s allowed to talk about tax
“And so I anticipate, I welcome the fact that people will come to the roundtable, outside the roundtable, people will pitch up ideas about tax.
“We don’t see that as an opportunity to walk back on some of the things that we’re already committed to, in this case, some years ago. We see it as an opportunity to work out what the next steps might be.”
Chalmers is the latest treasurer to walk down the tax reform road. The stakes are high. It will be easy to slip, or be forced to lose ambition. On the other hand, if he can navigate the rocks it will make his reputation.
Michelle Grattan 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 Amin Saikal, Emeritus Professor of Middle Eastern and Central Asian Studies, Australian National University; and Vice Chancellor’s Strategic Fellow, Victoria University
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has gone beyond his initial aim of destroying Iran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons. He has called on the Iranian people to rise up against their dictatorial Islamic regime and ostensibly transform Iran along the lines of Israeli interests.
United States President Donald Trump is now weighing possible military action in support of Netanyahu’s goal and asked for Iran’s total surrender.
If the US does get involved, it wouldn’t be the first time it’s tried to instigate regime change by military means in the Middle East. The US invaded Iraq in 2003 and backed a NATO operation in Libya in 2011, toppling the regimes of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, respectively.
In both cases, the interventions backfired, causing long-term instability in both countries and in the broader region.
Could the same thing happen in Iran if the regime is overthrown?
As I describe in my book, Iran Rising: The Survival and Future of the Islamic Republic, Iran is a pluralist society with a complex history of rival groups trying to assert their authority. A democratic transition would be difficult to achieve.
Until this moment, Iran had a long history of monarchical rule dating back 2,500 years. Mohammad Reza, the last shah, was the head of the Pahlavi dynasty, which came to power in 1925.
In 1953, the shah was forced into exile under the radical nationalist and reformist impulse of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. He was shortly returned to his throne through a CIA-orchestrated coup.
Despite all his nationalist, pro-Western, modernising efforts, the shah could not shake off the indignity of having been re-throned with the help of a foreign power.
The revolution against him 25 years later was spearheaded by pro-democracy elements. But it was made up of many groups, including liberalists, communists and Islamists, with no uniting leader.
The Shia clerical group (ruhaniyat), led by the Shah’s religious and political opponent, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, proved to be best organised and capable of providing leadership to the revolution. Khomeini had been in exile from the early 1960s (at first in Iraq and later in France), yet he and his followers held considerable sway over the population, especially in traditional rural areas.
When US President Jimmy Carter’s administration found it could no longer support the shah, he left the country and went into exile in January 1979. This enabled Khomeini to return to Iran to a tumultuous welcome.
Birth of the Islamic Republic
In the wake of the uprising, Khomeini and his supporters, including the current supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, abolished the monarchy and transformed Iran to a cleric-dominated Islamic Republic, with anti-US and anti-Israel postures. He ruled the country according to his unique vision of Islam.
Khomeini denounced the US as a “Great Satan” and Israel as an illegal usurper of the Palestinian lands – Jerusalem, in particular. He also declared a foreign policy of “neither east, nor west” but pro-Islamic, and called for the spread of the Iranian revolution in the region.
Khomeini not only changed Iran, but also challenged the US as the dominant force in shaping the regional order. And the US lost one of the most important pillars of its influence in the oil-rich and strategically important Persian Gulf region.
Fear of hostile American or Israeli (or combined) actions against the Islamic Republic became the focus of Iran’s domestic and foreign policy behaviour.
A new supreme leader takes power
Khomeini died in 1989. His successor, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has ruled Iran largely in the same jihadi (combative) and ijtihadi (pragmatic) ways, steering the country through many domestic and foreign policy challenges.
Khamenei fortified the regime with an emphasis on self-sufficiency, a stronger defence capability and a tilt towards the east – Russia and China – to counter the US and its allies. He has stood firm in opposition to the US and its allies – Israel, in particular. And he has shown flexibility when necessary to ensure the survival and continuity of the regime.
Khamenei wields enormous constitutional power and spiritual authority.
He has presided over the building of many rule-enforcing instruments of state power, including the expansion of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its paramilitary wing, the Basij, revolutionary committees, and Shia religious networks.
The Shia concept of martyrdom and loyalty to Iran as a continuous sovereign country for centuries goes to the heart of his actions, as well as his followers.
Khamenei and his rule enforcers, along with an elected president and National Assembly, are fully cognisant that if the regime goes down, they will face the same fate. As such, they cannot be expected to hoist the white flag and surrender to Israel and the US easily.
However, in the event of the regime falling under the weight of a combined internal uprising and external pressure, it raises the question: what is the alternative?
The return of the shah?
Many Iranians are discontented with the regime, but there is no organised opposition under a nationally unifying leader.
The son of the former shah, the crown prince Reza Pahlavi, has been gaining some popularity. He has been speaking out on X in the last few days, telling his fellow Iranians:
The end of the Islamic Republic is the end of its 46-year war against the Iranian nation. The regime’s apparatus of repression is falling apart. All it takes now is a nationwide uprising to put an end to this nightmare once and for all.
Since the deposition of his father, he has lived in exile in the US. As such, he has been tainted by his close association with Washington and Jerusalem, especially Netanyahu.
If he were to return to power – likely through the assistance of the US – he would face the same problem of political legitimacy as his father did.
What does the future hold?
Iran has never had a long tradition of democracy. It experienced brief instances of liberalism in the first half of the 20th century, but every attempt at making it durable resulted in disarray and a return to authoritarian rule.
Also, the country has rarely been free of outside interventionism, given its vast hydrocarbon riches and strategic location. It’s also been prone to internal fragmentation, given its ethnic and religious mix.
The Shia Persians make up more than half of the population, but the country has a number of Sunni ethnic minorities, such as Kurds, Azaris, Balochis and Arabs. They have all had separatist tendencies.
Iran has historically been held together by centralisation rather than diffusion of power.
Should the Islamic regime disintegrate in one form or another, it would be an mistake to expect a smooth transfer of power or transition to democratisation within a unified national framework.
At the same time, the Iranian people are highly cultured and creative, with a very rich and proud history of achievements and civilisation.
They are perfectly capable of charting their own destiny as long as there aren’t self-seeking foreign hands in the process – something they have rarely experienced.
Amin Saikal does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Many gay and bisexual men have been excluded from donating blood and plasma (the liquid portion of blood) for decades because of rules developed during the HIV crisis in the 1980s.
The Australian Red Cross’ blood donation arm, Lifeblood, has announced these restrictions will be lifted. This opens donation pathways for many gay and bisexual men, and other men who have sex with men.
What’s changing for plasma donation?
From July 14, Lifeblood will remove sexual activity-based restrictions for plasma donation for medicines made with plasma, except for those who’ve recently had sex with a partner known to have HIV or another blood-borne virus.
This world-first “plasma pathway” policy will allow most people, including gay and bisexual men, to donate plasma immediately regardless of sexual activity, provided they meet other criteria.
What’s changing for other blood donation?
The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has approved a gender-neutral risk assessment for blood and platelet donations.
Under this system, all donors, regardless of gender, will be asked if, in the past six months, they have had sex (excluding oral sex) with a new partner or more than one partner.
If they answer “yes” to either question, they will be asked if they’ve had anal sex in the past three months. Those who say “yes” will be deferred from donating whole blood for six months, due to the higher risk of HIV transmission during anal sex and the time it takes for HIV to be detected in a test. But they will still be eligible to donate plasma.
So gay and bisexual men in long-term, monogamous relationships will no longer need to abstain from sex for three months to donate whole blood.
Why were past restrictions in place?
In the 1980s, HIV transmission through blood transfusions prompted urgent public health responses. Australia, like many countries, introduced an indefinite deferral for men who have sex with men, the population most affected by HIV.
This policy significantly reduced transmission of HIV via blood transfusions before HIV testing became available.
Routine blood donation testing for HIV began in 1985, but initial tests could not detect HIV for up to three months after infection.
As testing improved, the deferral was reduced – first to 12 months in 2000, then to three months since last sexual activity in 2021.
Why the changes?
Rates of new HIV infection have fallen substantially since the 1980s. In 2023, 722 new HIV cases were reported nationwide (2.7 per 100,000 population).
Modern tests can now detect HIV within one week of exposure, dramatically reducing the risk of transfusion transmission.
However, the blanket deferral still applied regardless of individual risk – such as if the men had only one partner. As a result, many low-risk men remained excluded.
Why the different rules for blood and plasma?
Whole blood is separated into red cells, plasma and platelets. This is the regular process of giving blood, where blood is drawn, then it goes through the testing process to check it’s safe.
These components are mainly used for transfusion directly to patients without further processing.
Plasma, the yellow liquid part, contains proteins used in treatments for immune disorders, severe burns and other conditions.
During plasma donation, a machine separates the plasma (the yellow liquid part) from the red blood cells and other parts of blood. The machine keeps the plasma, and returns the red blood cells to the donor through the same needle.
Plasma for plasma medicines, the blood product in most demand in Australia, is processed using extra techniques that kill viruses and bacteria, allowing for less-strict donation rules compared to whole blood.
How many more people will become eligible under the new rules?
A national survey we jointly conducted with Lifeblood found an estimated 57% of Australians, and 63% of Australian men, were eligible to donate blood. Among men who reported sex with men, eligibility was only 40%.
Under the new plasma pathway, overall eligibility is projected to rise to 61%, and to 74% for gay and bisexual men – an increase of around 626,500 newly eligible plasma donors. This will include people taking HIV-PrEP (HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis), which protects against HIV infection.
The impact of gender-neutral risk assessments on blood donation eligibility is less certain.
How will people feel being asked about their sexual history?
The same survey found most Australians supported being asked how many partners they have had and whether they’d had anal sex to see if they were eligible to donate. However, support varied across age, religion and country of birth.
Understanding and responding to these differences will be important for community engagement and maintaining trust in the blood supply.
Will this affect the safety of the blood supply?
The gender-neutral questions aim to identify high-risk sexual activity, regardless of someone’s gender or sexual orientation. The questions still restrict anyone from donating who has recently had anal sex with multiple or new sexual partners.
From July 14, the rules for plasma donation will change, allowing plasma donation regardless of sexual activity.
The TGA’s approval of gender-neutral blood assessments has only just been granted. Lifeblood will now need to update systems, seek government approvals, train staff and inform the public before this change can be rolled out.
Ongoing evaluation will be essential to monitor the impact on donor numbers, safety and public perception, and to ensure blood donation policies are evidence-based and equitable.
Yasmin Mowat recieves funding from a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Partnership Grant, implemented with Lifeblood.
Bridget Haire has received funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC).
Skye McGregor receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC).
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amin Saikal, Emeritus Professor of Middle Eastern and Central Asian Studies, Australian National University; and Vice Chancellor’s Strategic Fellow, Victoria University
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has gone beyond his initial aim of destroying Iran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons. He has called on the Iranian people to rise up against their dictatorial Islamic regime and ostensibly transform Iran along the lines of Israeli interests.
United States President Donald Trump is now weighing possible military action in support of Netanyahu’s goal and asked for Iran’s total surrender.
If the US does get involved, it wouldn’t be the first time it’s tried to instigate regime change by military means in the Middle East. The US invaded Iraq in 2003 and backed a NATO operation in Libya in 2011, toppling the regimes of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, respectively.
In both cases, the interventions backfired, causing long-term instability in both countries and in the broader region.
Could the same thing happen in Iran if the regime is overthrown?
As I describe in my book, Iran Rising: The Survival and Future of the Islamic Republic, Iran is a pluralist society with a complex history of rival groups trying to assert their authority. A democratic transition would be difficult to achieve.
Until this moment, Iran had a long history of monarchical rule dating back 2,500 years. Mohammad Reza, the last shah, was the head of the Pahlavi dynasty, which came to power in 1925.
In 1953, the shah was forced into exile under the radical nationalist and reformist impulse of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. He was shortly returned to his throne through a CIA-orchestrated coup.
Despite all his nationalist, pro-Western, modernising efforts, the shah could not shake off the indignity of having been re-throned with the help of a foreign power.
The revolution against him 25 years later was spearheaded by pro-democracy elements. But it was made up of many groups, including liberalists, communists and Islamists, with no uniting leader.
The Shia clerical group (ruhaniyat), led by the Shah’s religious and political opponent, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, proved to be best organised and capable of providing leadership to the revolution. Khomeini had been in exile from the early 1960s (at first in Iraq and later in France), yet he and his followers held considerable sway over the population, especially in traditional rural areas.
When US President Jimmy Carter’s administration found it could no longer support the shah, he left the country and went into exile in January 1979. This enabled Khomeini to return to Iran to a tumultuous welcome.
Birth of the Islamic Republic
In the wake of the uprising, Khomeini and his supporters, including the current supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, abolished the monarchy and transformed Iran to a cleric-dominated Islamic Republic, with anti-US and anti-Israel postures. He ruled the country according to his unique vision of Islam.
Khomeini denounced the US as a “Great Satan” and Israel as an illegal usurper of the Palestinian lands – Jerusalem, in particular. He also declared a foreign policy of “neither east, nor west” but pro-Islamic, and called for the spread of the Iranian revolution in the region.
Khomeini not only changed Iran, but also challenged the US as the dominant force in shaping the regional order. And the US lost one of the most important pillars of its influence in the oil-rich and strategically important Persian Gulf region.
Fear of hostile American or Israeli (or combined) actions against the Islamic Republic became the focus of Iran’s domestic and foreign policy behaviour.
A new supreme leader takes power
Khomeini died in 1989. His successor, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has ruled Iran largely in the same jihadi (combative) and ijtihadi (pragmatic) ways, steering the country through many domestic and foreign policy challenges.
Khamenei fortified the regime with an emphasis on self-sufficiency, a stronger defence capability and a tilt towards the east – Russia and China – to counter the US and its allies. He has stood firm in opposition to the US and its allies – Israel, in particular. And he has shown flexibility when necessary to ensure the survival and continuity of the regime.
Khamenei wields enormous constitutional power and spiritual authority.
He has presided over the building of many rule-enforcing instruments of state power, including the expansion of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its paramilitary wing, the Basij, revolutionary committees, and Shia religious networks.
The Shia concept of martyrdom and loyalty to Iran as a continuous sovereign country for centuries goes to the heart of his actions, as well as his followers.
Khamenei and his rule enforcers, along with an elected president and National Assembly, are fully cognisant that if the regime goes down, they will face the same fate. As such, they cannot be expected to hoist the white flag and surrender to Israel and the US easily.
However, in the event of the regime falling under the weight of a combined internal uprising and external pressure, it raises the question: what is the alternative?
The return of the shah?
Many Iranians are discontented with the regime, but there is no organised opposition under a nationally unifying leader.
The son of the former shah, the crown prince Reza Pahlavi, has been gaining some popularity. He has been speaking out on X in the last few days, telling his fellow Iranians:
The end of the Islamic Republic is the end of its 46-year war against the Iranian nation. The regime’s apparatus of repression is falling apart. All it takes now is a nationwide uprising to put an end to this nightmare once and for all.
Since the deposition of his father, he has lived in exile in the US. As such, he has been tainted by his close association with Washington and Jerusalem, especially Netanyahu.
If he were to return to power – likely through the assistance of the US – he would face the same problem of political legitimacy as his father did.
What does the future hold?
Iran has never had a long tradition of democracy. It experienced brief instances of liberalism in the first half of the 20th century, but every attempt at making it durable resulted in disarray and a return to authoritarian rule.
Also, the country has rarely been free of outside interventionism, given its vast hydrocarbon riches and strategic location. It’s also been prone to internal fragmentation, given its ethnic and religious mix.
The Shia Persians make up more than half of the population, but the country has a number of Sunni ethnic minorities, such as Kurds, Azaris, Balochis and Arabs. They have all had separatist tendencies.
Iran has historically been held together by centralisation rather than diffusion of power.
Should the Islamic regime disintegrate in one form or another, it would be an mistake to expect a smooth transfer of power or transition to democratisation within a unified national framework.
At the same time, the Iranian people are highly cultured and creative, with a very rich and proud history of achievements and civilisation.
They are perfectly capable of charting their own destiny as long as there aren’t self-seeking foreign hands in the process – something they have rarely experienced.
Amin Saikal does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The Victorian parliament has launched a long-overdue inquiry into abuse and coercive control within cults and religious fringe groups.
It is a welcome acknowledgement of the damage that can flourish under the guise of faith, and the unquestioning obedience to authoritarian leaders in religious groups.
The inquiry will hear victim-survivors can suffer a diverse range of harms, including sexual, financial and labour exploitation, spiritual manipulation, and institutional betrayal.
Abusive practices
Geelong state MP Christine Couzens says the Geelong Revival Centre has caused a great deal of hurt. Parliament of Victoria, CC BY
The inquiry is the first of its kind in Australia.
Prompted by recent events, including reports of coercive behaviour at the Geelong Revival Centre, the inquiry will examine “the methods used to recruit and control their members, and the impacts of coercive control”.
According to the committee’s guidance note, the focus will be on techniques that can damage individuals emotionally, psychologically, financially and even physically.
Importantly, the inquiry will interrogate “abusive practices”, not the beliefs behind them:
There is a distinction between genuine religious practice and harmful behaviour. “Freedom of religion” is not freedom, for example, to defraud, nor is it freedom to cause significant psychological harm to any person.
Consideration will be given to whether the law adequately protects people when cults and fringe groups cause the types of harm that should be criminalised.
Sexual control
My research examined the sexual exploitation of congregation members perpetrated by pastors within evangelical, Pentecostal faith communities in Australia.
Respondents described feeling broken, shattered, and spiritually battered. The harms were similar to those experienced by survivors of incest, child sexual abuse and domestic violence.
For example:
72% of respondents were diagnosed with an anxiety disorder
52% suffered Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
48% were diagnosed with depression
48% experienced suicidal ideation.
As American sociologist and cult expert Janja Lalich explains:
Sexual control is seen as the final step in the objectification of the cult member by the authoritarian leader, who is able to satisfy his needs through psychological manipulation leading to sexual exploitation.
Power imbalance
My research uncovered instances of sexual exploitation by pastors that constitutes a form of sexual violence and coercive control. The absence of a centralised reporting body means there is no accessible data on the extent of clergy sexual exploitation of adults in Australian faith communities.
However, international research found around 3% of churchgoing women had been subjected to sexual advances from a married religious leader.
Too often, institutions downplay the abuse as a “moral failing” or a mutual lapse into sin, ignoring the profound power imbalance that makes meaningful consent impossible.
Pastor-congregant relationships are not consensual; they are violations of trust and authority. Survivors are often left with no pathways to justice or support because coercive control is not recognised in non-intimate settings.
Search for belonging
Victim-survivors would benefit from legal reform that formally recognises and criminalises this form of abuse.
Coercive control legislation covering institutional and spiritual settings, would help protect congregation members targeted by predator pastors.
I was recruited into a Pentecostal church as a teenager through a Bible college that was allowed into my public high school to “preach the gospel”. I know firsthand how easily these environments can entrap teenagers at an age when many are seeking identity outside of family.
The parliamentary inquiry is not designed to question people’s religion, but to protect them from harmful behaviour. SibRapid/Shutterstock
What began as a search for belonging led to years of grooming and coercion, and it took over two decades to name and report the abuse. The response from the church was just as harmful as the abuse itself.
Fear and shame
The harms often extend beyond sexual exploitation in many of these groups. Marginalised individuals are particularly vulnerable in these environments.
LGBTQIA+ people in some evangelical churches have historically been subjected to conversion practices masquerading as prayer, counselling, or pastoral care. In one recent example, an evangelical church in New South Wales preached from the pulpit:
A gay person is at least three times more likely to kill themselves. A transsexual is 15 times more likely to kill themselves. So if you are a parent and you love your kids make sure they are not gay or trans.
This kind of messaging doesn’t protect children – it instils fear, shame, and self-hatred. It reflects a deeper pattern of spiritual abuse that pathologises identity and uses fear to exert control. The consequences are devastating, especially for young people already struggling to reconcile faith, identity, and belonging.
Template for reform
Many people fail to grasp how intelligent adults can become trapped in such environments.
But coercive control is not about intelligence – it’s about power, dependency, and the slow erosion of critical thinking by spiritual authority.
While coercive control in family violence is finally being addressed, spiritual and sexual coercive control within faith communities, cults, and fringe groups remains in a legal blind spot.
This is exactly why the Victorian probe and follow-up law reform are both necessary.
The inquiry should provide a framework for other states and territories to follow suit and scrutinise cults and organised fringe groups in their own jurisdictions.
Lead author Jaime Simpson is a survivor of sexual exploitation in an evangelical community. The research mentioned is this article was conducted by her.
Jaime Simpson received a Higher Degree Research tuition off-set to complete her Master in Philosophy
Kathleen McPhillips receives funding from the Australian Research Theology Foundation ARTFinc), the Ian and Shirley Norman Foundation (ISNF) and the Australia-Germany Joint Research Cooperation Scheme.
The Victorian parliament has launched a long-overdue inquiry into abuse and coercive control within cults and religious fringe groups.
It is a welcome acknowledgement of the damage that can flourish under the guise of faith, and the unquestioning obedience to authoritarian leaders in religious groups.
The inquiry will hear victim-survivors can suffer a diverse range of harms, including sexual, financial and labour exploitation, spiritual manipulation, and institutional betrayal.
Abusive practices
Geelong state MP Christine Couzens says the Geelong Revival Centre has caused a great deal of hurt. Parliament of Victoria, CC BY
The inquiry is the first of its kind in Australia.
Prompted by recent events, including reports of coercive behaviour at the Geelong Revival Centre, the inquiry will examine “the methods used to recruit and control their members, and the impacts of coercive control”.
According to the committee’s guidance note, the focus will be on techniques that can damage individuals emotionally, psychologically, financially and even physically.
Importantly, the inquiry will interrogate “abusive practices”, not the beliefs behind them:
There is a distinction between genuine religious practice and harmful behaviour. “Freedom of religion” is not freedom, for example, to defraud, nor is it freedom to cause significant psychological harm to any person.
Consideration will be given to whether the law adequately protects people when cults and fringe groups cause the types of harm that should be criminalised.
Sexual control
My research examined the sexual exploitation of congregation members perpetrated by pastors within evangelical, Pentecostal faith communities in Australia.
Respondents described feeling broken, shattered, and spiritually battered. The harms were similar to those experienced by survivors of incest, child sexual abuse and domestic violence.
For example:
72% of respondents were diagnosed with an anxiety disorder
52% suffered Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
48% were diagnosed with depression
48% experienced suicidal ideation.
As American sociologist and cult expert Janja Lalich explains:
Sexual control is seen as the final step in the objectification of the cult member by the authoritarian leader, who is able to satisfy his needs through psychological manipulation leading to sexual exploitation.
Power imbalance
My research uncovered instances of sexual exploitation by pastors that constitutes a form of sexual violence and coercive control. The absence of a centralised reporting body means there is no accessible data on the extent of clergy sexual exploitation of adults in Australian faith communities.
However, international research found around 3% of churchgoing women had been subjected to sexual advances from a married religious leader.
Too often, institutions downplay the abuse as a “moral failing” or a mutual lapse into sin, ignoring the profound power imbalance that makes meaningful consent impossible.
Pastor-congregant relationships are not consensual; they are violations of trust and authority. Survivors are often left with no pathways to justice or support because coercive control is not recognised in non-intimate settings.
Search for belonging
Victim-survivors would benefit from legal reform that formally recognises and criminalises this form of abuse.
Coercive control legislation covering institutional and spiritual settings, would help protect congregation members targeted by predator pastors.
I was recruited into a Pentecostal church as a teenager through a Bible college that was allowed into my public high school to “preach the gospel”. I know firsthand how easily these environments can entrap teenagers at an age when many are seeking identity outside of family.
The parliamentary inquiry is not designed to question people’s religion, but to protect them from harmful behaviour. SibRapid/Shutterstock
What began as a search for belonging led to years of grooming and coercion, and it took over two decades to name and report the abuse. The response from the church was just as harmful as the abuse itself.
Fear and shame
The harms often extend beyond sexual exploitation in many of these groups. Marginalised individuals are particularly vulnerable in these environments.
LGBTQIA+ people in some evangelical churches have historically been subjected to conversion practices masquerading as prayer, counselling, or pastoral care. In one recent example, an evangelical church in New South Wales preached from the pulpit:
A gay person is at least three times more likely to kill themselves. A transsexual is 15 times more likely to kill themselves. So if you are a parent and you love your kids make sure they are not gay or trans.
This kind of messaging doesn’t protect children – it instils fear, shame, and self-hatred. It reflects a deeper pattern of spiritual abuse that pathologises identity and uses fear to exert control. The consequences are devastating, especially for young people already struggling to reconcile faith, identity, and belonging.
Template for reform
Many people fail to grasp how intelligent adults can become trapped in such environments.
But coercive control is not about intelligence – it’s about power, dependency, and the slow erosion of critical thinking by spiritual authority.
While coercive control in family violence is finally being addressed, spiritual and sexual coercive control within faith communities, cults, and fringe groups remains in a legal blind spot.
This is exactly why the Victorian probe and follow-up law reform are both necessary.
The inquiry should provide a framework for other states and territories to follow suit and scrutinise cults and organised fringe groups in their own jurisdictions.
Lead author Jaime Simpson is a survivor of sexual exploitation in an evangelical community. The research mentioned is this article was conducted by her.
Jaime Simpson received a Higher Degree Research tuition off-set to complete her Master in Philosophy
Kathleen McPhillips receives funding from the Australian Research Theology Foundation ARTFinc), the Ian and Shirley Norman Foundation (ISNF) and the Australia-Germany Joint Research Cooperation Scheme.
Israel’s major military operation against Iran has targeted its nuclear program, including its facilities and scientists, as well as its military leadership.
In response, the United Nations Security Council has quickly convened an emergency sitting. There, the Israeli ambassador to the UN Danny Danon defended Israel’s actions as a “preventative strike” carried out with “precision, purpose, and the most advanced intelligence”. It aimed, he said, to:
dismantle Iran’s nuclear programme, eliminate the architects of its terror and aggression and neutralise the regime’s ability to follow through on its repeated public promise to destroy the state of Israel.
So, what does international law say about self-defence? And were Israel’s actions illegal under international law?
All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
There are only two exceptions:
when the UN Security Council authorises force, and
when a state acts in self-defence.
This “inherent right of individual or collective self-defence”, as article 51 of the UN charter puts it, persists until the Security Council acts to restore international peace and security.
So what’s ‘self-defence’ actually mean?
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has consistently interpreted self-defence narrowly.
In manycases, it has rejected arguments from states such as the United States, Uganda and Israel that have sought to promote a more expansive interpretation of self-defence.
The 9/11 attacks marked a turning point. The UN Security Council affirmed in resolutions 1368 and 1373 that the right to self-defence extends to defending against attacks by non-state actors, such as terrorist groups. The US, invoking this right, launched its military action in Afghanistan.
The classic understanding of self-defence – that it’s justified when a state responds reactively to an actual, armed attack – was regarded as being too restrictive in the age of missiles, cyberattacks and terrorism.
This helped give rise to the idea of using force before an imminent attack, in anticipatory self-defence.
The threshold for anticipatory self-defence is widely seen by scholars as high. It requires what’s known as “imminence”. In other words, this is the “last possible window of opportunity” to act to stop an unavoidable attack.
As set out by then-UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan in 2005:
as long as the threatened attack is imminent, no other means would deflect it and the action is proportionate, this would meet the accepted interpretation of self defence under article 51.
As international law expert Donald Rothwell points out, the legitimacy of anticipatory self-defence hinges on factual scrutiny and strict criteria, balancing urgency, legality and accountability.
This argued new threats – such as terrorism and weapons of mass destruction – justified using force to forestall attacks before they occurred.
Critics, including Annan, warned that if the notion of preventive self-defence was widely accepted, it would undermine the prohibition on the use of force. It would basically allow states to act unilaterally on speculative intelligence.
if there are good arguments for preventive military action, with good evidence to support them, they should be put to the Security Council, which can authorise such action if it chooses to.
If it does not so choose, there will be, by definition, time to pursue other strategies, including persuasion, negotiation, deterrence and containment – and to visit again the military option.
This is exactly what Israel has failed to do before attacking Iran.
Lessons from history
Israel’s stated goal was to damage Iran’s nuclear program and prevent it from developing a nuclear weapon that could be used against it.
This is explicitly about preventing an alleged, threatened, future attack by Iran with a nuclear weapon that, according to all publicly available information, Iran does not currently possess.
This is not the first time Israel has advanced a broad interpretation of self-defence.
As international law stands, unless an armed attack is imminent and unavoidable, such strikes are likely to be considered unlawful uses of force.
While there is still time and opportunity to use non-forcible means to prevent the threatened attack, there’s no necessity to act now in self defence.
Diplomatic engagement, sanction, and international monitoring of Iran’s nuclear program — such as through the International Atomic Energy Agency — remain the lawful means of addressing the emerging threat posed by Tehran.
Preserving the rule of law
The right to self-defence is not a blank cheque.
Anticipatory self-defence remains legally unsettled and highly contested.
So were Israel’s attacks on Iran a legitimate use of “self-defence”? I would argue no.
I concur with international law expert Marko Milanovic that Israel’s claim to be acting in preventive self-defence must be rejected on the facts available to us.
In a volatile world, preserving these legal limits is essential to avoiding unchecked aggression and preserving the rule of law.
Shannon Bosch does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Earlier today, Iranian officials urged the country’s citizens to remove the messaging platform WhatsApp from their smartphones. Without providing any supporting evidence, they alleged the app gathers user information to send to Israel.
WhatsApp has rejected the allegations. In a statement to Associated Press, the Meta-owned messaging platform said it was concerned “these false reports will be an excuse for our services to be blocked at a time when people need them most”. It added that it does not track users’ location nor the personal messages people are sending one another.
It is impossible to independently assess the allegations, given Iran provided no publicly accessible supporting evidence.
But we do know that even though WhatsApp has strong privacy and security features, it isn’t impenetrable. And there is at least one country that has previously been able to penetrate it: Israel.
3 billion users
WhatsApp is a free messaging app owned by Meta. With around 3 billion users worldwide and growing fast, it can send text messages, calls and media over the internet.
It uses strong end-to-end encryption meaning only the sender and recipient can read messages; not even WhatsApp can access their content. This ensures strong privacy and security.
Advanced cyber capability
The United States is the world leader in cyber capability. This term describes the skills, technologies and resources that enable nations to defend, attack, or exploit digital systems and networks as a powerful instrument of national power.
But Israel also has advanced cyber capability, ranking alongside the United Kingdom, China, Russia, France and Canada.
Israel has a documented history of conducting sophisticated cyber operations. This includes the widely cited Stuxnet attack that targeted Iran’s nuclear program more than 15 years ago. Israeli cyber units, such as Unit 8200, are renowned for their technical expertise and innovation in both offensive and defensive operations.
Seven of the top 10 global cybersecurity firms maintain R&D centers in Israel, and Israeli startups frequently lead in developing novel offensive and defensive cyber tools.
A historical precedent
Israeli firms have repeatedly been linked to hacking WhatsApp accounts, most notably through the Pegasus spyware developed by Israeli-based cyber intelligence company NSO Group. In 2019, it exploited WhatsApp vulnerabilities to compromise 1,400 users, including journalists, activists and politicians.
Another Israeli company, Paragon Solutions, also recently targeted nearly 100 WhatsApp accounts. The company used advanced spyware to access private communications after they had been de-encrypted.
These kinds of attacks often use “spearphishing”. This is distinct from regular phishing attacks, which generally involve an attacker sending malicious links to thousands of people.
Instead, spearphishing involves sending targeted, deceptive messages or files to trick specific individuals into installing spyware. This grants attackers full access to their devices – including de-encrypted WhatsApp messages.
A spearphishing email might appear to come from a trusted colleague or organisation. It might ask the recipient to urgently review a document or reset a password, leading them to a fake login page or triggering a malware download.
Protecting yourself from ‘spearphishing’
To avoid spearphishing, people should scrutinise unexpected emails or messages, especially those conveying a sense of urgency, and never click suspicious links or download unknown attachments.
Hovering the mouse cursor over a link will reveal the name of the destination. Suspicious links are those with strange domain names and garbled text that has nothing to do with the purported sender. Simply hovering without clicking is not dangerous.
Enable two-factor authentication, keep your software updated, and verify requests coming through trusted channels. Regular cybersecurity training also helps users spot and resist these targeted attacks.
David Tuffley 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.
Ever since modern environmentalism took off in the 1960s, people have tried to undo the damage humans have caused to nature. Efforts have ranged from reducing threats, to restoring habitats, to reintroducing vanished species – and the results have been mixed.
However, these efforts have helped shape modern conservation science. This branch of knowledge uses ecological, genetic and behavioural insights to guide smarter, more ethical conservation actions.
Governments often use this science to decide whether restoration projects should be approved. However, approval processes may be slow, under-resourced and complex, leaving passionate people feeling shut out.
In response, some have turned to “guerilla rewilding” without approval, and often without due consideration of the potential for unintended impacts. As a recent ABC investigation showed, these passionate souls may release species into the wild or build self-managed sanctuaries, often dismissing scientists as “purists”.
What is rewilding?
Rewilding aims to restore wildlife and natural processes to ecosystems where they’ve been lost, often due to land clearing, agriculture or other human activities.
It may involve reintroducing a species that has disappeared from a landscape, or using a similar surrogate species to revive lost ecological functions. The goal is to rebuild functioning, self-sustaining systems. It’s not just about individual species, but the roles they play in sustaining nature.
In Australia, rewilding typically takes place in fenced reserves or on islands where invasive predators such as foxes and cats have been removed. These barriers offer protection, but require intensive planning, long-term management and ongoing funding.
The term “rewilding” itself has been criticised for harking back to a pre-colonial “wilderness”, overlooking First Nations’ connections to Country. But the goal of these projects is to restore ecological function and self-sustaining wildlife populations in shared, lived-in landscapes – including urban environments.
When done well, rewilding can support species recovery, repair ecosystems, and help reconnect people with nature. But success depends on evidence-based design, clear goals, ongoing monitoring, and (often) additional management over time (such as adding or removing animals).
Guerilla rewilding is risky
Guerrilla rewilding can go wildly wrong. Ecology, evolution, behaviour and welfare are deeply complex — and every species is a unique part of a much larger puzzle.
Scientists and conservationists are still learning how different animals survive and thrive in changing environments. Restoring these delicate systems without unintended consequences is also a challenge.
Successful rewilding draws on decades of ecological insight — genetics, behaviour, predator-prey dynamics, health, and ecosystem function.
Guerilla rewilders may see these as unnecessary academic add-ons. But when reintroductions fail, it’s often because one of these elements was overlooked. Frequently reported problems include animal behaviour, monitoring difficulties, quality of release habitat, and lack of baseline knowledge.
However, accessing the science – and navigating the approvals that rely on it – isn’t always easy. Conservation processes are often slow, under-resourced and opaque. It’s no surprise some view them as “green tape”.
In Australia, it can be easier to get permission to clear land than to restore it. Matt Palmer / Unsplash
Yet bypassing this system risks repeating old mistakes. So if we want rewilding to work, we need to make it easier to engage with evidence, expertise and ethical safeguards.
Engagement may be as simple as working with the right partners from the outset. This may include Traditional Owners, universities, non-government organisations, and local conservation and environmental community groups.
Collaboration, not conflict
A lot of people and groups have the same goal: to restore thriving wild animal populations as part of more complete, diverse and resilient ecosystems. That outcome is best achieved through collaboration, sharing of expertise, and trust.
Traditional Owners, scientists, carers, zoos, non-government organisations and government agencies all bring crucial knowledge. By turning shared passion into practical, evidence-based action, we can ensure rewilding efforts contribute to real, lasting outcomes for Australian and global biodiversity.
So what does this look like in practice? First of all, it’s about getting connected.
People with land or passion to contribute can contact organisations such as the Australian Wildlife Conservancy, WWF-Australia, Arid Recovery, several universities, or state parks and wildlife services. These groups have likely already done the groundwork, from habitat assessment to long-term planning. Joining existing efforts may get more done than starting solo.
Policymakers can contribute not only funding, but also transparency. More open and understandable approval processes may lower the barriers for community-led rewilding efforts.
As for scientists like us, we need to step beyond peer-reviewed papers. That means clearer communication, real-world partnerships, and embracing outreach – particularly in urban or accessible rewilding projects.
The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of Peter Banks, Donna Houston, Phil McManus, Catherine Grueber and Mareshell Wauchope to this article.
Patrick Finnerty is the current director for early career ecology at the Ecological Society of Australia, the Early Career Coordinator at the Australasian Wildlife Management Society, and a council member for the Royal Zoological Society of NSW. He receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Alex Carthey is the founding Director of ReHabitat Pty Ltd. She receives funding from the Australia Research Council and the Hermon Slade Foundation. She is the immediate past-Treasurer and recently ex-Council member of the NSW Royal Zoological Society.
Benjamin Pitcher is a Co-funded Research Fellow in Behavioural Biology at Macquarie University and Taronga Conservation Society Australia. He receives funding from the Australian Research Council and NSW Environmental Trust.
John Martin receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Thomas Newsome receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is immediate past-president of the Australasian Wildlife Management Society and President of the Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales.
Photograph by Robert Walker, Eric Smith in the studio, c.1973 black and white photograph, 52cmx42cm. Barbara Smith Collection. Used with permission
There are many routes to artistic obscurity. The surest path, of course, is to have never been discovered in the first place. But this wasn’t the case with the late Eric Smith (1919-2017).
Rather, Smith’s is a story of a major artist who quite simply, and unexpectedly, vanished from public life.
The Raising of Lazarus, 1953, oil on composition board, 91cmx82cm. David and Diane Taylor Family Collection.
A new exhibition at the Macquarie University Art Gallery, which I am co-curating, will display a range of Smith’s work – including paintings from the last four decades of his career that have never been shown before.
From fame to phantom
Smith was an artist constantly in search of ways to “express truths in our times”, and employed diverse ways of doing so across a career that included religious paintings, portraits and large abstract works.
Between his breakthrough year in 1956, when he won the first of six Blake Prizes with The Scourged Christ, and 1982, when he won the last of his three Archibalds with a portrait of Peter Sculthorpe, Smith was as lauded as an artist could be.
He had a significant role in launching Australian abstract expressionism in the famous group show, Direction 1. His art was installed in churches and public buildings, and collected by major institutions. He was quoted and photographed in the press.
Then, while working as prolifically as ever, he seemed to disappear. Why?
Rudy Komon, 1981, oil on canvas, 184.1cm x 172.4cm x 3.9cm. Art Gallery of New South Wales, purchased 1982.
The death of Rudy Komon
Rudy Komon was a Czech emigrant and a larger than life bon vivant and gallerist who launched the careers of many of Australia’s finest painters.
Komon represented Smith, who he called “meister”, from 1963 and throughout the most publicly productive part of Smith’s career. Smith even won the 1981 Archibald with a painting of Komon.
However, Komon died the following year.
And according to David Taylor, an art collector and later a patron of Smith’s, “Eric’s art career died with him”.
“When Rudy died Eric had no one to connect him to the art world anymore. He was a modest man and no self-publicist,” Taylor explained to me.
“It was pretty much only me that was left buying his paintings.”
And there were a lot of paintings. Despite Smith’s exhibiting career grinding to a near halt, with no major-gallery shows after 1989, he spent the next four decades on an 8am to 6pm studio regime punctuated only by lunch and tea breaks.
Untitled [Fool’s Gold], 2004, oil on canvas, 164.5cm x 204.5cm. David and Diane Taylor Family Collection.
“He’d finish just in time for the 6pm news”, Barbara Smith told me.
Barbara is Smith’s daughter and the manager of his legacy.
“Dad was always driven by what he saw as the challenges in his work and resolving them in the studio.”
Smith was also heavily self-critical. He admitted to destroying more than half of his artistic output – completely repainting or throwing away paintings that didn’t meet his vision.
At the age of 90, ever the self-critic and despite his successes, he said to his family: “You can’t change styles like I did and hope to get anywhere.”
Forms that express deeper feelings
Smith converted to Catholicism in the 1950s and was a life-long consumer of art-history and philosophy. These tendencies can be seen in his 1950s religious paintings and later abstract works.
The Scourged Christ, 1956, oil on composition board, 116cm x 85cm. Gift of Hugh Jamieson, Penrith Regional Gallery Collection.
In the 1950s he found inspiration in the works of the Fauvist painter Georges Rouault, and later in the works of Alfred Manessier. We see these influences in the bold outlines and church-window-esque colours used in paintings such as The Raising of Lazarus (1953) and The Scourged Christ (1956).
Smith’s later large abstract paintings such as Eternity I (1998), Orange Dawn (1999) and Untitled (Fools Gold) (2004) are evidence of his artistic quest to “find forms that express the deeper feelings” he wanted to convey.
Orange Dawn, 1999, oil on canvas, 171cm x 213cm. David and Diane Taylor Family Collection.
Smith was also skilled in portraiture, as evidenced by his depictions of fellow artists Leonard Hessing, Norman Lindsay, Louis James and Hector Gilliland, as well as his Archibald-winning portrait of Rudy Komon.
His luminous Portrait of Diane (1998), a family friend and patron, is a particularly powerful image which Smith described as his Mona Lisa.
Portrait of Diane, 1998, oil on canvas, 69cm x 50cm. David and Diane Taylor Family Collection.
It’s easy to see why writer and critic Paul McGillick argues Smith should be considered “one of Australia’s most visionary portraitists”.
Yet, without exhibitions and dealers and auctioneers to champion him over the decades, Smith’s work has largely vanished from the public.
Then again, “not having exhibitions didn’t bother him too much, it was the painting and process that really mattered to him,” said Barbara.
An exhibit 40 years in the making
Luckily for posterity, a number of Smith’s masterpieces survived his destructive self-critique.
These works, which are now mostly privately held, will be on display at Eric Smith: The metaphysics of paint. It is the first major exhibition of Smith’s work since the 1980s, and the first retrospective or survey of his work since his death in 2017.
“I’m sure Dad would have been extremely excited and honoured,” Barbara said.
Eric Smith: The metaphysics of paint is showing at the Macquarie University Art Gallery from June 19 to August 1.
Tom Murray works for Macquarie University and receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
When it was time for Horcasitas to be sentenced by a judge, Pelkey’s family knew they wanted to make a statement – known as a “victim impact statement” – explaining to the judge who Pelkey had been when he was alive.
They found they couldn’t get the words right.
The solution for them turned out to be having Pelkey speak for himself by creating an AI-generated avatar that used his face and voice, allowing him to “talk” directly to the judge.
In Arizona, a judge allowed an AI avatar of a deceased crime victim to “read” an impact statement.
This marked the first time a United States court had allowed an AI-generated victim to make this kind of beyond-the-grave statement, and likely the first time something like this had occurred anywhere in the world.
How was the AI avatar made and received?
The AI avatar was created by Pelkey’s sister Stacey Wales and her husband Tim, with Stacey writing the words “spoken” by Pelkey – words that were not taken from anything he actually said when he was alive but based on what she believed he would have said.
Stacey Wales explained how she came to create an AI video of her brother to allow him to deliver his own victim impact statement.
The avatar was created by using samples of Pelkey’s voice from videos that had been recorded before his death and photos the family had of him – specifically a photo used at his funeral.
In the video, Pelkey “says” he believes in forgiveness and “a God who forgives”, and that “in another life” he and Horcasitas could have been friends.
After the video was played in court, Judge Todd Lang, who had allowed the AI statement to be delivered, stated he “loved” the AI, adding he “heard the forgiveness” contained in it. He further stated he felt the forgiveness was “genuine”.
Judge Todd Lang’s reaction to Chris Pelkey’s AI victim impact statement.
In the end, Horcasitas was sentenced to the maximum of ten-and-a-half years – more than the nine years the prosecution was seeking but equal to what Pelkey’s family asked for in their own victim impact statements.
Could this happen in Australia?
In general, court rules are similar across Australian states and territories and it would be unlikely these technological advances would be acceptable in Australian sentencing courts.
These rules allow victims or their families to read their statement to courts, but this is limited to written statements usually edited by the prosecution, although victims may include drawings and photos where approved.
A victim will generally read their own statement to the court. However, where the victim has died, family members can make a statement speaking to their own trauma and loss.
Sometimes victims ask the prosecutor to read their statement, or the prosecutor merely hands over a written statement to the judge.
To date, no Australian court has permitted family members to speak for the deceased victim personally and family members are generally limited to describing harms they have directly suffered.
Victims may also be cross-examined by defence counsel on the statements’ content.
Creating an AI avatar would be time-consuming and expensive for prosecutors to edit. Cross-examination by the defence would be impossible.
Compared to the US, there is generally far less tolerance in Australian courts for dramatic readings of statements or using audio-visual materials.
In the US, victims enjoy greater freedom to invoke emotions, explore personal narratives and even show videos of the deceased, all to give the court a better sense of the victim as a person.
The use of an AI avatar, therefore, is not too far from what is already allowed in most US courts.
Despite these allowances, there is still concern the emotional impact of a more direct statement from an AI victim could be used to manipulate the court by putting words into the victim’s virtual mouth.
As can be seen in the Arizona sentencing, Judge Lang was clearly affected by the emotions generated by the AI Pelkey.
Changes to Australian law would be needed to ban use of AI recordings specifically. But even without such changes, Australian sentencing practice is already so restrictive as to essentially preclude such technology.
It seems Australia is some ways from joining Arizona in allowing an AI avatar of a deceased person speaking from “beyond the grave”.
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.
