Category: Global

  • MIL-OSI Global: What is CREC? The Christian nationalist group has a vision for America − and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s support

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Samuel Perry, Associate Professor, Baylor University

    U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, right, at a prayer during a Cabinet meeting at the White House on Feb. 26, 2025, in Washington, D.C. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

    Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s affiliation with the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches – commonly called the CREC – drew attention even before his confirmation hearings in January 2025. More recently, media reports highlighted a Pentagon prayer led by Hegseth and his pastor, Brooks Potteiger, in which they praised President Donald Trump, who they said was divinely appointed.

    As a scholar of the Christian right, I have studied the CREC. Hegseth’s membership in a church that belongs to the CREC drew attention because prominent members of the church identify as Christian nationalists, and because of its positions on issues concerning gender, sexuality and the separation of church and state.

    The CREC is most easily understood through three main parts: churches, schools and media.

    What is the CREC?

    The CREC church is a network of churches. It is associated with the congregation of Doug Wilson, the pastor who founded Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho. Wilson grew up in the town, where his father was an evangelical minister.

    Wilson co-founded the CREC in 1993 and is the public figure most associated with the network of churches. Christ Church operates as the hub for Logos Schools, Canon Press and New Saint Andrews College, all located in Moscow. Logos is a set of private schools and homeschooling curriculum, Canon Press is a publishing house and media company, and New Saint Andrews College is a university, all of which were founded by Wilson and associated with Christ Church. All espouse the view that Christians are at odds with – or at war with – secular society.

    While he is not Hegseth’s pastor, Wilson is the most influential voice in the CREC, and the two men have spoken approvingly of one another.

    Pastor Douglas Wilson leads others at a protest in Moscow, Idaho.
    Geoff Crimmins/The Moscow-Pullman Daily News, CC BY-SA

    As Wilson steadily grew Christ Church in Moscow, he and its members sought to spread their message by making Moscow a conservative town and establishing churches beyond it. Of his hometown, Wilson plainly states, “Our desire is to make Moscow a Christian town.”

    The CREC doctrine is opposed to religious pluralism or political points of view that diverge from CREC theology. On its website, the CREC says that it is “committed to maintaining its Reformed faith, avoiding the pitfalls of cultural relevance and political compromise that destroys our doctrinal integrity.”

    CREC churches adhere to a highly patriarchal and conservative interpretation of Scripture. Wilson has said that in a sexual relationship, “A woman receives, surrenders, accepts.”

    In a broader political sense, CREC theology includes the belief that the establishment clause of the Constitution does not require a separation of church and state. The most common reading of the establishment clause is that freedom of religion precludes the installation of a state religion or religious tests to hold state office.

    The CREC broadly asserts that the government and anyone serving in it should be Christian. For Wilson and members of CREC churches, this means Christians and only Christians are qualified to hold political office in the United States.

    Researcher Matthew Taylor explained in an interview with the Nashville Tennessean, “They believe the church is supposed to be militant in the world, is supposed to be reforming the world, and in some ways conquering the world.”

    While the CREC may not have the name recognition of some large evangelical denominations or the visibility of some megachurches, it boasts churches across the United States and internationally. The CREC website claims to have over 130 churches and parishes spread across North America, Europe, Asia and South America.

    Like some other evangelical denominations, the CREC uses “church planting” to grow its network. Plant churches do not require a centralized governing body to ordain their founding. Instead, those interested in starting a CREC congregation contact the CREC. The CREC then provides materials and literature for people to use in their church.

    CREC schools, home schools and colleges

    The CREC’s expansion also owes a debt to Wilson’s entrepreneurship. As the church expanded, Wilson founded an associated K-12 school called “Logos” in September 1981, which since then has grown into a network of many schools.

    In conjunction with its growth, Logos develops and sells “classical Christian” curriculum to private schools and home-school families through Logos Press. Classical Christian Schools aim to develop what they consider a biblical worldview. In addition to religious studies, they focus on classic texts from Greece and Rome. They have grown in popularity in recent years, especially among conservatives.

    Logos’ classical Christian curriculum is designed to help parents “raise faithful, dangerous Christian kids who impact the world for Christ and leave craters in the world of secularism.” Logos press regularly asserts, “education is warfare.”

    According to the website, Logos schools enroll more than 2,000 students across 16 countries. Logos also has its own press that supplies the curriculum to all of these schools. On the heels of Logos’ success, Wilson founded the Association of Classical Christian Schools in 1993 as an accrediting body for like-minded schools. The ACCS now boast 500 schools and more than 50,000 students across the United States and around the world.

    Additionally, Wilson founded New Saint Andrews College in Moscow, Idaho. New Saint Andrews is a Christian university that takes the classical Christian approach to education championed by Wilson into higher education.

    The New Saint Andrews College is consistent with other CREC institutions. It considers secularism a weakness of other universities and society more generally. Its website explains: “New Saint Andrews has long held a principled and clear voice, championing the truth of God’s word and ways, while so many other colleges veer into softness and secularism.” The school is governed by the elders of Christ Church and does not accept federal funding.

    CREC media

    In addition to the Logos Press, which produces the CREC school curriculum, Wilson founded Canon Press. Canon Press produces books, podcasts, a YouTube channel and assorted merchandise including apparel and weapons, such as a flamethrower. The YouTube channel has over 100,000 followers.

    Books published by Canon include children’s picture books to manuals on masculinity. A number of books continue the theme of warfare.

    The politics page of the press contains many books on Christian nationalism. Christian political theorist Stephen Wolfe’s book “The Case for Christian Nationalism” is one of the most popular among books on Christian nationalism. The website has dozens of books on Christian nationalism and media dedicated to the construction of a Christian government.

    Author Joe Rigney, a fellow of theology at New Saint Andrews College and an associate pastor at Christ Church, warns of the “Sin of Empathy.” Rigney claims that empathizing with others is sinful because it requires compromise and makes one vulnerable in the fight against evil.

    CREC controversies

    Pete Hegseth at his confirmation hearing in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 14, 2025.
    AP Photo/Alex Brandon

    As the church network has grown, it has drawn attention and scrutiny. Wilson’s 1996 publication of a book positively depicting slavery and claiming slavery cultivated “affection among the races” drew national attention.

    Accusations of sexual abuse and the church’s handling of it have also brought national news coverage. Vice’s Sarah Stankorb interviewed many women who talked about a culture, especially in marriage, where sexual abuse and assault is common. The Vice reporting led to a podcast that details the accounts of survivors. In interviews, Wilson has denied any wrongdoing and said that claims of sexual abuse will be directed to the proper authorities.

    Hegseth’s actions as secretary of defense concerning gender identity and banning trans people from serving in the military, in addition to stripping gay activist and politician Harvey Milk’s name from a Navy ship, have brought more attention to the CREC. I believe that given Hegseth’s role as secretary of defense, his affiliation with the CREC will likely remain a topic of conversation throughout the Trump presidency.

    Samuel Perry does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. What is CREC? The Christian nationalist group has a vision for America − and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s support – https://theconversation.com/what-is-crec-the-christian-nationalist-group-has-a-vision-for-america-and-defense-secretary-pete-hegseths-support-258273

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: What is CREC? The Christian nationalist group has a vision for America − and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s support

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Samuel Perry, Associate Professor, Baylor University

    U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, right, at a prayer during a Cabinet meeting at the White House on Feb. 26, 2025, in Washington, D.C. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

    Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s affiliation with the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches – commonly called the CREC – drew attention even before his confirmation hearings in January 2025. More recently, media reports highlighted a Pentagon prayer led by Hegseth and his pastor, Brooks Potteiger, in which they praised President Donald Trump, who they said was divinely appointed.

    As a scholar of the Christian right, I have studied the CREC. Hegseth’s membership in a church that belongs to the CREC drew attention because prominent members of the church identify as Christian nationalists, and because of its positions on issues concerning gender, sexuality and the separation of church and state.

    The CREC is most easily understood through three main parts: churches, schools and media.

    What is the CREC?

    The CREC church is a network of churches. It is associated with the congregation of Doug Wilson, the pastor who founded Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho. Wilson grew up in the town, where his father was an evangelical minister.

    Wilson co-founded the CREC in 1993 and is the public figure most associated with the network of churches. Christ Church operates as the hub for Logos Schools, Canon Press and New Saint Andrews College, all located in Moscow. Logos is a set of private schools and homeschooling curriculum, Canon Press is a publishing house and media company, and New Saint Andrews College is a university, all of which were founded by Wilson and associated with Christ Church. All espouse the view that Christians are at odds with – or at war with – secular society.

    While he is not Hegseth’s pastor, Wilson is the most influential voice in the CREC, and the two men have spoken approvingly of one another.

    Pastor Douglas Wilson leads others at a protest in Moscow, Idaho.
    Geoff Crimmins/The Moscow-Pullman Daily News, CC BY-SA

    As Wilson steadily grew Christ Church in Moscow, he and its members sought to spread their message by making Moscow a conservative town and establishing churches beyond it. Of his hometown, Wilson plainly states, “Our desire is to make Moscow a Christian town.”

    The CREC doctrine is opposed to religious pluralism or political points of view that diverge from CREC theology. On its website, the CREC says that it is “committed to maintaining its Reformed faith, avoiding the pitfalls of cultural relevance and political compromise that destroys our doctrinal integrity.”

    CREC churches adhere to a highly patriarchal and conservative interpretation of Scripture. Wilson has said that in a sexual relationship, “A woman receives, surrenders, accepts.”

    In a broader political sense, CREC theology includes the belief that the establishment clause of the Constitution does not require a separation of church and state. The most common reading of the establishment clause is that freedom of religion precludes the installation of a state religion or religious tests to hold state office.

    The CREC broadly asserts that the government and anyone serving in it should be Christian. For Wilson and members of CREC churches, this means Christians and only Christians are qualified to hold political office in the United States.

    Researcher Matthew Taylor explained in an interview with the Nashville Tennessean, “They believe the church is supposed to be militant in the world, is supposed to be reforming the world, and in some ways conquering the world.”

    While the CREC may not have the name recognition of some large evangelical denominations or the visibility of some megachurches, it boasts churches across the United States and internationally. The CREC website claims to have over 130 churches and parishes spread across North America, Europe, Asia and South America.

    Like some other evangelical denominations, the CREC uses “church planting” to grow its network. Plant churches do not require a centralized governing body to ordain their founding. Instead, those interested in starting a CREC congregation contact the CREC. The CREC then provides materials and literature for people to use in their church.

    CREC schools, home schools and colleges

    The CREC’s expansion also owes a debt to Wilson’s entrepreneurship. As the church expanded, Wilson founded an associated K-12 school called “Logos” in September 1981, which since then has grown into a network of many schools.

    In conjunction with its growth, Logos develops and sells “classical Christian” curriculum to private schools and home-school families through Logos Press. Classical Christian Schools aim to develop what they consider a biblical worldview. In addition to religious studies, they focus on classic texts from Greece and Rome. They have grown in popularity in recent years, especially among conservatives.

    Logos’ classical Christian curriculum is designed to help parents “raise faithful, dangerous Christian kids who impact the world for Christ and leave craters in the world of secularism.” Logos press regularly asserts, “education is warfare.”

    According to the website, Logos schools enroll more than 2,000 students across 16 countries. Logos also has its own press that supplies the curriculum to all of these schools. On the heels of Logos’ success, Wilson founded the Association of Classical Christian Schools in 1993 as an accrediting body for like-minded schools. The ACCS now boast 500 schools and more than 50,000 students across the United States and around the world.

    Additionally, Wilson founded New Saint Andrews College in Moscow, Idaho. New Saint Andrews is a Christian university that takes the classical Christian approach to education championed by Wilson into higher education.

    The New Saint Andrews College is consistent with other CREC institutions. It considers secularism a weakness of other universities and society more generally. Its website explains: “New Saint Andrews has long held a principled and clear voice, championing the truth of God’s word and ways, while so many other colleges veer into softness and secularism.” The school is governed by the elders of Christ Church and does not accept federal funding.

    CREC media

    In addition to the Logos Press, which produces the CREC school curriculum, Wilson founded Canon Press. Canon Press produces books, podcasts, a YouTube channel and assorted merchandise including apparel and weapons, such as a flamethrower. The YouTube channel has over 100,000 followers.

    Books published by Canon include children’s picture books to manuals on masculinity. A number of books continue the theme of warfare.

    The politics page of the press contains many books on Christian nationalism. Christian political theorist Stephen Wolfe’s book “The Case for Christian Nationalism” is one of the most popular among books on Christian nationalism. The website has dozens of books on Christian nationalism and media dedicated to the construction of a Christian government.

    Author Joe Rigney, a fellow of theology at New Saint Andrews College and an associate pastor at Christ Church, warns of the “Sin of Empathy.” Rigney claims that empathizing with others is sinful because it requires compromise and makes one vulnerable in the fight against evil.

    CREC controversies

    Pete Hegseth at his confirmation hearing in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 14, 2025.
    AP Photo/Alex Brandon

    As the church network has grown, it has drawn attention and scrutiny. Wilson’s 1996 publication of a book positively depicting slavery and claiming slavery cultivated “affection among the races” drew national attention.

    Accusations of sexual abuse and the church’s handling of it have also brought national news coverage. Vice’s Sarah Stankorb interviewed many women who talked about a culture, especially in marriage, where sexual abuse and assault is common. The Vice reporting led to a podcast that details the accounts of survivors. In interviews, Wilson has denied any wrongdoing and said that claims of sexual abuse will be directed to the proper authorities.

    Hegseth’s actions as secretary of defense concerning gender identity and banning trans people from serving in the military, in addition to stripping gay activist and politician Harvey Milk’s name from a Navy ship, have brought more attention to the CREC. I believe that given Hegseth’s role as secretary of defense, his affiliation with the CREC will likely remain a topic of conversation throughout the Trump presidency.

    Samuel Perry does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. What is CREC? The Christian nationalist group has a vision for America − and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s support – https://theconversation.com/what-is-crec-the-christian-nationalist-group-has-a-vision-for-america-and-defense-secretary-pete-hegseths-support-258273

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: How artificial intelligence controls your health insurance coverage

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jennifer D. Oliva, Professor of Law, Indiana University

    Evidence suggests that insurance companies use AI to delay or limit health care that patients need. FatCameraE+ via Getty Images

    Over the past decade, health insurance companies have increasingly embraced the use of artificial intelligence algorithms. Unlike doctors and hospitals, which use AI to help diagnose and treat patients, health insurers use these algorithms to decide whether to pay for health care treatments and services that are recommended by a given patient’s physicians.

    One of the most common examples is prior authorization, which is when your doctor needs to
    receive payment approval from your insurance company before providing you care. Many insurers use an algorithm to decide whether the requested care is “medically necessary” and should be covered.

    These AI systems also help insurers decide how much care a patient is entitled to — for example, how many days of hospital care a patient can receive after surgery.

    If an insurer declines to pay for a treatment your doctor recommends, you usually have three options. You can try to appeal the decision, but that process can take a lot of time, money and expert help. Only 1 in 500 claim denials are appealed. You can agree to a different treatment that your insurer will cover. Or you can pay for the recommended treatment yourself, which is often not realistic because of high health care costs.

    As a legal scholar who studies health law and policy, I’m concerned about how insurance algorithms affect people’s health. Like with AI algorithms used by doctors and hospitals, these tools can potentially improve care and reduce costs. Insurers say that AI helps them make quick, safe decisions about what care is necessary and avoids wasteful or harmful treatments.

    But there’s strong evidence that the opposite can be true. These systems are sometimes used to delay or deny care that should be covered, all in the name of saving money.

    A pattern of withholding care

    Presumably, companies feed a patient’s health care records and other relevant information into health care coverage algorithms and compare that information with current medical standards of care to decide whether to cover the patient’s claim. However, insurers have refused to disclose how these algorithms work in making such decisions, so it is impossible to say exactly how they operate in practice.

    Using AI to review coverage saves insurers time and resources, especially because it means fewer medical professionals are needed to review each case. But the financial benefit to insurers doesn’t stop there. If an AI system quickly denies a valid claim, and the patient appeals, that appeal process can take years. If the patient is seriously ill and expected to die soon, the insurance company might save money simply by dragging out the process in the hope that the patient dies before the case is resolved.

    Insurers say that if they decline to cover a medical intervention, patients can pay for it out of pocket.

    This creates the disturbing possibility that insurers might use algorithms to withhold care for expensive, long-term or terminal health problems , such as chronic or other debilitating disabilities. One reporter put it bluntly: “Many older adults who spent their lives paying into Medicare now face amputation or cancer and are forced to either pay for care themselves or go without.”

    Research supports this concern – patients with chronic illnesses are more likely to be denied coverage and suffer as a result. In addition, Black and Hispanic people and those of other nonwhite ethnicities, as well as people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, are more likely to experience claims denials. Some evidence also suggests that prior authorization may increase rather than decrease health care system costs.

    Insurers argue that patients can always pay for any treatment themselves, so they’re not really being denied care. But this argument ignores reality. These decisions have serious health consequences, especially when people can’t afford the care they need.

    Moving toward regulation

    Unlike medical algorithms, insurance AI tools are largely unregulated. They don’t have to go through Food and Drug Administration review, and insurance companies often say their algorithms are trade secrets.

    That means there’s no public information about how these tools make decisions, and there’s no outside testing to see whether they’re safe, fair or effective. No peer-reviewed studies exist to show how well they actually work in the real world.

    There does seem to be some momentum for change. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, which is the federal agency in charge of Medicare and Medicaid, recently announced that insurers in Medicare Advantage plans must base decisions on the needs of individual patients – not just on generic criteria. But these rules still let insurers create their own decision-making standards, and they still don’t require any outside testing to prove their systems work before using them. Plus, federal rules can only regulate federal public health programs like Medicare. They do not apply to private insurers who do not provide federal health program coverage.

    Some states, including Colorado, Georgia, Florida, Maine and Texas, have proposed laws to rein in insurance AI. A few have passed new laws, including a 2024 California statute that requires a licensed physician to supervise the use of insurance coverage algorithms.

    But most state laws suffer from the same weaknesses as the new CMS rule. They leave too much control in the hands of insurers to decide how to define “medical necessity” and in what contexts to use algorithms for coverage decisions. They also don’t require those algorithms to be reviewed by neutral experts before use. And even strong state laws wouldn’t be enough, because states generally can’t regulate Medicare or insurers that operate outside their borders.

    A role for the FDA

    In the view of many health law experts, the gap between insurers’ actions and patient needs has become so wide that regulating health care coverage algorithms is now imperative. As I argue in an essay to be published in the Indiana Law Journal, the FDA is well positioned to do so.

    The FDA is staffed with medical experts who have the capability to evaluate insurance algorithms before they are used to make coverage decisions. The agency already reviews many medical AI tools for safety and effectiveness. FDA oversight would also provide a uniform, national regulatory scheme instead of a patchwork of rules across the country.

    Some people argue that the FDA’s power here is limited. For the purposes of FDA regulation, a medical device is defined as an instrument “intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease.” Because health insurance algorithms are not used to diagnose, treat or prevent disease, Congress may need to amend the definition of a medical device before the FDA can regulate those algorithms.

    If the FDA’s current authority isn’t enough to cover insurance algorithms, Congress could change the law to give it that power. Meanwhile, CMS and state governments could require independent testing of these algorithms for safety, accuracy and fairness. That might also push insurers to support a single national standard – like FDA regulation – instead of facing a patchwork of rules across the country.

    The move toward regulating how health insurers use AI in determining coverage has clearly begun, but it is still awaiting a robust push. Patients’ lives are literally on the line.

    Jennifer D. Oliva currently receives funding from NIDA to research the impact of pharmaceutical industry messaging on the opioid crisis among U.S. Military Veterans. She is affiliated with the UCSF/University of California College of the Law, San Francisco Consortium on Law, Science & Health Policy and Georgetown University Law Center O’Neill Institute for National & Global Health Law.

    ref. How artificial intelligence controls your health insurance coverage – https://theconversation.com/how-artificial-intelligence-controls-your-health-insurance-coverage-253602

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: How artificial intelligence controls your health insurance coverage

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jennifer D. Oliva, Professor of Law, Indiana University

    Evidence suggests that insurance companies use AI to delay or limit health care that patients need. FatCameraE+ via Getty Images

    Over the past decade, health insurance companies have increasingly embraced the use of artificial intelligence algorithms. Unlike doctors and hospitals, which use AI to help diagnose and treat patients, health insurers use these algorithms to decide whether to pay for health care treatments and services that are recommended by a given patient’s physicians.

    One of the most common examples is prior authorization, which is when your doctor needs to
    receive payment approval from your insurance company before providing you care. Many insurers use an algorithm to decide whether the requested care is “medically necessary” and should be covered.

    These AI systems also help insurers decide how much care a patient is entitled to — for example, how many days of hospital care a patient can receive after surgery.

    If an insurer declines to pay for a treatment your doctor recommends, you usually have three options. You can try to appeal the decision, but that process can take a lot of time, money and expert help. Only 1 in 500 claim denials are appealed. You can agree to a different treatment that your insurer will cover. Or you can pay for the recommended treatment yourself, which is often not realistic because of high health care costs.

    As a legal scholar who studies health law and policy, I’m concerned about how insurance algorithms affect people’s health. Like with AI algorithms used by doctors and hospitals, these tools can potentially improve care and reduce costs. Insurers say that AI helps them make quick, safe decisions about what care is necessary and avoids wasteful or harmful treatments.

    But there’s strong evidence that the opposite can be true. These systems are sometimes used to delay or deny care that should be covered, all in the name of saving money.

    A pattern of withholding care

    Presumably, companies feed a patient’s health care records and other relevant information into health care coverage algorithms and compare that information with current medical standards of care to decide whether to cover the patient’s claim. However, insurers have refused to disclose how these algorithms work in making such decisions, so it is impossible to say exactly how they operate in practice.

    Using AI to review coverage saves insurers time and resources, especially because it means fewer medical professionals are needed to review each case. But the financial benefit to insurers doesn’t stop there. If an AI system quickly denies a valid claim, and the patient appeals, that appeal process can take years. If the patient is seriously ill and expected to die soon, the insurance company might save money simply by dragging out the process in the hope that the patient dies before the case is resolved.

    Insurers say that if they decline to cover a medical intervention, patients can pay for it out of pocket.

    This creates the disturbing possibility that insurers might use algorithms to withhold care for expensive, long-term or terminal health problems , such as chronic or other debilitating disabilities. One reporter put it bluntly: “Many older adults who spent their lives paying into Medicare now face amputation or cancer and are forced to either pay for care themselves or go without.”

    Research supports this concern – patients with chronic illnesses are more likely to be denied coverage and suffer as a result. In addition, Black and Hispanic people and those of other nonwhite ethnicities, as well as people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, are more likely to experience claims denials. Some evidence also suggests that prior authorization may increase rather than decrease health care system costs.

    Insurers argue that patients can always pay for any treatment themselves, so they’re not really being denied care. But this argument ignores reality. These decisions have serious health consequences, especially when people can’t afford the care they need.

    Moving toward regulation

    Unlike medical algorithms, insurance AI tools are largely unregulated. They don’t have to go through Food and Drug Administration review, and insurance companies often say their algorithms are trade secrets.

    That means there’s no public information about how these tools make decisions, and there’s no outside testing to see whether they’re safe, fair or effective. No peer-reviewed studies exist to show how well they actually work in the real world.

    There does seem to be some momentum for change. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, which is the federal agency in charge of Medicare and Medicaid, recently announced that insurers in Medicare Advantage plans must base decisions on the needs of individual patients – not just on generic criteria. But these rules still let insurers create their own decision-making standards, and they still don’t require any outside testing to prove their systems work before using them. Plus, federal rules can only regulate federal public health programs like Medicare. They do not apply to private insurers who do not provide federal health program coverage.

    Some states, including Colorado, Georgia, Florida, Maine and Texas, have proposed laws to rein in insurance AI. A few have passed new laws, including a 2024 California statute that requires a licensed physician to supervise the use of insurance coverage algorithms.

    But most state laws suffer from the same weaknesses as the new CMS rule. They leave too much control in the hands of insurers to decide how to define “medical necessity” and in what contexts to use algorithms for coverage decisions. They also don’t require those algorithms to be reviewed by neutral experts before use. And even strong state laws wouldn’t be enough, because states generally can’t regulate Medicare or insurers that operate outside their borders.

    A role for the FDA

    In the view of many health law experts, the gap between insurers’ actions and patient needs has become so wide that regulating health care coverage algorithms is now imperative. As I argue in an essay to be published in the Indiana Law Journal, the FDA is well positioned to do so.

    The FDA is staffed with medical experts who have the capability to evaluate insurance algorithms before they are used to make coverage decisions. The agency already reviews many medical AI tools for safety and effectiveness. FDA oversight would also provide a uniform, national regulatory scheme instead of a patchwork of rules across the country.

    Some people argue that the FDA’s power here is limited. For the purposes of FDA regulation, a medical device is defined as an instrument “intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease.” Because health insurance algorithms are not used to diagnose, treat or prevent disease, Congress may need to amend the definition of a medical device before the FDA can regulate those algorithms.

    If the FDA’s current authority isn’t enough to cover insurance algorithms, Congress could change the law to give it that power. Meanwhile, CMS and state governments could require independent testing of these algorithms for safety, accuracy and fairness. That might also push insurers to support a single national standard – like FDA regulation – instead of facing a patchwork of rules across the country.

    The move toward regulating how health insurers use AI in determining coverage has clearly begun, but it is still awaiting a robust push. Patients’ lives are literally on the line.

    Jennifer D. Oliva currently receives funding from NIDA to research the impact of pharmaceutical industry messaging on the opioid crisis among U.S. Military Veterans. She is affiliated with the UCSF/University of California College of the Law, San Francisco Consortium on Law, Science & Health Policy and Georgetown University Law Center O’Neill Institute for National & Global Health Law.

    ref. How artificial intelligence controls your health insurance coverage – https://theconversation.com/how-artificial-intelligence-controls-your-health-insurance-coverage-253602

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Low-income homeowners hit by disasters may get less help from the government, as Trump administration nixes rules on fairness, community input and resilience

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Ivis García, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning, Texas A&M University

    Hurricane Helene caused extensive damage to homes in North Carolina in 2024. AP Photo/Kathy Kmonicek

    Imagine that a hurricane has destroyed your home.

    The roof is gone. The floors are flooded. Your family’s belongings are ruined.

    When this happens, you can apply for federal disaster aid, hoping for a lifeline. For many low-income families and other people of modest means, funding for that aid is often channeled to the states through the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery program.

    Known as CDBG-DR, this program mainly provides funding to repair and rebuild homes belonging to people of low-to-moderate income who either have no insurance at all or whose coverage falls short of what is needed to making housing safe again.

    When homes are damaged beyond repair or located in areas where it’s too dangerous to rebuild because of the likelihood of future bouts of flooding in the same place, the CDBG-DR program can help pay for residents to move somewhere else that is less prone to disasters. In both cases, it covers costs that the Federal Emergency Management Agency does not pay for.

    But in 2025, with hurricane season underway, the rules for who gets help and how it’s distributed have changed significantly.

    As an urban planner who has researched disaster recovery efforts, I’m alarmed by Memorandum 2025-02, which HUD published on its website in March 2025.

    The memo changes the rules for nearly US$12 billion in disaster recovery funding approved by Congress for disasters occurring in 2023 and 2024. And HUD is implementing these changes early in the process, before any of this money has been distributed.

    This home in Puerto Rico was destroyed when Hurricane Fiona struck the island in September 2022.
    Ivis Garcia

    What has changed

    The memo does away with the civil rights certifications, fair housing assessments, environmental standards and citizen advisory groups
    that have long been mandatory for the recipients of disaster recovery funds.

    Civil rights certification means that CDBG-DR grantees must verify that disaster aid will be distributed without discrimination based on race, ethnicity, age, disability status, or other characteristics known as “protected classes.” Without this certification, there’s no formal process to ensure disaster aid is distributed fairly.

    Fair housing obligations are assessments of whether middle- and lower-income families, people of color or people with disabilities can find safe, affordable housing without facing any discrimination.

    In addition, HUD no longer requires detailed demographic reporting on who is applying for or receiving aid. This includes information such as gender, race, age, disability status and the language someone speaks.

    Another change is that HUD’s updated disaster recovery guidelines no longer require economic development funds to emphasize people of modest incomes or their communities. Under the new rules, any business hit by a disaster can get recovery funds. It doesn’t matter how much money the owners make, as long as they can show that the disaster affected them.

    And several important environmental protections have been rolled back. HUD previously mandated that disaster recovery projects comply with federal building standards.

    Those codes are tougher than the local housing codes. These included rules for building homes higher off the ground to avoid future flooding and using stronger construction methods to withstand extreme weather events. Without them, new construction may be less durable and less safe – especially in areas hit hard by hurricanes or other natural disasters.

    Strong energy efficiency standards help keep long-term utility costs low and reduce pressure on power grids during extreme weather events. They also make rebuilt homes more sustainable by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

    Tina Brotherton, 88, right, gets help from 9-year-old neighbor Lainey Hamelink as she surveys the wreckage of her business, Tina’s Dockside Inn. It was completely destroyed in Hurricane Idalia, as was Brotherton’s nearby home, in Horseshoe Beach, Fla., in 2023.
    AP Photo/Rebecca Blackwell

    Less coordination and communication

    HUD has also removed a requirement for the nonprofits, local governments and other recipients of CDBG-DR grants to create and convene citizen advisory groups. That change took effect on March 24, 2025.

    These groups, which have long made it easier for local communities to have a say regarding federally funded disaster recovery efforts, have played an important role in making sure those efforts reflect the needs and priorities of local residents – especially those most affected.

    While eliminating this step may make it easier and faster for local governments to spend the recovery funds allocated for their communities, it also means there’s less opportunity for their own communities to influence how those funds are spent. Without that input, recovery efforts fail to resolve the real challenges people are facing.

    Staffing and funding cuts

    The White House’s 2026 budget proposal retains the HUD program that distributes disaster recovery grants while eliminating the related Community Development Block Grant program, which helps people experiencing homelessness and also funds everything from child care to services for older people.

    I’m concerned about how CDBG-DR grants will be distributed, apart from the program’s changes. HUD’s Office of Community Planning and Development, which administers the CDBG-DR program, is slated to lose 84% of its staff, according to widespread media reports published earlier this year.

    The Trump administration is also calling for cutting HUD’s staff, and President Donald Trump’s proposed 2026 budget would cut the agency’s entire budget in half.

    In its March 25 HUD memo, the Trump administration framed these policy changes as a way to streamline recovery efforts and provide greater flexibility in the use of federal disaster funds. The memo also asserted that the changes were needed for compliance with executive orders that banned the use of diversity, equity and inclusion criteria and hiring practices that the administration considers to be discrimintory.

    But critics of the policy rollbacks, including the National Low Income Housing Coalition, which advocates affordable housing, worry that removing long-standing safeguards could weaken the CDBG-DR program’s core mission of equitably distributing aid and building resilient communities. The standards and community input systems HUD has abandoned, the coalition says, have historically helped ensure that disaster recovery funds reach the people who need them most.

    Ivis García does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Low-income homeowners hit by disasters may get less help from the government, as Trump administration nixes rules on fairness, community input and resilience – https://theconversation.com/low-income-homeowners-hit-by-disasters-may-get-less-help-from-the-government-as-trump-administration-nixes-rules-on-fairness-community-input-and-resilience-257439

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-Evening Report: 15 months after ‘flour massacre’ shock, Israel commits daily Gaza food aid killings

    BEARING WITNESS: By Cole Martin in occupied Bethlehem

    Kia ora koutou, 

    I’m a Kiwi journo in occupied Bethlehem, here’s a brief summary of today’s events across the Palestinian and Israeli territories from on the ground.

    At least 16 killed by Israeli airstrike on al-Shati refugee camp in northern Gaza. 92 killed across Gaza in total, a significant number while seeking aid. 15 months after the shocking “flour massacre”, Israeli forces are now committing daily massacres against Gazan residents desperately seeking food due to Israel’s policy of forced starvation. These ongoing war crimes have been met with indifference, justification, and ongoing impunity from global leaders.

    *

    Jerusalem’s Old City markets remain closed for the seventh consecutive day after restrictions were imposed under the pretext of “wartime emergency”. Meanwhile, across the besieged West Bank the occupation forces continue demolishing homes in Tulkarm and Jenin refugee camps, where more than 40,000 residents have been displaced by Israel’s months-long “military operation”.

    Israeli soldiers occupying houses south of Jenin as military barracks, embedding themselves among Palestinian civilians as they have for several days in Al Khalil/Hebron.

    Around two-dozen young men detained in Asakra village south-east of Bethlehem, and several more in Laban village, south of Nablus. A young man, Moataz, 22, was executed by Israeli forces in his home village of Wolja west of Bethlehem. Movement of ambulances has been affected by gasoline shortages in Bethlehem. Forces invaded Plata camp in East Nablus for the second day in a row.

    *

    Israel bombed the outskirts of Shabaa town, in southern Lebanon, yet another violation of ceasefire agreements.

    *

    An Iranian missile hit Beersheba’s Soroka hospital in southern Israel last night, with no resulting casualties — Iran claiming it targeted a nearby military site. Outrage at the war crime has highlighted widespread double-standards across Israeli society and globally. Israeli forces have destroyed, bombed, or damaged 38 hospitals in Gaza over their 20-month genocidal war on the enclave, with the World Health Organisation recording around 700 attacks on Gazan healthcare facilities in that same period. Israeli residents have erected tents, transforming an underground parking lot into a bomb shelter.

    *

    Several more retaliatory volleys of Iranian missiles targeted the Israeli territories throughout the day, as heavy Israeli assaults continued on Iranian territories. Israel’s reported death toll has risen to 24, with Iran’s rising to 639.

    Cole Martin is an independent New Zealand photojournalist based in the Middle East and a contributor to Asia Pacific Report.

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-Evening Report: Mark Brown: Cook Islands ‘not consulted’ on NZ-China agreements

    By Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific journalist

    Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown has suggested a double standard, saying he was “not privy to or consulted on” agreements New Zealand may enter into with China.

    New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters has paused $18.2 million in development assistance to the Cook Islands due to a lack of consultation regarding a partnership agreement and other deals signed with Beijing earlier this year.

    The pause includes $10 million in core sector support, which Brown told parliament this week represents four percent of the country’s budget.

    “[This] has been a consistent component of the Cook Islands budget as part of New Zealand’s contribution, and it is targeted, and has always been targeted, towards the sectors of health, education, and tourism.”

    Brown said he was surprised by the timing of the announcement.

    “Especially Mr Speaker in light of the fact our officials have been in discussions with New Zealand officials to address the areas of concern that they have over our engagements in the agreements that we signed with China.”

    Peters said the Cook Islands government was informed of the funding pause on June 4. He also said it had nothing to do with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon being in China.

    Ensured good outcomes
    Brown said he was sure Luxon could ensure good outcomes for the people of the realm of New Zealand on the back of the Cook Islands state visit and “the goodwill that we’ve generated with the People’s Republic of China”.

    “I have full trust that Prime Minister Luxon has entered into agreements with China that will pose no security threats to the people of the Cook Islands,” he said.

    “Of course, not being privy to or not being consulted on any agreements that New Zealand may enter into with China.”

    The Cook Islands is in free association with New Zealand and governs its own affairs. But New Zealand provides assistance with foreign affairs (upon request), disaster relief, and defence.

    The 2001 Joint Centenary Declaration signed between the two nations requires them to consult each other on defence and security, which Winston Peters said had not been lived up to.

    In a statement on Thursday, the Cook Islands Foreign Affairs and Immigration Ministry said there was a breakdown in the interpretation of the 2001 Joint Centenary Declaration.

    The spokesperson said repairing the relationship requires dialogue where both countries are prepared to consider each other’s concerns.

    ‘Beg forgiveness’
    Former Cook Islands deputy prime minister and prominent lawyer Norman George said Brown “should go on his knees and beg for forgiveness because you can’t rely on China”.

    “[The aid pause] is absolutely a fair thing to do because our Prime Minister betrayed New Zealand and let the government and people of New Zealand down.”

    But not everyone agrees. Rarotongan artist Tim Buchanan said Peters is being a bully.

    “It’s like he’s taken a page out of Donald Trump’s playbook using money to coerce his friends,” Buchanan said.

    “What is it exactly do you want from us Winston? What do you expect us to be doing to appease you?”

    Buchanan said it had been a long road for the Cook Islands to get where it was now, and it seemed New Zealand wanted to knock the country back down.

    Brown did not provide an interview to RNZ Pacific on Thursday but is expected to give an update in Parliament.

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-Evening Report: Mark Brown: Cook Islands ‘not consulted’ on NZ-China agreements

    By Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific journalist

    Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown has suggested a double standard, saying he was “not privy to or consulted on” agreements New Zealand may enter into with China.

    New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters has paused $18.2 million in development assistance to the Cook Islands due to a lack of consultation regarding a partnership agreement and other deals signed with Beijing earlier this year.

    The pause includes $10 million in core sector support, which Brown told parliament this week represents four percent of the country’s budget.

    “[This] has been a consistent component of the Cook Islands budget as part of New Zealand’s contribution, and it is targeted, and has always been targeted, towards the sectors of health, education, and tourism.”

    Brown said he was surprised by the timing of the announcement.

    “Especially Mr Speaker in light of the fact our officials have been in discussions with New Zealand officials to address the areas of concern that they have over our engagements in the agreements that we signed with China.”

    Peters said the Cook Islands government was informed of the funding pause on June 4. He also said it had nothing to do with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon being in China.

    Ensured good outcomes
    Brown said he was sure Luxon could ensure good outcomes for the people of the realm of New Zealand on the back of the Cook Islands state visit and “the goodwill that we’ve generated with the People’s Republic of China”.

    “I have full trust that Prime Minister Luxon has entered into agreements with China that will pose no security threats to the people of the Cook Islands,” he said.

    “Of course, not being privy to or not being consulted on any agreements that New Zealand may enter into with China.”

    The Cook Islands is in free association with New Zealand and governs its own affairs. But New Zealand provides assistance with foreign affairs (upon request), disaster relief, and defence.

    The 2001 Joint Centenary Declaration signed between the two nations requires them to consult each other on defence and security, which Winston Peters said had not been lived up to.

    In a statement on Thursday, the Cook Islands Foreign Affairs and Immigration Ministry said there was a breakdown in the interpretation of the 2001 Joint Centenary Declaration.

    The spokesperson said repairing the relationship requires dialogue where both countries are prepared to consider each other’s concerns.

    ‘Beg forgiveness’
    Former Cook Islands deputy prime minister and prominent lawyer Norman George said Brown “should go on his knees and beg for forgiveness because you can’t rely on China”.

    “[The aid pause] is absolutely a fair thing to do because our Prime Minister betrayed New Zealand and let the government and people of New Zealand down.”

    But not everyone agrees. Rarotongan artist Tim Buchanan said Peters is being a bully.

    “It’s like he’s taken a page out of Donald Trump’s playbook using money to coerce his friends,” Buchanan said.

    “What is it exactly do you want from us Winston? What do you expect us to be doing to appease you?”

    Buchanan said it had been a long road for the Cook Islands to get where it was now, and it seemed New Zealand wanted to knock the country back down.

    Brown did not provide an interview to RNZ Pacific on Thursday but is expected to give an update in Parliament.

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI Global: Who are Iran’s allies? And would any help if the US joins Israel in its war?

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

    As Israel continues its attacks on Iran, US President Donald Trump and other global leaders are hardening their stance against the Islamic Republic.

    While considering a US attack on Iran’s nuclear sites, Trump has threatened Iran’s supreme leader, claiming to know his location and calling him “an easy target”. He has demanded “unconditional surrender” from Iran.

    Meanwhile, countries such as Germany, Canada, the UK and Australia have toughened their rhetoric, demanding Iran fully abandon its nuclear program.

    So, as the pressure mounts on Iran, has it been left to fight alone? Or does it have allies that could come to its aid?

    Has Iran’s ‘axis of resistance’ fully collapsed?

    Iran has long relied on a network of allied paramilitary groups across the Middle East as part of its deterrence strategy. This approach has largely shielded it from direct military strikes by the US or Israel, despite constant threats and pressure.

    This so-called “axis of resistance” includes groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF) in Iraq, the Houthi militants in Yemen, as well as Hamas in Gaza, which has long been under Iran’s influence to varying degrees. Iran also supported Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria before it was toppled last year.

    These groups have served both as a regional buffer and as a means for Iran to project power without direct engagement.

    However, over the past two years, Israel has dealt significant blows to the network.

    Hezbollah — once Iran’s most powerful non-state ally — has been effectively neutralised after months of attacks by Israel. Its weapons stocks were systematically targeted and destroyed across Lebanon. And the group suffered a major psychological and strategic loss with the assassination of its most influential leader, Hassan Nasrallah.

    In Syria, Iranian-backed militias have been largely expelled following the fall of Assad’s regime, stripping Iran of another key foothold in the region.

    That said, Iran maintains strong influence in Iraq and Yemen.

    The PMF in Iraq, with an estimated 200,000 fighters, remains formidable. The Houthis have similarly sized contingent of fighters in Yemen.

    Should the situation escalate into an existential threat to Iran — as the region’s only Shiite-led state — religious solidarity could drive these groups to become actively involved. This would rapidly expand the war across the region.

    The PMF, for instance, could launch attacks on the 2,500 US troops stationed in Iraq. Indeed, the head of Kata’ib Hezbollah, one of the PMF’s more hardline factions, promised to do so:

    If America dares to intervene in the war, we will directly target its interests and military bases spread across the region without hesitation.

    Iran itself could also target US bases in the Persian Gulf countries with ballistic missiles, as well as close the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20% of the world’s oil supply flows.

    Will Iran’s regional and global allies step in?

    Several regional powers maintain close ties with Iran. The most notable among them is Pakistan — the only Islamic country with a nuclear arsenal.

    For weeks, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has tried to align Iran more closely with Pakistan in countering Israel’s actions in Gaza.

    In a sign of Pakistan’s importance in the Israel-Iran war, Trump has met with the country’s army chief in Washington as he weighs a possible strike on its neighbour.

    Pakistan’s leaders have also made their allegiances very clear. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has offered Iran’s president “unwavering solidarity” in the “face of Israel’s unprovoked aggression”. And Pakistani Defence Minister Khawaja Asif recently said in an interview Israel will “think many times before taking on Pakistan”.

    These statements signal a firm stance without explicitly committing to intervention.

    Yet, Pakistan has also been working to de-escalate tensions. It has urged other Muslim-majority nations and its strategic partner, China, to intervene diplomatically before the violence spirals into a broader regional war.

    In recent years, Iran has also made diplomatic overtures to former regional rivals, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, in order to improve relations.

    These shifts have helped rally broader regional support for Iran. Nearly two dozen Muslim-majority countries — including some that maintain diplomatic relations with Israel — have jointly condemned Israel’s actions and urged de-escalation.

    It’s unlikely, though, that regional powers such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Turkey would support Iran materially, given their strong alliances with the US.

    Iran’s key global allies, Russia and China, have also condemned Israel’s strikes. They have previously shielded Tehran from punitive resolutions at the UN Security Council.

    However, neither power appears willing — at least for now — to escalate the confrontation by providing direct military support to Iran or engaging in a standoff with Israel and the US.

    Theoretically, this could change if the conflict widens and Washington openly pursues a regime change strategy in Tehran. Both nations have major geopolitical and security interests in Iran’s stability. This is due to Iran’s long-standing “Look East” policy and the impact its instability could have on the region and the global economy.

    However, at the current stage, many analysts believe both are unlikely to get involved directly.

    Moscow stayed on the sidelines when Assad’s regime collapsed in Syria, one of Russia’s closest allies in the region. Not only is it focused on its war in Ukraine, Russia also wouldn’t want to endanger improving ties with the Trump administration.

    China has offered Iran strong rhetorical support, but history suggests it has little interest in getting directly involved in Middle Eastern conflicts.

    Ali Mamouri does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Who are Iran’s allies? And would any help if the US joins Israel in its war? – https://theconversation.com/who-are-irans-allies-and-would-any-help-if-the-us-joins-israel-in-its-war-259265

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Who are Iran’s allies? And would any help if the US joins Israel in its war?

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

    As Israel continues its attacks on Iran, US President Donald Trump and other global leaders are hardening their stance against the Islamic Republic.

    While considering a US attack on Iran’s nuclear sites, Trump has threatened Iran’s supreme leader, claiming to know his location and calling him “an easy target”. He has demanded “unconditional surrender” from Iran.

    Meanwhile, countries such as Germany, Canada, the UK and Australia have toughened their rhetoric, demanding Iran fully abandon its nuclear program.

    So, as the pressure mounts on Iran, has it been left to fight alone? Or does it have allies that could come to its aid?

    Has Iran’s ‘axis of resistance’ fully collapsed?

    Iran has long relied on a network of allied paramilitary groups across the Middle East as part of its deterrence strategy. This approach has largely shielded it from direct military strikes by the US or Israel, despite constant threats and pressure.

    This so-called “axis of resistance” includes groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF) in Iraq, the Houthi militants in Yemen, as well as Hamas in Gaza, which has long been under Iran’s influence to varying degrees. Iran also supported Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria before it was toppled last year.

    These groups have served both as a regional buffer and as a means for Iran to project power without direct engagement.

    However, over the past two years, Israel has dealt significant blows to the network.

    Hezbollah — once Iran’s most powerful non-state ally — has been effectively neutralised after months of attacks by Israel. Its weapons stocks were systematically targeted and destroyed across Lebanon. And the group suffered a major psychological and strategic loss with the assassination of its most influential leader, Hassan Nasrallah.

    In Syria, Iranian-backed militias have been largely expelled following the fall of Assad’s regime, stripping Iran of another key foothold in the region.

    That said, Iran maintains strong influence in Iraq and Yemen.

    The PMF in Iraq, with an estimated 200,000 fighters, remains formidable. The Houthis have similarly sized contingent of fighters in Yemen.

    Should the situation escalate into an existential threat to Iran — as the region’s only Shiite-led state — religious solidarity could drive these groups to become actively involved. This would rapidly expand the war across the region.

    The PMF, for instance, could launch attacks on the 2,500 US troops stationed in Iraq. Indeed, the head of Kata’ib Hezbollah, one of the PMF’s more hardline factions, promised to do so:

    If America dares to intervene in the war, we will directly target its interests and military bases spread across the region without hesitation.

    Iran itself could also target US bases in the Persian Gulf countries with ballistic missiles, as well as close the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20% of the world’s oil supply flows.

    Will Iran’s regional and global allies step in?

    Several regional powers maintain close ties with Iran. The most notable among them is Pakistan — the only Islamic country with a nuclear arsenal.

    For weeks, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has tried to align Iran more closely with Pakistan in countering Israel’s actions in Gaza.

    In a sign of Pakistan’s importance in the Israel-Iran war, Trump has met with the country’s army chief in Washington as he weighs a possible strike on its neighbour.

    Pakistan’s leaders have also made their allegiances very clear. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has offered Iran’s president “unwavering solidarity” in the “face of Israel’s unprovoked aggression”. And Pakistani Defence Minister Khawaja Asif recently said in an interview Israel will “think many times before taking on Pakistan”.

    These statements signal a firm stance without explicitly committing to intervention.

    Yet, Pakistan has also been working to de-escalate tensions. It has urged other Muslim-majority nations and its strategic partner, China, to intervene diplomatically before the violence spirals into a broader regional war.

    In recent years, Iran has also made diplomatic overtures to former regional rivals, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, in order to improve relations.

    These shifts have helped rally broader regional support for Iran. Nearly two dozen Muslim-majority countries — including some that maintain diplomatic relations with Israel — have jointly condemned Israel’s actions and urged de-escalation.

    It’s unlikely, though, that regional powers such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Turkey would support Iran materially, given their strong alliances with the US.

    Iran’s key global allies, Russia and China, have also condemned Israel’s strikes. They have previously shielded Tehran from punitive resolutions at the UN Security Council.

    However, neither power appears willing — at least for now — to escalate the confrontation by providing direct military support to Iran or engaging in a standoff with Israel and the US.

    Theoretically, this could change if the conflict widens and Washington openly pursues a regime change strategy in Tehran. Both nations have major geopolitical and security interests in Iran’s stability. This is due to Iran’s long-standing “Look East” policy and the impact its instability could have on the region and the global economy.

    However, at the current stage, many analysts believe both are unlikely to get involved directly.

    Moscow stayed on the sidelines when Assad’s regime collapsed in Syria, one of Russia’s closest allies in the region. Not only is it focused on its war in Ukraine, Russia also wouldn’t want to endanger improving ties with the Trump administration.

    China has offered Iran strong rhetorical support, but history suggests it has little interest in getting directly involved in Middle Eastern conflicts.

    Ali Mamouri does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Who are Iran’s allies? And would any help if the US joins Israel in its war? – https://theconversation.com/who-are-irans-allies-and-would-any-help-if-the-us-joins-israel-in-its-war-259265

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Friday essay: ‘my heart is full of sparks’ – as war escalates, can I hope for Iran’s liberation from a tyrannical regime?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Hessom Razavi, Clinical Associate Professor of Ophthalmology, The University of Western Australia

    We are at a dinner party in suburban Perth, a home away from home for our diaspora. As guests arrive, a Persian ballad plays in the background: Morq-e Sahar (Dawn Bird), a freedom song, a century-old protest against dictatorships and tyranny in Iran. This version was sung by the late Mohammad-Reza Shajarian, Iran’s most decorated maestro.

    Dawn bird, lament!
    Make my brand burn even more.
    With the sparks from your sigh, break
    And turn this cage upside down.

    Shajarian’s virtuoso voice frames an old question. One I’ve heard, it seems, at every Iranian gathering since my childhood. It hangs in the air like a cloud, unanswered, as guests greet each other with customary bowing and rooboosi (cheek kissing). We settle around a table laden with âjil (trail mix), fruit and wine, the smell of saffron rice and ghorme sabzi (herb stew) all around.

    For me, the scene is both familial and familiar. As is the question, which circles back around. “When will this regime change?” someone asks. The “regime” is Nezâm-e Jomhuri-ye Eslâmi-ye Irân, or the Regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

    A missing voice

    Since the launch of Israel’s Operation Rising Lion against Iran last week, there has been a voice sometimes missing in the mainstream coverage – that of the Iranian people themselves.

    “Israel is not our enemy, the regime is our enemy,” chant many Iranians in Tehran and in the diaspora, a common sentiment in our community. They cite the regime that they have endured for 46 years since the 1979 Islamic Revolution: a government most of them oppose and reject, with the vast majority of Iranians preferring democratic, if not secular, reform.

    I hear some Iranians, on social media and in conversation with people who live there, commending Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu for assassinating Iran’s top military brass. These are the leaders of the Sepah, or the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), the most powerful branch of the Iranian Armed Forces. Together with the mullahs – Iran’s Shia Muslim clerical class – they form the backbone of Iran’s government and economy.

    So far, Israel has assassinated Hossein Salami, the head of the Revolutionary Guards, as well as Mohammad Kazemi, its intelligence chief, plus senior nuclear scientists and dozens of other officers. Israel has also indicated an interest in killing Ayatollah Ali Khomenei, Iran’s supreme leader.

    Damet garm, aghayeh Netanyahu,” some Iranians are saying, literally “may your breath be warm”, or “good job, Netanyahu”. Amid the terror and confusion – not to mention the civilian deaths, so far, of over 200 Iranians – there is a rare and distinct sense of hope.

    State of corruption

    In view of Israel’s ongoing campaign in Gaza, this support for Israel may come as a surprise to many Australians, and Western liberals in general. Certainly, reconciling Israel’s role in Gaza versus Iran is jarring.

    But for now, I hear some Iranians saying “maybe our regime can finally be toppled”. Maybe Iran can reclaim its place in the international community, as the proud and prosperous nation it should be? As this crisis escalates, as buildings collapse and distressed Tehranis, including my family, flee the capital for the safety of the countryside, there is a heady sense of possibility.

    Wing-tied nightingale come out of the corner of your cage, and
    Sing the song of freedom for human kind.
    With your fiery breath ignite,
    The breath of this peopled land …

    I understand the allure of this hope; to an extent, I feel it myself. My family lives in Australia, not Iran, precisely because of the Iranian regime’s tyranny. We fled Iran in 1983 due to political persecution, after most of the adults in our extended family were arbitrarily arrested and imprisoned by the government.

    Two of my imprisoned uncles and one of my aunties were executed. Another uncle was beaten to death in custody. My grandfather, a noble old man, was imprisoned and tortured. We were far from unique; during the 1980s, the government imprisoned tens of thousands of its own people, executing many thousands of them.

    Little has changed since then. The Iranian regime and the Revolutionary Guards have shown a pervasive disregard for human rights. They execute more of their own people than any country except China. They are a world leader in the use of torture; they deny freedoms of expression and press, association and assembly; they discriminate against women, girls, religious minorities, LGBTI people, and refugees. Tightly controlled elections ensure the success of desired candidates.

    Freedom House, a nonprofit organisation based in the US, gives Iran a score of 11 out of 100 for its provision of political rights and civil liberties. For many Iranians, it felt overdue when, in 2019, the US listed the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organisation, a decision followed by other countries, including Canada and Sweden. In 2023, the European parliament overwhelmingly voted for a resolution to do the same, with calls to expedite this motion in early 2025.

    In parallel to their human rights abuses, the Revolutionary Guard has hobbled the Iranian economy. Their corruption, financial incompetence and operation of black markets have compounded the effects of international sanctions. Consequently, the Iranian rial hit a historic low this year. It is now worth around one twentieth of its value in 2015.

    People’s life savings have dwindled in value, rendering older Iranians financially vulnerable. Inflation was 38.7% in May of this year, down from highs of over 40%. My family in Iran experience this as grocery and commodity prices that may rise in a single day, higher in the afternoon than in the morning. Some cities have experienced water cuts and power outages.

    While it hasn’t yet qualified as a failed state, Iran has been failing.

    All of this has occurred despite the country being richly endowed with the second- and third-highest natural gas and oil reserves in the world, respectively. Iran has a GDP of over $US404 billion – 36th in the world. Its youth are highly educated and literate, with more women enrolled in universities than men.

    Rather than accelerating the nation’s domestic development, however, the Iranian government has by its own admission spent tens of billions of dollars to expand its empire by funding terrorist proxies: Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the recently deposed Assad regime in Syria, and Houthi rebels in Yemen.

    The Iranian people have suffered financially, but the Revolutionary Guards have not. They are estimated to control at least 10%, and up to 50%, of the country’s total economy, including up to an estimated 50% share of Iran’s US$50 billion per year oil profits. They have achieved this by commandeering an industrial empire, made up of hundreds of commercial companies, trusts, subsidiaries and nominally charitable foundations.

    A further US$2 billion or more per year comes from the government’s military budget, with periodic boosts during crises. Add to this the alleged shadowy operation of black markets, extortion, and the smuggling of alcohol, narcotics and weapons, accounting for an estimated US$12 billion per year in revenue.

    Contemplating this corruption, I am reminded of an anecdote from a personal associate who worked for a firm affiliated with the Revolutionary Guard. They shared stories of officers, the nation’s purported “guardians of Islam”, hosting parties where alcohol, firearms and sex workers were readily available.

    My associate recounted several instances of fraud and theft, one of them monumental in scale. In this “tea smuggling scandal”, the Revolutionary Guard defrauded billions of dollars from a government fund by illicitly exchanging some funds on the open market, falsely labelling cheap tea to on-sell as superior quality tea, and falsely labelling domestically produced machinery as “Made in Germany”.

    “They’re untouchable, and they know it”, my associate said. Another Iranian community member described them to me as “Iran’s super-mafia”.

    Speaking to family in Iran, they say many of the middle tier Revolutionary Guards live in their own shahrak-ha (towns) with dedicated markets, schools and resorts. Many of the Guards’ elite, meanwhile, live in mansions in the exclusive parts of north Tehran, with children who pursue conspicuously American “lifestyles of the rich and famous”. For an organisation that leads the chants of “marg bar America!” (death to America), one wonders if they see the irony in this.

    Turn our dark night to dawn

    I find myself sickened by the events of this war, and the harm it is causing. Struck with anxiety, some of our family members in Tehran haven’t slept for days. “The Israeli bombardments are non-stop, and so loud,” one family member told me.

    This week our extended family has struggled frantically to leave Tehran. Petrol is hard to come by and, in a mass exodus, the bumper-to-bumper traffic stands still for hours. I know some of the neighbourhoods being bombed; we lived in one of them in my childhood.

    “For every military commander that’s assassinated, a whole building might collapse, and with a dozen civilians trapped or killed,” another person told me, intimating that the civilian toll is higher than official counts.

    I am also worried about the raised hopes of Iranians. I have seen this before, when a spark – sometimes an inspirational act of courage from an ordinary citizen – leads to public surges in solidarity. At these moments during my childhood, my parents would tell me that the regime’s time was limited, it’s downfall inevitable. Iranians would see better days and people power would prevail.

    Truth and goodness rise like cream, my Dad would say, as if echoing Dr Martin Luther King’s arc of the moral universe bending towards justice.

    A beautiful sentiment no doubt, but one that has become difficult to believe over time. It often appears that the universe’s arc bends towards power, not justice. Fairness seems the exception, hardly the rule. At the time, Dad’s reassurances were protective, even noble. But as the 1979 revolution and its aftermath have shown, might beats right most days of the week.

    The cruelty of the cruel and the tyranny of the hunter
    Have blown away my nest.
    O God, O Heavens, O Nature,
    Turn our dark night to dawn.

    As I explain to Australian friends: how can a people surpass a government that has (1) the military on its side, (2) a stranglehold on oil revenue, and (3) a purported mandate from God?

    Guns, money and a holy book – a hard trifecta to crack, and powerful enough to attract a sufficient minority of cronies, bottom feeders and sycophants.

    What’s the size of this ruling minority? It’s difficult to be sure, but a 2023 survey of 158,000 respondents within Iran found that only 15% supported the Islamic Republic. Small, but sufficient to produce crowds burning American and Israeli flags. I’ve always marvelled at the regime’s ability to manufacture these images; I’m told by associates that they now use AI to produce some of these.

    Women Life Freedom

    As current events unfold, I find myself deeply sceptical of all the political actors, whether Iranian, Israeli, American, Arab or Russian. Since the Islamic revolution in 1979, none of them have shown any serious interest in supporting democratic reform in Iran. “They’ve all profited from this government,” a senior community member told me. “Why would that change now?”

    For the sake of sanity, I find myself searching for credible sources of hope. The only one I settle on is faith in the Iranian people themselves. This the culture that has surrounded me since childhood, the qualities I’ve seen first hand in my countrywomen and men, whether young or old, home or abroad, Muslim, Bahai or secular: a resilience, a resourcefulness, a propensity for joy, a confidence and pride in culture, and an ability to prevail, over and again.

    It’s a new spring, roses are in bloom…
    …O rose, look towards this lover,
    Look again, again, again.

    These qualities are periodically staged for the world to see. Iranian people have not taken their oppression lying down, rising in (mainly) peaceful protests. There have been some 10 mass protests since the inception of the Islamic Republic in 1979. The largest of these was the Green Movement in 2009, when it was estimated that over a million citizens marched in Tehran alone. As recently as May 2025, strikes took place in over 150 cities, involving hundreds of thousands of workers.

    For the most part, these demonstrations have been met with severe repression by state authorities. One episode, from September 2022, deserves special mention. The world watched in horror as the regime cracked down on young women in Iran. This was their response to the Zan Zendegi Azadi (Woman Life Freedom) movement, where mass protests were triggered by the death in custody of Mahsa Jina Amini.

    Amini was a 22-year-old Kurdish-Iranian woman who had been detained by the government’s “Morality Police” for wearing an improper hijab. Three days into her detention she died under suspicious circumstances. A leaked CT scan showed a skull fracture and brain haemorrhage. This corroborated eyewitness accounts that Amini had been severely beaten by police.

    Intentionally or not, a dress code infringement had been punished by death. Even for Iranians long accustomed to state violence, this was too much. Mass protests erupted in more than 100 cities across all of Iran’s 31 provinces.

    The protests were led by women, many of them defiantly removing their headscarves. True to its nature, the regime responded violently. In the months that followed, over 20,000 protesters were imprisoned, many later testifying to having been tortured through electric shock, flogging, waterboarding and rape.

    Human Rights Watch estimates that over 500 civilians – including 68 children and adolescents – were killed by security forces, which included the paramilitary Basijis, Revolutionary Guard Corps, police and prison guards.

    Things would get darker. That December the regime was accused of deliberately poisoning over 1,200 students at Kharazmi and Ark universities on the eve of a planned protest. Soon thereafter, there were allegations of toxic gas attacks against thousands of schoolgirls, in apparent retaliation for removing their hijabs. By 2024, the UN had accused Iran of a coordinated campaign of crimes against humanity, a claim rejected by the regime.

    As an eye surgeon, I was distressed to read a letter signed by over 100 Iranian ophthalmologists detailing eye injuries among protesters. The letter alleged that security forces had deliberately targeted people’s eyes with teargas canisters, rubber bullets and shotgun fire, resulting in traumatic injuries and irreversible blindness among protesters.

    Dew drops are falling from my cloudy eyes
    This cage, like my heart, is narrow and dark.
    O fiery sigh set alight this cage
    O fate, do not pick the flower of my life.

    There were separate reports of women’s faces and genitals being targeted by shotgun fire. The regime appeared to have interfered with medical services: protestors transported to police stations in ambulances were arrested after surgery or denied treatment. Doctors were reportedly coerced to supply false death certificates to disguise the true cause of protestors’ deaths. The British Medical Journal documented healthcare professionals being arrested, intimidated, kidnapped or killed in retaliation for treating protesters.

    If we didn’t know it already, Zan Zendegi Azadi reminded us of the risks, if not futility, of advocating for change in Iran.

    When mass civil movements like this, performed ten times over, have not worked, what alternatives are the people left with? Brutalised and impoverished by their own government, should we be surprised when a traditionally Islamic people welcome a Jewish state’s decapitation of their political leaders? Is it not tempting, even if lazy, to invoke the historical comparison of Cyrus the Great, Persian King of the Achaemenid Empire, who freed the Jewish people from Babylonian captivity?

    For the people of Iran and Israel – at the risk of naivety and romanticism – are we approaching an age of karma?

    O rose, look towards this lover,
    Look again, again, again.
    O heart-lost bird, shorten, shorten, shorten,
    The tale of separation.

    An uncertain scenario

    Regarding Operation Rising Lion, it is safe to say that Iranians, like any healthy community, hold a diversity of views.

    At one end of the spectrum, those who unconditionally condemn Israel’s attack should consider that the Iranian government has stockpiled over 400 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium. While not enough to build a nuclear warhead, this is far more enriched uranium than is needed for peaceful purposes.

    The Iranian government has also vowed to “wipe Israel off the map” for decades. Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei lauded the October 7 terrorist attack by Hamas on Israeli civilians. In other words, Iran has said to Israel “we want to annihilate you, we’ll celebrate your deaths, and we could do it with nuclear weapons if we wished to”.

    Following Iran’s recent breach of its nonproliferation obligations to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Israel says it has acted lawfully in attacking Iran for self-defense – a claim disputed by some international law experts. Even if one does not agree with Israel’s action, it is evident that they’ve long been baited by Iran.

    On the other side of the coin, Iranians who salute Israel and the US as their saviours should take caution. The US director of national intelligence Tulsi Gabbard declared as recently as March 2025 that there was no evidence that Iran was actively pursuing nuclear weapons, a finding corroborated by over a dozen other US intelligence elements including the CIA, the National Security Agency, and the Insitute for Defense Analyses.

    One cannot ignore the disturbing echoes of the 2003 war on Iraq, where the absence of evidence for weapons of mass destruction was intentionally misrepresented by the US and UK governments. The consequences for Iraq have been disastrous.

    As for Netanyahu and his administration, they have shown a ruthless pursuit of narrow self-interest in Gaza. The deaths and injuries inflicted by the Israeli Defence Forces on more than 50,000 Palestinian children appear to have done nothing to quell their ambitions.

    With regards to Netanyahu himself, he is facing corruption charges that could result in his domestic imprisonment and he has more recently been the subject of an arrest warrant by the International Criminal Court for war crimes, including starvation and murder.

    What can Iranians learn from this? The evidence suggests this could be a war of passion and opportunism for Israel, rather than one of legitimate self-defence. In any case, they are not waging it for the benefit of Iranians.

    Israel has a tendency to set ambitious military goals that it can’t achieve. While it promises Operation Rising Lion will soon end, its track record suggests otherwise.

    A protracted conflict would see Iran’s civilian toll rise much higher. Power outages and fuel shortages have already begun; what happens once water, medical and food scarcity set in? Since Iran doesn’t allow many international aid agencies onto its soil, who will come to the rescue of Iranians as things escalate?

    Truth’s life has come to an end
    Faith and fidelity have been replaced by the shield of war.
    Lover’s lament and beloved’s coyness,
    Are but lies and have no power.

    Even if Israel succeeds in capturing or killing Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, what happens next? With the Revolutionary Guard’s roots in place, there is no guarantee, and in fact a low likelihood, of true democratic reform. In recent times, foreign interference in the region has not gone well. Look at Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria: all evidence of catastrophic worsening after the removal of autocrats.

    This is a complex and uncertain scenario with little room for moral grandstanding. Disabling Iran’s nuclear and ballistic capabilities could be a net win, but the manner in which it is being done sets a dangerous precedent. For the Iranian people, Netanyahu’s ambitions could ultimately prove both heroic and villainous.

    The cup of the rich is full of pure wine,
    Our cup is filled with our heart’s blood.
    O anxious heart, cry out aloud
    And avoid those who have powerful hands.

    As I watch coverage of the war, I find myself drifting back to Shajarian’s voice and to Morq-e Sahar, probably for distraction and comfort. What is real is my faith in my fellow Iranians. Many examples comes to mind. One, during a trip to Iran, was when I stayed with family at a roadhouse. That evening, we heard music emanating from the courtyard and followed some steps into an dark basement beneath the accommodation.

    There we found a large gathering of young Iranians, two dozen or more men and women risking the law by hanging out together to sing. We joined them as strangers, seated on the floor and holding hands at times. In the dim light, the group sang and sang, a couple of them playing instruments.

    I can’t say I knew the songs or comprehended all the lyrics; I didn’t need to, to understand their meaning. You may force our people underground, you may cage them, bombard and even kill them. But you will never extinguish their eternal Persian spirit.

    O rosy-cheeked cup-bearer, give the fiery water,
    Play a joyful tune, O charming friend.
    O sad nightingale lament from your cage.
    Because of your grief my heart is
    Full of sparks, sparks, sparks.

    Hessom Razavi does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Friday essay: ‘my heart is full of sparks’ – as war escalates, can I hope for Iran’s liberation from a tyrannical regime? – https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-my-heart-is-full-of-sparks-as-war-escalates-can-i-hope-for-irans-liberation-from-a-tyrannical-regime-259275

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Friday essay: ‘my heart is full of sparks’ – as war escalates, can I hope for Iran’s liberation from a tyrannical regime?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Hessom Razavi, Clinical Associate Professor of Ophthalmology, The University of Western Australia

    We are at a dinner party in suburban Perth, a home away from home for our diaspora. As guests arrive, a Persian ballad plays in the background: Morq-e Sahar (Dawn Bird), a freedom song, a century-old protest against dictatorships and tyranny in Iran. This version was sung by the late Mohammad-Reza Shajarian, Iran’s most decorated maestro.

    Dawn bird, lament!
    Make my brand burn even more.
    With the sparks from your sigh, break
    And turn this cage upside down.

    Shajarian’s virtuoso voice frames an old question. One I’ve heard, it seems, at every Iranian gathering since my childhood. It hangs in the air like a cloud, unanswered, as guests greet each other with customary bowing and rooboosi (cheek kissing). We settle around a table laden with âjil (trail mix), fruit and wine, the smell of saffron rice and ghorme sabzi (herb stew) all around.

    For me, the scene is both familial and familiar. As is the question, which circles back around. “When will this regime change?” someone asks. The “regime” is Nezâm-e Jomhuri-ye Eslâmi-ye Irân, or the Regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

    A missing voice

    Since the launch of Israel’s Operation Rising Lion against Iran last week, there has been a voice sometimes missing in the mainstream coverage – that of the Iranian people themselves.

    “Israel is not our enemy, the regime is our enemy,” chant many Iranians in Tehran and in the diaspora, a common sentiment in our community. They cite the regime that they have endured for 46 years since the 1979 Islamic Revolution: a government most of them oppose and reject, with the vast majority of Iranians preferring democratic, if not secular, reform.

    I hear some Iranians, on social media and in conversation with people who live there, commending Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu for assassinating Iran’s top military brass. These are the leaders of the Sepah, or the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), the most powerful branch of the Iranian Armed Forces. Together with the mullahs – Iran’s Shia Muslim clerical class – they form the backbone of Iran’s government and economy.

    So far, Israel has assassinated Hossein Salami, the head of the Revolutionary Guards, as well as Mohammad Kazemi, its intelligence chief, plus senior nuclear scientists and dozens of other officers. Israel has also indicated an interest in killing Ayatollah Ali Khomenei, Iran’s supreme leader.

    Damet garm, aghayeh Netanyahu,” some Iranians are saying, literally “may your breath be warm”, or “good job, Netanyahu”. Amid the terror and confusion – not to mention the civilian deaths, so far, of over 200 Iranians – there is a rare and distinct sense of hope.

    State of corruption

    In view of Israel’s ongoing campaign in Gaza, this support for Israel may come as a surprise to many Australians, and Western liberals in general. Certainly, reconciling Israel’s role in Gaza versus Iran is jarring.

    But for now, I hear some Iranians saying “maybe our regime can finally be toppled”. Maybe Iran can reclaim its place in the international community, as the proud and prosperous nation it should be? As this crisis escalates, as buildings collapse and distressed Tehranis, including my family, flee the capital for the safety of the countryside, there is a heady sense of possibility.

    Wing-tied nightingale come out of the corner of your cage, and
    Sing the song of freedom for human kind.
    With your fiery breath ignite,
    The breath of this peopled land …

    I understand the allure of this hope; to an extent, I feel it myself. My family lives in Australia, not Iran, precisely because of the Iranian regime’s tyranny. We fled Iran in 1983 due to political persecution, after most of the adults in our extended family were arbitrarily arrested and imprisoned by the government.

    Two of my imprisoned uncles and one of my aunties were executed. Another uncle was beaten to death in custody. My grandfather, a noble old man, was imprisoned and tortured. We were far from unique; during the 1980s, the government imprisoned tens of thousands of its own people, executing many thousands of them.

    Little has changed since then. The Iranian regime and the Revolutionary Guards have shown a pervasive disregard for human rights. They execute more of their own people than any country except China. They are a world leader in the use of torture; they deny freedoms of expression and press, association and assembly; they discriminate against women, girls, religious minorities, LGBTI people, and refugees. Tightly controlled elections ensure the success of desired candidates.

    Freedom House, a nonprofit organisation based in the US, gives Iran a score of 11 out of 100 for its provision of political rights and civil liberties. For many Iranians, it felt overdue when, in 2019, the US listed the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organisation, a decision followed by other countries, including Canada and Sweden. In 2023, the European parliament overwhelmingly voted for a resolution to do the same, with calls to expedite this motion in early 2025.

    In parallel to their human rights abuses, the Revolutionary Guard has hobbled the Iranian economy. Their corruption, financial incompetence and operation of black markets have compounded the effects of international sanctions. Consequently, the Iranian rial hit a historic low this year. It is now worth around one twentieth of its value in 2015.

    People’s life savings have dwindled in value, rendering older Iranians financially vulnerable. Inflation was 38.7% in May of this year, down from highs of over 40%. My family in Iran experience this as grocery and commodity prices that may rise in a single day, higher in the afternoon than in the morning. Some cities have experienced water cuts and power outages.

    While it hasn’t yet qualified as a failed state, Iran has been failing.

    All of this has occurred despite the country being richly endowed with the second- and third-highest natural gas and oil reserves in the world, respectively. Iran has a GDP of over $US404 billion – 36th in the world. Its youth are highly educated and literate, with more women enrolled in universities than men.

    Rather than accelerating the nation’s domestic development, however, the Iranian government has by its own admission spent tens of billions of dollars to expand its empire by funding terrorist proxies: Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the recently deposed Assad regime in Syria, and Houthi rebels in Yemen.

    The Iranian people have suffered financially, but the Revolutionary Guards have not. They are estimated to control at least 10%, and up to 50%, of the country’s total economy, including up to an estimated 50% share of Iran’s US$50 billion per year oil profits. They have achieved this by commandeering an industrial empire, made up of hundreds of commercial companies, trusts, subsidiaries and nominally charitable foundations.

    A further US$2 billion or more per year comes from the government’s military budget, with periodic boosts during crises. Add to this the alleged shadowy operation of black markets, extortion, and the smuggling of alcohol, narcotics and weapons, accounting for an estimated US$12 billion per year in revenue.

    Contemplating this corruption, I am reminded of an anecdote from a personal associate who worked for a firm affiliated with the Revolutionary Guard. They shared stories of officers, the nation’s purported “guardians of Islam”, hosting parties where alcohol, firearms and sex workers were readily available.

    My associate recounted several instances of fraud and theft, one of them monumental in scale. In this “tea smuggling scandal”, the Revolutionary Guard defrauded billions of dollars from a government fund by illicitly exchanging some funds on the open market, falsely labelling cheap tea to on-sell as superior quality tea, and falsely labelling domestically produced machinery as “Made in Germany”.

    “They’re untouchable, and they know it”, my associate said. Another Iranian community member described them to me as “Iran’s super-mafia”.

    Speaking to family in Iran, they say many of the middle tier Revolutionary Guards live in their own shahrak-ha (towns) with dedicated markets, schools and resorts. Many of the Guards’ elite, meanwhile, live in mansions in the exclusive parts of north Tehran, with children who pursue conspicuously American “lifestyles of the rich and famous”. For an organisation that leads the chants of “marg bar America!” (death to America), one wonders if they see the irony in this.

    Turn our dark night to dawn

    I find myself sickened by the events of this war, and the harm it is causing. Struck with anxiety, some of our family members in Tehran haven’t slept for days. “The Israeli bombardments are non-stop, and so loud,” one family member told me.

    This week our extended family has struggled frantically to leave Tehran. Petrol is hard to come by and, in a mass exodus, the bumper-to-bumper traffic stands still for hours. I know some of the neighbourhoods being bombed; we lived in one of them in my childhood.

    “For every military commander that’s assassinated, a whole building might collapse, and with a dozen civilians trapped or killed,” another person told me, intimating that the civilian toll is higher than official counts.

    I am also worried about the raised hopes of Iranians. I have seen this before, when a spark – sometimes an inspirational act of courage from an ordinary citizen – leads to public surges in solidarity. At these moments during my childhood, my parents would tell me that the regime’s time was limited, it’s downfall inevitable. Iranians would see better days and people power would prevail.

    Truth and goodness rise like cream, my Dad would say, as if echoing Dr Martin Luther King’s arc of the moral universe bending towards justice.

    A beautiful sentiment no doubt, but one that has become difficult to believe over time. It often appears that the universe’s arc bends towards power, not justice. Fairness seems the exception, hardly the rule. At the time, Dad’s reassurances were protective, even noble. But as the 1979 revolution and its aftermath have shown, might beats right most days of the week.

    The cruelty of the cruel and the tyranny of the hunter
    Have blown away my nest.
    O God, O Heavens, O Nature,
    Turn our dark night to dawn.

    As I explain to Australian friends: how can a people surpass a government that has (1) the military on its side, (2) a stranglehold on oil revenue, and (3) a purported mandate from God?

    Guns, money and a holy book – a hard trifecta to crack, and powerful enough to attract a sufficient minority of cronies, bottom feeders and sycophants.

    What’s the size of this ruling minority? It’s difficult to be sure, but a 2023 survey of 158,000 respondents within Iran found that only 15% supported the Islamic Republic. Small, but sufficient to produce crowds burning American and Israeli flags. I’ve always marvelled at the regime’s ability to manufacture these images; I’m told by associates that they now use AI to produce some of these.

    Women Life Freedom

    As current events unfold, I find myself deeply sceptical of all the political actors, whether Iranian, Israeli, American, Arab or Russian. Since the Islamic revolution in 1979, none of them have shown any serious interest in supporting democratic reform in Iran. “They’ve all profited from this government,” a senior community member told me. “Why would that change now?”

    For the sake of sanity, I find myself searching for credible sources of hope. The only one I settle on is faith in the Iranian people themselves. This the culture that has surrounded me since childhood, the qualities I’ve seen first hand in my countrywomen and men, whether young or old, home or abroad, Muslim, Bahai or secular: a resilience, a resourcefulness, a propensity for joy, a confidence and pride in culture, and an ability to prevail, over and again.

    It’s a new spring, roses are in bloom…
    …O rose, look towards this lover,
    Look again, again, again.

    These qualities are periodically staged for the world to see. Iranian people have not taken their oppression lying down, rising in (mainly) peaceful protests. There have been some 10 mass protests since the inception of the Islamic Republic in 1979. The largest of these was the Green Movement in 2009, when it was estimated that over a million citizens marched in Tehran alone. As recently as May 2025, strikes took place in over 150 cities, involving hundreds of thousands of workers.

    For the most part, these demonstrations have been met with severe repression by state authorities. One episode, from September 2022, deserves special mention. The world watched in horror as the regime cracked down on young women in Iran. This was their response to the Zan Zendegi Azadi (Woman Life Freedom) movement, where mass protests were triggered by the death in custody of Mahsa Jina Amini.

    Amini was a 22-year-old Kurdish-Iranian woman who had been detained by the government’s “Morality Police” for wearing an improper hijab. Three days into her detention she died under suspicious circumstances. A leaked CT scan showed a skull fracture and brain haemorrhage. This corroborated eyewitness accounts that Amini had been severely beaten by police.

    Intentionally or not, a dress code infringement had been punished by death. Even for Iranians long accustomed to state violence, this was too much. Mass protests erupted in more than 100 cities across all of Iran’s 31 provinces.

    The protests were led by women, many of them defiantly removing their headscarves. True to its nature, the regime responded violently. In the months that followed, over 20,000 protesters were imprisoned, many later testifying to having been tortured through electric shock, flogging, waterboarding and rape.

    Human Rights Watch estimates that over 500 civilians – including 68 children and adolescents – were killed by security forces, which included the paramilitary Basijis, Revolutionary Guard Corps, police and prison guards.

    Things would get darker. That December the regime was accused of deliberately poisoning over 1,200 students at Kharazmi and Ark universities on the eve of a planned protest. Soon thereafter, there were allegations of toxic gas attacks against thousands of schoolgirls, in apparent retaliation for removing their hijabs. By 2024, the UN had accused Iran of a coordinated campaign of crimes against humanity, a claim rejected by the regime.

    As an eye surgeon, I was distressed to read a letter signed by over 100 Iranian ophthalmologists detailing eye injuries among protesters. The letter alleged that security forces had deliberately targeted people’s eyes with teargas canisters, rubber bullets and shotgun fire, resulting in traumatic injuries and irreversible blindness among protesters.

    Dew drops are falling from my cloudy eyes
    This cage, like my heart, is narrow and dark.
    O fiery sigh set alight this cage
    O fate, do not pick the flower of my life.

    There were separate reports of women’s faces and genitals being targeted by shotgun fire. The regime appeared to have interfered with medical services: protestors transported to police stations in ambulances were arrested after surgery or denied treatment. Doctors were reportedly coerced to supply false death certificates to disguise the true cause of protestors’ deaths. The British Medical Journal documented healthcare professionals being arrested, intimidated, kidnapped or killed in retaliation for treating protesters.

    If we didn’t know it already, Zan Zendegi Azadi reminded us of the risks, if not futility, of advocating for change in Iran.

    When mass civil movements like this, performed ten times over, have not worked, what alternatives are the people left with? Brutalised and impoverished by their own government, should we be surprised when a traditionally Islamic people welcome a Jewish state’s decapitation of their political leaders? Is it not tempting, even if lazy, to invoke the historical comparison of Cyrus the Great, Persian King of the Achaemenid Empire, who freed the Jewish people from Babylonian captivity?

    For the people of Iran and Israel – at the risk of naivety and romanticism – are we approaching an age of karma?

    O rose, look towards this lover,
    Look again, again, again.
    O heart-lost bird, shorten, shorten, shorten,
    The tale of separation.

    An uncertain scenario

    Regarding Operation Rising Lion, it is safe to say that Iranians, like any healthy community, hold a diversity of views.

    At one end of the spectrum, those who unconditionally condemn Israel’s attack should consider that the Iranian government has stockpiled over 400 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium. While not enough to build a nuclear warhead, this is far more enriched uranium than is needed for peaceful purposes.

    The Iranian government has also vowed to “wipe Israel off the map” for decades. Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei lauded the October 7 terrorist attack by Hamas on Israeli civilians. In other words, Iran has said to Israel “we want to annihilate you, we’ll celebrate your deaths, and we could do it with nuclear weapons if we wished to”.

    Following Iran’s recent breach of its nonproliferation obligations to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Israel says it has acted lawfully in attacking Iran for self-defense – a claim disputed by some international law experts. Even if one does not agree with Israel’s action, it is evident that they’ve long been baited by Iran.

    On the other side of the coin, Iranians who salute Israel and the US as their saviours should take caution. The US director of national intelligence Tulsi Gabbard declared as recently as March 2025 that there was no evidence that Iran was actively pursuing nuclear weapons, a finding corroborated by over a dozen other US intelligence elements including the CIA, the National Security Agency, and the Insitute for Defense Analyses.

    One cannot ignore the disturbing echoes of the 2003 war on Iraq, where the absence of evidence for weapons of mass destruction was intentionally misrepresented by the US and UK governments. The consequences for Iraq have been disastrous.

    As for Netanyahu and his administration, they have shown a ruthless pursuit of narrow self-interest in Gaza. The deaths and injuries inflicted by the Israeli Defence Forces on more than 50,000 Palestinian children appear to have done nothing to quell their ambitions.

    With regards to Netanyahu himself, he is facing corruption charges that could result in his domestic imprisonment and he has more recently been the subject of an arrest warrant by the International Criminal Court for war crimes, including starvation and murder.

    What can Iranians learn from this? The evidence suggests this could be a war of passion and opportunism for Israel, rather than one of legitimate self-defence. In any case, they are not waging it for the benefit of Iranians.

    Israel has a tendency to set ambitious military goals that it can’t achieve. While it promises Operation Rising Lion will soon end, its track record suggests otherwise.

    A protracted conflict would see Iran’s civilian toll rise much higher. Power outages and fuel shortages have already begun; what happens once water, medical and food scarcity set in? Since Iran doesn’t allow many international aid agencies onto its soil, who will come to the rescue of Iranians as things escalate?

    Truth’s life has come to an end
    Faith and fidelity have been replaced by the shield of war.
    Lover’s lament and beloved’s coyness,
    Are but lies and have no power.

    Even if Israel succeeds in capturing or killing Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, what happens next? With the Revolutionary Guard’s roots in place, there is no guarantee, and in fact a low likelihood, of true democratic reform. In recent times, foreign interference in the region has not gone well. Look at Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria: all evidence of catastrophic worsening after the removal of autocrats.

    This is a complex and uncertain scenario with little room for moral grandstanding. Disabling Iran’s nuclear and ballistic capabilities could be a net win, but the manner in which it is being done sets a dangerous precedent. For the Iranian people, Netanyahu’s ambitions could ultimately prove both heroic and villainous.

    The cup of the rich is full of pure wine,
    Our cup is filled with our heart’s blood.
    O anxious heart, cry out aloud
    And avoid those who have powerful hands.

    As I watch coverage of the war, I find myself drifting back to Shajarian’s voice and to Morq-e Sahar, probably for distraction and comfort. What is real is my faith in my fellow Iranians. Many examples comes to mind. One, during a trip to Iran, was when I stayed with family at a roadhouse. That evening, we heard music emanating from the courtyard and followed some steps into an dark basement beneath the accommodation.

    There we found a large gathering of young Iranians, two dozen or more men and women risking the law by hanging out together to sing. We joined them as strangers, seated on the floor and holding hands at times. In the dim light, the group sang and sang, a couple of them playing instruments.

    I can’t say I knew the songs or comprehended all the lyrics; I didn’t need to, to understand their meaning. You may force our people underground, you may cage them, bombard and even kill them. But you will never extinguish their eternal Persian spirit.

    O rosy-cheeked cup-bearer, give the fiery water,
    Play a joyful tune, O charming friend.
    O sad nightingale lament from your cage.
    Because of your grief my heart is
    Full of sparks, sparks, sparks.

    Hessom Razavi does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Friday essay: ‘my heart is full of sparks’ – as war escalates, can I hope for Iran’s liberation from a tyrannical regime? – https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-my-heart-is-full-of-sparks-as-war-escalates-can-i-hope-for-irans-liberation-from-a-tyrannical-regime-259275

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: A new special tribunal will investigate Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. Will it be effective?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Yvonne Breitwieser-Faria, Lecturer in Criminal Law and International Law, Curtin University

    Earlier this year, the European Union, the Council of Europe, Ukraine and an international coalition of states agreed to establish a new special tribunal.

    The tribunal will eventually be tasked with holding Russia accountable for the 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine. It’s expected to start operating in 2026.

    Human rights organisations, international lawyers and some (mostly European) states have long been calling for the establishment of such a tribunal. Oleksandra Matviichuk, a Ukrainian human rights lawyer, called the establishment of the tribunal:

    an important breakthrough for the international justice community and especially for the millions of Ukrainians who have been harmed by the Russian aggression.

    However, important questions remain about if it could truly hold senior Russian officials accountable.

    So, how will this new special tribunal work, and will it be effective – or necessary?

    How does the special tribunal fill the gaps left by the ICC and ICJ?

    This tribunal is separate to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

    The ICC can prosecute individuals charged with genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Russian war on Ukraine. So far, it has issued arrest warrants against four Russian senior officials, including President Vladimir Putin.

    Because Russia is not a member state to the court, the court can’t exercise legal authority over what’s known in international law as a crime of aggression (when leaders of a state launch or plan a war). For the ICC to be able to exercise this jurisdiction, the aggressor state also must be a member state of the court.

    The ICJ is a different court altogether. It primarily deals with and adjudicates disputes between states, not limited to war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. It can’t hold individuals accountable, and can only exercise jurisdiction over a dispute if both states to a dispute agree.

    While the ICC seeks to establish individual criminal responsibility, the ICJ may establish state responsibility for a violation of international law.

    Currently, there are also two cases between Ukraine and Russia before the ICJ.

    Neither deals with the question of the legality of Russia’s use of force in its invasion in February 2022. Both Ukraine and Russia would need to consent to bring this issue before the court.

    So, is a new tribunal necessary?

    Yes, because the crime of aggression currently can’t be addressed by any other international court or tribunal.

    Given the limitations of what the ICJ and ICC can do, a dedicated tribunal seems the obvious solution to hold those responsible for the illegal use of force against Ukraine accountable.

    And it’s not uncommon for specialised tribunals with limited jurisdiction over a specific situation to be created.

    Other historical examples include the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia and the Special Court for Sierra Leone.

    Given the ICC’s lack of jurisdiction over the crime of aggression, the new special tribunal would complement the court’s existing investigations into war crimes and crimes against humanity.

    Who is running the new tribunal and how will it work?

    The exact content and specifics of this new tribunal will remain unknown until the draft statute of the tribunal is published. That’s a document that outlines details including the tribunal’s jurisdiction, the applicable definition of aggression and how the tribunal will function.

    At this stage, the Council of Europe has confirmed the tribunal will work within its legal framework and principles. It will be funded by an international coalition of supportive states.

    A management committee of members and associate members of the tribunal will be responsible for the election of the tribunal’s judges and prosecutors. The management committee is made up of the Council of Europe’s council of ministers and Ukraine.

    Diplomatic discussions are still ongoing at this point, but the legal process for establishing the special tribunal can begin now.

    Will this special tribunal be more effective?

    Political, legal and practical challenges for the special tribunal remain. It’s unclear if the most senior Russian state officials can and will be able to be brought to trial for the crime of aggression.

    Nothing, so far, suggests the statute of the tribunal will contain an exception to state immunity enjoyed by heads of state, heads of governments and foreign ministers while in power.

    That means these office holders can only be prosecuted if they are no longer in power or the Russian government expressly waives their immunity.

    It’s also unclear whether states will be willing to arrest those sought by the special tribunal.

    The ICC has long faced this challenge trying to get states to act on its arrest warrants.

    Hungary, for instance, did not arrest Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he visited in April, despite an ICC arrest warrant for alleged crimes against humanity in connection with the war in Gaza.

    For the special tribunal to be effective, according to Oleksandra Matviichuk, it:

    must not become a remote and hollow entity that does not engage with the Ukrainian victims.

    Overall, much remains unclear. Will this new special tribunal be able to hold the likes of Putin accountable for the crime of aggression? Or will it become another empty promise?

    Yvonne Breitwieser-Faria does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. A new special tribunal will investigate Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. Will it be effective? – https://theconversation.com/a-new-special-tribunal-will-investigate-russias-aggression-against-ukraine-will-it-be-effective-257823

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-Evening Report: Eugene Doyle: How centrifugal forces have been unleashed in Iran

    COMMENTARY: By Eugene Doyle

    The surprise US-Israeli attack on Iran is literally and figuratively designed to unleash centrifugal forces in the Islamic Republic.

    Two nuclear powers are currently involved in the bombing of the nuclear facilities of a third state. One of them, the US has — for the moment — limited itself to handling mid-air refuelling, bombs and an array of intelligence.

    If successful they will destroy or, more likely, destabilise the uranium enrichment centrifuges at Natanz and possibly the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, causing them to vibrate and spin uncontrollably, generating centrifugal forces that could rupture containment systems.

    Spinning at more than 50,000 rpm it wouldn’t take much of a shockwave from a blast or some other act of sabotage to do this.

    There may be about half a tonne of enriched uranium and several tonnes of lower-grade material underground.

    If a cascade of bunker-busting bombs like the US GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators got through, the heat generated would be in the hundreds, even thousands, of degrees Celsius. This would destroy the centrifuges, converting the uranium hexafluoride gas into a toxic aerosol, leading to serious radiological contamination over a wide area.

    The head of the IAEA, the UN’s nuclear watchdog, warned repeatedly of the dangers over the past few days. How many people would be killed, contaminated or forced to evacuate should not have to be calculated — it should be avoided at all cost.

    Divided opinions
    Some people think this attack is a very good idea; some think this is an act of madness by two rogue states.

    On June 18, Israeli media were reporting that the US had rushed an aerial armada loaded with bunker busters to Israel while the US continued its sham denials of involvement in the war.

    Analysts Professor Jeffrey Sachs and Sybil Fares warned this week of “Israel bringing the world to the brink of nuclear Armageddon in pursuit of its illegal and extremist aims”.  They point out that for some decades now Netanyahu has warned that Iran is weeks or even days away from having the bomb, begging successive presidents for permission to wage Judeo-Christian jihad.

    In Donald Trump — the MAGA Peace Candidate — he finally got his green light.

    The centrifugal forces destabilising the Iranian state
    The other — and possibly more significant — centrifugal force that has been unleashed is a hybrid attack on the Iranian state itself.  The Americans, Israelis and their European allies hope to trigger regime change.

    There are many Iranians inside and outside the country who would welcome such a development.  Other Iranians suggest they should be careful of what they wish for, pointing to the human misery that follows, as night follows day, wherever post 9/11 America’s project to bring “democracy, goodness and niceness” leads.  If you can’t quickly think of half a dozen examples, this must be your first visit to Planet Earth.

    Iranian news presenter Sahar Emami during the Israeli attack on state television which killed three media workers . . . Killing journalists is both an Israeli speciality and a war crime. Image: AJ screenshot APR

    Is regime change in Iran possible?
    So, are the Americans and Israelis on to something or not? This week prominent anti-regime writer Sohrab Ahmari added a caveat to his long-standing call for an end to the regime.  Ahmari, an Iranian, who is the US editor of the geopolitical analysis platform UnHerd said:  “The potential nightmare scenarios are as numerous as they are appalling: regime collapse that leads not to the restoration of the Pahlavi dynasty and the ascent to the Peacock Throne of its chubby dauphin, Reza, but warlordism and ethno-sectarian warfare that drives millions of refugees into Europe.

    “Or a Chinese intervention in favour of a crucial energy partner and anchor of the new Eurasian bloc led by Beijing . . .  A blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and attacks on the Persian Gulf monarchies.”

    Despite these risks, there are indeed Iranians who are cheering for Uncle Bibi (Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu).  Some have little sympathy for the Palestinians because their government poured millions into supporting Hamas and Hezbollah — money that could have eased hardship inside Iran, caused, it must be added, by both the US-imposed sanctions and the regime’s own mismanagement, some say corruption.

    As I pointed out in an article The West’s War on Iran shortly after the Israelis launched the war: the regime appears to have a core support base of around 20 percent.  This was true in 2018 when I last visited Iran and was still the case in the most recent polling I could find.

    I quoted an Iranian contact who shortly after the attack told me they had scanned reactions inside Iran and found people were upset, angry and overwhelmingly supportive of the government at this critical moment.  Like many, I suggested Iranians would — as typically happens when countries are attacked — rally round the flag.  Shortly after the article was published this statement was challenged by other Iranians who dispute that there will be any “rallying to the flag” — as that is the flag of the Islamic Republic and a great many Iranians are sick to the back teeth of it.

    Some others demur:

    “The killing of at least 224 Iranians has once again significantly damaged Israel’s claim that it avoids targeting civilians,” Dr Shirin Saeidi, author of Women and the Islamic Republic, an associate professor of political science at the University of Arkansas, told The New Arab on June 16.  “Israel’s illegal attack on the Iranian people will definitely not result in a popular uprising against the Iranian state. On the contrary, Iranians are coming together behind the Islamic Republic.”

    To be honest, I can’t discern who is correct. In the last few of days I have also had contact with people inside Iran (all these contacts must, for obvious reasons, be anonymous).  One of them welcomed the attack on the IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps).  I also got this message relayed to me from someone else in Iran as a response to my article:

    “Some Iranians are pro-regime and have condemned Israeli attacks and want the government to respond strongly. Some Iranians are pro-Israel and happy that Israel has attacked and killed some of their murderers and want regime change, [but the] majority of Iranians dislike both sides.

    They dislike the regime in Iran, and they are patriotic so they don’t want a foreign country like Israel invading them and killing people. They feel hopeless and defenceless as they know both sides have failed or will fail them.”

    Calculating the incalculable: regime survival or collapse?
    Only a little over half of Iran is Persian. Minorities include Azerbaijanis, Kurds, Arabs, Balochis, Turkmen, Armenians and one of the region’s few post-Nakba Jewish congregations outside of Israel today.

    Mossad, MI6 and various branches of the US state have poured billions into opposition groups, including various monarchist factions, but from a distance they appear fragmented. The Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) armed opposition group has been an irritant but so far not a major disruptor.

    The most effective terrorist attacks inside Iran have been launched by Israel, the US and the British — including the assassination of a string of Iranian peace negotiators, the leader of the political wing of Hamas, nuclear scientists and their families, and various regime figures.

    How numerous the active strands of anti-regime elements are is hard to estimate. Equally hard to calculate is how many will move into open confrontation with the regime. Conversely, how unified, durable — or brittle — is the regime? How cohesive is the leadership of the IRGC and the Basij militias? Will they work effectively together in the trying times ahead? In particular, how successful has the CIA, MI6 and Mossad been at penetrating their structures and buying generals?

    Both Iran’s nuclear programme and its government — in fact, the whole edifice and foundation of the Islamic Republic — is at the beginning of the greatest stress test of its existence.  If the centrifugal forces prove too great, I can’t help but think of the words of William Butler Yeats:

    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

    Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

    The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere   

    The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

    The best lack all conviction, while the worst   

    Are full of passionate intensity.

    Peace and prosperity to all the people of Iran.  And let’s never forget the people of Palestine as they endure genocide.

    Eugene Doyle is a writer based in Wellington. He has written extensively on the Middle East, as well as peace and security issues in the Asia Pacific region. He contributes to Asia Pacific Report and Café Pacific, and hosts the public policy platform solidarity.co.nz

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why Israel — and potentially the U.S. — is sure to encounter the limits of air power in Iran

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By James Horncastle, Assistant Professor and Edward and Emily McWhinney Professor in International Relations, Simon Fraser University

    As the war between Israel and Iran escalates, Israel is increasing its calls on the United States to become involved in the conflict.

    Former Israeli officials are appearing on U.S. news outlets, exhorting the American public to support Israel’s actions.

    President Donald Trump has signalled a willingness for the U.S. to become involved in the conflict. He’s gone so far, in fact, to suggest in social media posts that he could kill Iran’s supreme leader if he wanted to.

    Segment on Trump’s threats against Iran’s leader. (BBC News)

    The American military could certainly make an impact in any air campaign against Iran. The problem from a military standpoint, however, is that the U.S., based on its forces’ deployment, will almost certainly seek to keep its involvement limited to its air force to avoid another Iraq-like quagmire.

    While doing so could almost certainly disrupt Iran’s nuclear program, it will likely fall short of Israel’s goal of regime change.

    In fact, it could reinforce the Iranian government and draw the U.S. into a costly ground war.




    Read more:
    Why is there so much concern over Iran’s nuclear program? And where could it go from here?


    Israel’s need for American support

    The initial stated reason for Israel’s bombing campaign — Iran’s nuclear capabilities — appears specious at best.

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has argued several times in the past, without evidence, that Iran is close to achieving a nuclear weapon. U.S. intelligence, however, have assessed that Iran is three years away from deploying a nuclear weapon.

    Regardless of the veracity of the claims, Israel initiated the offensive and now requires American support.

    Israel’s need for U.S. assistance rests on two circumstances:

    1. While Israel succeeded in eliminating key figures from the Iranian military in its initial strikes, Iran’s response appears to have exceeded Israel’s expectations with their Arrow missile interceptors nearing depletion.

    2. Israel’s air strikes can only achieve so much in disrupting Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Most analysts note that Israel’s bombings are only likely to delay the Iranian nuclear program by a few months. This is due to the fact that Israeli missiles are incapable of penetrating the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, which estimates place close to 300 feet underground.

    The United States, however, possesses munitions that could damage, or even destroy, the Fordow facility. Most notably, the GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (more commonly known as a bunker buster) has a penetration capability of 200 feet.

    Multiple strikes by said munition would render Fordow inoperable, if not outright destroyed.

    Romanticizing air power

    The efficacy of air power has been vastly overrated in the popular media and various air forces of the world. Air power is great at disrupting an opponent, but has significant limitations in influencing the outcome of a war.

    Specifically, air power is likely to prove an inadequate tool for one of the supposed Israeli and American objectives in the war: regime change. For air power to be effective at bringing about regime change, it needs to demoralize the Iranian people to the point that they’re willing to oppose their own government.

    Early air enthusiasts believed that a population’s demoralization would be an inevitable consequence of aerial bombardment. Italian general Giulio Douhet, a prominent air power theorist, argued that air power was so mighty that it could destroy cities and demoralize an opponent into surrendering.

    Douhet was correct on the first point. He was wrong on the second.

    Recent history provides evidence. While considerable ink has been spilled to demonstrate the efficacy of air power during the Second World War, close examination of the facts demonstrate that it had a minimal impact. In fact, Allied bombing of German cities in several instances created the opposite effect.

    More recent bombing campaigns replicated this failure. The U.S. bombing of North Vietnam during the Vietnam War did not significantly damage North Vietnamese morale or war effort. NATO’s bombing of Serbia in 1999, likewise, rallied support for the unpopular Slobodan Milosevic due to its perceived injustice — and continues to evoke strong emotions to this day.

    Iran’s political regime may be unpopular with many Iranians, but Israeli and potentially American bombing may shore up support for the Iranian government.

    Nationalism is a potent force, particularly when people are under attack. Israel’s bombing of Iran will rally segments of the population to the government that would otherwise oppose it.

    Few positive options

    The limitations of air power to fuel significant political change in Iran should give Trump pause about intervening in the conflict.

    Some American support, such as providing weapons, is a given due to the close relationship between the U.S. and Israel. But any realization of American and Israeli aspirations of a non-nuclear Iran and a new government will likely require ground forces.

    Recent American experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq show such a ground forces operation won’t lead to the swift victory that Trump desires, but could potentially stretch on for decades.

    James Horncastle does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Why Israel — and potentially the U.S. — is sure to encounter the limits of air power in Iran – https://theconversation.com/why-israel-and-potentially-the-u-s-is-sure-to-encounter-the-limits-of-air-power-in-iran-259348

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Nuclear scientists  have long been targets in covert ops – Israel has brought that policy out of the shadows

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Jenna Jordan, Associate Professor of International Affairs, Georgia Institute of Technology

    Portraits of Iranian military generals and nuclear scientists killed in Israel’s June 13, 2025, attack are displayed on a sign as a plume of heavy smoke and fire rise from an oil refinery in southern Tehran Atta Kenare/AFP via Getty Images

    At least 14 nuclear scientists are believed to be among those killed in Israel’s Operation Rising Lion, launched on June 13, 2025, ostensibly to destroy or degrade Iran’s nuclear program and military capabilities.

    Deliberately targeting scientists in this way aims to disrupt Iran’s knowledge base and continuity in nuclear expertise. Among those assassinated were Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi, a theoretical physicist and head of Iran’s Islamic Azad University, and Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani, a nuclear engineer who led Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization.

    Collectively, these experts in physics and engineering were potential successors to Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, widely regarded as the architect of the Iranian nuclear program, who was assassinated in a November 2020 attack many blame on Israel.

    As two political scientists writing a book about state targeting of scientists as a counterproliferation tool, we understand well that nuclear scientists have been targeted since the nuclear age began. We have gathered data on nearly 100 instances of what we call “scientist targeting” from 1944 through 2025.

    The most recent assassination campaign against Iranian scientists is different from many of the earlier episodes in a few key ways. Israel’s recent attack targeted multiple nuclear experts and took place simultaneously with military force to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities, air defenses and energy infrastructure. Also, unlike previous covert operations, Israel immediately claimed responsibility for the assassinations.

    But our research indicates that targeting scientists may not be effective for counterproliferation. While removing individual expertise may delay nuclear acquisition, targeting alone is unlikely to destroy a program outright and could even increase a country’s desire for nuclear weapons. Further, targeting scientists may trigger blowback given concerns regarding legality and morality.

    A policy with a long history

    Targeting nuclear scientists began during World War II when Allied and Soviet forces raced to capture Nazi scientists, degrade Adolf Hitler’s ability to build a nuclear bomb and use their expertise to advance the U.S. and Soviet nuclear programs.

    In our data set, we classified “targeting” as cases in which scientists were captured, threatened, injured or killed as nations tried to prevent adversaries from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Over time, at least four countries have targeted scientists working on nine national nuclear programs.

    The United States and Israel have allegedly carried out the most attacks on nuclear scientists. But the United Kingdom and Soviet Union have also been behind such attacks.

    Meanwhile, scientists working for the Egyptian, Iranian and Iraqi nuclear programs have been the most frequent targets since 1950. Since 2007 and prior to the current Israeli operation, 10 scientists involved in the Iranian nuclear program were killed in attacks. Other countries’ nationals have also been targeted: In 1980, Mossad, Israel’s intelligence service, allegedly bombed Italian engineer Mario Fiorelli’s home and his firm, SNIA Techint, as a warning to Europeans involved in the Iraqi nuclear project.

    Given this history, the fact that Israel attacked Iran’s nuclear program is not itself surprising. Indeed, it has been a strategic goal of successive Israeli prime ministers to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and experts had been warning of the increased likelihood of an Israeli military operation since mid-2024, due to regional dynamics and Iranian nuclear development.

    The wrecked cars in which four of Iran’s nuclear scientists were assassinated in recent years are displayed on the grounds of a museum in Tehran in 2014.
    Scott Peterson/Getty Images

    By then, the balance of power in the Middle East had changed dramatically. Israel systematically degraded the leadership and infrastructure of Iranian proxies Hamas and Hezbollah. It later destroyed Iranian air defenses around Tehran and near key nuclear installations. The subsequent fall of Syria’s Assad regime cost Tehran another long-standing ally. Together, these developments have significantly weakened Iran, leaving it vulnerable to external attack and stripped of its once-feared proxy network, which had been expected to retaliate on its behalf in the event of hostilities.

    With its proxy “axis of resistance” defanged and conventional military capacity degraded, Iranian leadership may have thought that expanding its enrichment capability was its best bet going forward.

    And in the months leading up to Israel’s recent attack, Iran expanded its nuclear production capacity, moving beyond 60% uranium enrichment, a technical step just short of weapons-grade material. During Donald Trump’s first term, the president withdrew the U.S. from a multilateral nonproliferation agreement aimed at curbing Iran’s nuclear program. After being reelected, Trump appeared to change tack by pursuing new diplomacy with Iran, but those talks have so far failed to deliver an agreement – and may be put on hold for the foreseeable future amid the war.

    Most recently, the International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors declared Iran in non-compliance with its nuclear-nonproliferation obligations. In response, Iran announced it was further expanding its enrichment capacity by adding advanced centrifuge technology and a third enrichment site.

    Even if the international community anticipated the broader attack on Iran, characteristics of the targeting itself are surprising. Historically, states have covertly targeted individual scientists. But the recent multiple-scientist attack occurred openly, with Israel taking responsibility, publicly indicating the attacks’ purpose. Further, while it is not new for a country to use multiple counter-proliferation tools against an adversary over time, that Israel is using both preventive military force against infrastructure and targeting scientists at once is atypical.

    Additionally, such attacks against scientists are historically lower tech and low cost, with death or injury stemming from gunmen, car bombs or accidents. In fact, Abbasi – who was killed in the most recent attacks – survived a 2010 car bombing in Tehran. There are outliers, however, including the Fakhrizadeh assassination, which featured a remotely operated machine gun smuggled into Iranian territory.

    Israel’s logic in going after scientists

    Why target nuclear scientists?

    In foreign policy, there are numerous tools available if one state aims to prevent another state from acquiring nuclear weapons. Alongside targeting scientists, there are sanctions, diplomacy, cyberattacks and military force.

    Targeting scientists may remove critical scientific expertise and impose costs that increase the difficulty of building nuclear weapons. Proponents argue that targeting these experts may undermine a state’s efforts, deter it from continuing nuclear developments and signal to others the perils of supporting nuclear proliferation.

    Countries that target scientists therefore believe that doing so is an effective way to degrade an adversary’s nuclear program. Indeed, the Israel Defense Forces described the most recent attacks as “a significant blow to the regime’s ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction.”

    Posters featuring images of Iranian nuclear scientists are displayed in Tehran, Iran, on June 14, 2025.
    Fatemeh Bahrami/Anadolu via Getty Images

    Despite Israel’s focus on scientists as sources of critical knowledge, there may be thousands more working inside Iran, calling into question the efficacy of targeting them. Further, there are legal, ethical and moral concerns over targeting scientists.

    Moreover, it is a risky option that may fail to disrupt an enemy nuclear program while sparking public outrage and calls for retaliation. This is especially the case if scientists, often regarded as civilians, are elevated as martyrs.

    Targeting campaigns may, as a result, reinforce domestic support for a government, which could then redouble efforts toward nuclear development.

    Regardless of whether targeting scientists is an effective counter-proliferation tool, it has been around since the start of the nuclear age – and will likely persist as part of the foreign policy toolkit for states aiming to prevent proliferation. In the case of the current Israeli conflict with Iran and its targeting of nuclear scientists, we expect the tactic to continue for the duration of the war and beyond.

    Rachel Whitlark is a nonresident senior fellow in the Forward Defense practice of the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security.

    Jenna Jordan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Nuclear scientists  have long been targets in covert ops – Israel has brought that policy out of the shadows – https://theconversation.com/nuclear-scientists-have-long-been-targets-in-covert-ops-israel-has-brought-that-policy-out-of-the-shadows-259263

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: How to stay safe during heat waves – and the heat stroke warning signs to watch for

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Brian Bossak, Professor of Public Health, College of Charleston

    Extreme heat can become lethal quickly. A young man cools off at Washington, D.C.’s Yards Park during a heat wave in 2021. Olivier Douliery/AFP via Getty Images

    Beach trips, cookouts and other outdoor activities are in full swing as summer heats up and the first widespread heat wave of 2025 arrives.

    For many people, summer is their favorite time of year. However, summer also brings the risk of dangerously high temperatures that can become lethal.

    In the U.S., hundreds of people working or playing outside – even those who seem healthy – succumb to heat-related illnesses each year. Older adults and people in areas that historically haven’t needed air conditioning tend to see the highest rates of illnesses during heat waves, as Chicago saw in 1995 when at least 700 people died in a heat wave.

    Even in places where heat is recognized as a dangerous health threat, people can be caught off guard as the thermometer creeps higher, on average, each year. In some cases, dangerous heat can arise quickly. In 2021, a young family died of heat stroke on a California trail after setting out for a hike when temperatures were still in the 70s Fahrenheit (low to mid 20s Celsius).

    I study health risks in a warming climate as a professor of public health, and I’ve seen heat become a growing concern. Here are some of the key warning signs to watch for when temperatures rise – and ways to keep cool when the heat and humidity get too high.

    Signs of heat-related illness to watch for

    Heat-related illnesses occur across a spectrum, and mild heat stress can quickly progress to life-threatening heat stroke if a person is exposed to dangerous conditions for too long.

    Mild forms of heat-related illness include heat cramps and heat rash, both of which can be caused by extensive sweating during hot conditions. Cooling the body and drinking cool fluids can help.

    When heat-related illnesses progress into heat exhaustion, the situation is more serious. Heat exhaustion includes symptoms such as dizziness, nausea, excessive sweating, feeling weak, thirst and getting a headache.

    Construction workers are often out in the heat for long periods of time while wearing long sleeves, durable long pants, gloves and hard hats considered necessary to stay safe. This worker faces a heat wave in Los Angeles in July 2024.
    Etienne Laurent/AFP via Getty Images

    Heat exhaustion is a signal that the body is losing its ability to maintain a stable core temperature. Immediate action such as moving to a cool, ideally air-conditioned space, drinking liquids, loosening clothes and applying wet cloths are some of the recommended steps that can help keep heat exhaustion from progressing to the most dangerous form of heat-related illness, heat stroke.

    Heat stroke is a medical emergency. At this point, the body can no longer maintain a stable core temperature. A body with heat stroke can reach 106 degrees Fahrenheit or higher rapidly, and that heat can quickly damage the brain, heart and kidneys.

    Signs of heat exhaustion and heat stroke, from the National Weather Service and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    NOAA/CDC

    Typically, someone suffering heat stroke has exhausted their reserves of sweat and salt to stay cool, so sweating eventually stops during heat stroke. Their cognitive ability fails, and they cannot remove themselves from danger. Heat stroke can cause seizures or put someone into a coma as their core temperature rises. If the condition is not treated immediately, and the core temperature continues to rise, heat stroke becomes fatal.

    Because heat exhaustion can lead to heat stroke, addressing heat-related illnesses before they progress is vital.

    How to tell when the heat is too high

    Heat risk isn’t just about temperature – humidity also increases the risk of heat-related illnesses because it affects how well sweating will cool the human body when it gets hot.

    Instead of just looking at temperature when planning outdoor activities, check the heat index, which accounts for heat illness risk associated with temperature and relative humidity.

    It doesn’t take very high temperatures or very high humidity for the heat index to enter dangerous territory.

    A heat index chart shows how heat and humidity combine for dangerous conditions.
    NOAA

    However, the heat index is still a conservative measure of the impact of heat on humans, particularly for outdoor workers and athletes at summer practices. This is because temperature measurements used in weather forecasting are taken in the shade and are not exposed to direct sunlight. If someone is outside and exposed to the direct sun, the actual heat index can be as much as 15 F higher than the heat index chart indicates.

    A more sophisticated measurement of heat effects on human health is what’s known as the wet-bulb globe temperature, which takes into account other variables, such as wind speed and cloud cover. Neither takes into account a person’s physical exertion, which also raises their body temperature, whether working at a construction site or playing soccer.

    Tips for staying safe in a heat wave

    How can you stay cool when heat waves set in? The answer depends in part on where you are, but the main points are the same:

    • Avoid strenuous outdoor activities in high temperatures if possible. If you start to feel symptoms of heat-related illnesses, drink fluids that will hydrate you. Find shade, rest, and use cool, damp cloths to lower your body temperature. If you see signs of heat stroke in someone else, call for medical help.

    • Be careful with fans. Fans can be useful if the temperature isn’t too high because they wick sweat away from the body and induce evaporative cooling. But at very high temperatures, they can accelerate heat buildup in the body and lead to dangerous conditions. If indoor temperatures reaches 95 degrees or higher, using fans can actually be dangerous and raise the risk of heat-related illnesses.

    • Find a cooling center, library or community center where you can get inside and rest in an air-conditioned space in the hottest hours. In places such as Phoenix, where high temperatures are a regular hazard, cooling centers are typically opened in summer. Northern cities are also opening cooling centers as heat waves occur there more frequently than they did in the past. Urban areas with a lot of pavement and buildings – known as heat islands – can have temperatures well above the city’s average.

    • Hydrate, hydrate, hydrate! Drink plenty of fluids, and don’t forget about the importance of electrolytes. Heat-related dehydration can occur when people sweat excessively, losing water and necessary salts from the body. Some sports drinks or rehydration fluids restore electrolytes and hydration levels.

    Older adults and people with disabilities often face higher risks from heat waves, particularly if they can’t easily move to a cooler environment. Communities and neighbors can help protect vulnerable populations by providing cooling centers and bottled water and making regular wellness checks during high heat.

    Summer can be a season of fun. Just remember the risks, keep an eye on your friends and neighbors when temperatures rise, and plan ahead so you can beat the heat.

    Brian Bossak is not currently receiving relevant external funding for heat-related illness research. In 2017-2019, he served as a consultant on a heat-related research award from the Southeastern Coastal Center for Agricultural Health and
    Safety at the University of Florida.

    ref. How to stay safe during heat waves – and the heat stroke warning signs to watch for – https://theconversation.com/how-to-stay-safe-during-heat-waves-and-the-heat-stroke-warning-signs-to-watch-for-257708

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Catholic school board’s regressive flag policy sets back reconciliation in a post-Papal visit Canada

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Erenna Morrison, PhD Candidate, Curriculum and Pedagogy, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto

    Following the release of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s 94 Calls to Action in 2015, some Catholic school boards have made commitments to reconciliation in education. These boards include the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board (DPCDSB).

    However, the DPCDSB — located in the Greater Toronto area — has also introduced a flag policy that raises serious questions about a commitment to the wider progress being made in welcoming all students and promoting reconciliation.

    On Jan. 28, 2025 — following advocacy in different parts of Ontario and the country against the presence of the Pride flag — the board’s trustees voted in nine to one to add more restrictions to its flag policies. These restrictions stipulated that only flags representing Canada, the provinces, territories and the school board can be be displayed inside schools or other DPCDSB facilities.

    Acts of erasure

    The developments in Peel Region follow earlier policy changes to restrict the presence of the Pride flag and other flags at schools.

    Advocates from the board defending flag restrictions have said that in Catholic schools, the icon of the cross is the only symbol that should be promoted and that this represents inclusion and acceptance of all.

    However, members of the 2SLGBTQI+ community and opponents of restrictive flag policies argue that the Pride flag is needed to signal a welcoming environment. They say its removal is an act of erasure and that it calls into question how the board affirms the rights, dignity and visibility of 2SLGBTQI+ people and how it fosters their safety. The board says, and believes, its practices and policies comply with the Ontario human rights code, adding that supports are available for students who identify as 2SLGBTQI.

    The erasure of the Pride flag has the simultaneous effect of banning other important flags, such as Every Child Matters flags, Indigenous Nation flags and MMIWG2S flags (drawing attention to ending violence, disappearance and murder of First Nations women, girls and two-spirit people).

    In our analysis, this restrictive flag policy expresses colonial violence. We rely on the work of Sandra Styres, researcher of Iethi’nihsténha Ohwentsia’kékha (Land), Resurgence, Reconciliation and the Politics of Education, who examines how colonial violence is expressed in academic settings through “micro-aggressions, purposeful ignorance, structural racism, lateral violence, isolation” and also in “representations and spaces.”

    Crucial time for righting relationships

    Our concern is informed by our combined research and personal engagement focused around reconciliatory education in elementary Catholic schools (Erenna) and Anishinaabe Catholic expressions of self-determination in the Church (Noah). Erenna is a settler and Noah is a member of Michipicoten First Nation.

    We are married writing partners who travelled to Québec City in July 2022 to witness the long-awaited penitential pilgrimage of the late Pope Francis. We left with an awareness that this is a critical time for the righting of relationships that have been severely fractured by a Church complicit in genocide.

    The DPCDSB flag policy speaks to an unwillingness of many to sever emotional attachments to the white imperialism that preserves a western way of thinking, doing and being, in the name of faith.

    When a major Catholic entity like the DPCDSB introduces policies that may cause harm, concerned people, regardless of creed, must pay attention to such injustices.

    Revised flag policy

    Delegate Melanie Cormier, representing the DPCSB’s Indigenous Education Network, shared a statement relaying that the board’s restrictive flag policy fails to acknowledge the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation whose traditional and treaty territory where the board resides. She states: “Your flag policy is in violation of our jurisdiction. To say that any of our flags can not be flown in our own territories is unacceptable.”

    Brea Corbet, the only trustee with voting power who did not vote to restrict the Pride flag, told an earlier bylaw policies meeting: “When we remove rainbow flags and heritage flags, we are not protecting our Catholic identity; we are revealing institutional fragility. The Pride flag does not threaten Catholic education, policies of exclusion do.”

    Three student trustees also opposed the restrictive policy, but their votes unfortunately aren’t counted. We argue this too speaks to the suppression of student voice within the board.

    This fragility disproportionately threatens the safety of Indigenous, 2SLGBTQI+ and marginalized students and staff as they are overlooked and dismissed by the flag policy.




    Read more:
    New Brunswick’s LGBTQ+ safe schools debate makes false opponents of parents and teachers


    Nurturing all students

    Kanienʼkehá:ka (Mohawk) education professor Frank Deer speaks of educational programming “that is congruent with the identity of the local community.” This programming, he writes, must go beyond curricula to address the school environment as well. Student safety, inclusion and identity affirmation must be prioritized in all aspects of school life.

    Jennifer Brant, a Kanienʼkehà:ka interdisciplinary scholar, speaks in depth about how silence during times like these equates to complicity in accepting injustices that are taking place within “the communities in which we live, the broader society and global communities.”

    Inaction in response to this policy is negligent.

    Detrimental ramifications may also extend to reconciliation efforts in religious spaces more generally. This regressive policy poses lingering questions about the longevity of Catholic schools if they fail to protect and nurture all students.

    Impacts on reconciliation

    The primary target of the DPCDSB’s sweeping flag policy is the 2SLGBTQI+ community. In addition, the flag ban attacks Indigenous sovereignty and Anishinaabek nationhood, perpetuating attitudes tied to the Doctrine of Discovery still present in the Catholic ethos.




    Read more:
    The Vatican just renounced a 500-year-old doctrine that justified colonial land theft … Now what? — Podcast


    Flying the flags of First Nations (at their request) is not only a matter of inclusion, it is a matter of respect — respect for the land, the people and the treaties that connect us.

    In denying this step towards relationality, this governing body of a Catholic school board sets back the Church’s reconciliation efforts riding on the momentum of the papal visit.




    Read more:
    Pope Francis showed in deeds and words he wanted to face the truth in Canada


    The board’s ignorance of how this policy risks damaging relationships with students, families and staff at the board, as well as the broader public, partly reflects an indifference that Pope Francis warned Catholics about during his visit:

    “I trust and pray that Christians and civil society in this land may grow in the ability to accept and respect the identity and the experience of the Indigenous Peoples. It is my hope that concrete ways can be found to make those peoples better known and esteemed, so that all may learn to walk together.”

    Walking together in solidarity

    As we write this piece, we can see through the window a local Toronto Catholic Distric School Board elementary school, where an Every Child Matters flag is flown alongside a Pride and Canadian flag.

    Catholic education, despite its sordid history and contested perspectives about interpreting and practising Church doctrine, can be a tool to drive reconciliation.

    Catholics cannot let a narrow vision overshadow Pope Francis’s pilgrimage and the global Church movement he, the Church’s bishops and Catholic lay people have participated in — via a global synod — to respond to the call to walk together in solidarity with Indigenous, 2SLGBTQI+ and other marginalized people.

    Counter-narratives of hope and possibility

    We wish to continue to hear counter-narratives of hope and possibility for Catholic education. We wish to see active changes that move the DPCDSB, as scholar Sheila Cote-Meek of the Teme-Augama Anishinabai, writes, “to a drastically different way of being, doing and working.”

    As other Catholic boards in Ontario initiate flag debates of their own, we are left with the lingering question. What is the future of Catholic education if it’s not intended to support the physical, emotional, mental and spiritual well-being of all those entrusted to its care?

    The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Catholic school board’s regressive flag policy sets back reconciliation in a post-Papal visit Canada – https://theconversation.com/catholic-school-boards-regressive-flag-policy-sets-back-reconciliation-in-a-post-papal-visit-canada-256765

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Catholic school board’s regressive flag policy sets back reconciliation in a post-Papal visit Canada

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Erenna Morrison, PhD Candidate, Curriculum and Pedagogy, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto

    Following the release of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s 94 Calls to Action in 2015, some Catholic school boards have made commitments to reconciliation in education. These boards include the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board (DPCDSB).

    However, the DPCDSB — located in the Greater Toronto area — has also introduced a flag policy that raises serious questions about a commitment to the wider progress being made in welcoming all students and promoting reconciliation.

    On Jan. 28, 2025 — following advocacy in different parts of Ontario and the country against the presence of the Pride flag — the board’s trustees voted in nine to one to add more restrictions to its flag policies. These restrictions stipulated that only flags representing Canada, the provinces, territories and the school board can be be displayed inside schools or other DPCDSB facilities.

    Acts of erasure

    The developments in Peel Region follow earlier policy changes to restrict the presence of the Pride flag and other flags at schools.

    Advocates from the board defending flag restrictions have said that in Catholic schools, the icon of the cross is the only symbol that should be promoted and that this represents inclusion and acceptance of all.

    However, members of the 2SLGBTQI+ community and opponents of restrictive flag policies argue that the Pride flag is needed to signal a welcoming environment. They say its removal is an act of erasure and that it calls into question how the board affirms the rights, dignity and visibility of 2SLGBTQI+ people and how it fosters their safety. The board says, and believes, its practices and policies comply with the Ontario human rights code, adding that supports are available for students who identify as 2SLGBTQI.

    The erasure of the Pride flag has the simultaneous effect of banning other important flags, such as Every Child Matters flags, Indigenous Nation flags and MMIWG2S flags (drawing attention to ending violence, disappearance and murder of First Nations women, girls and two-spirit people).

    In our analysis, this restrictive flag policy expresses colonial violence. We rely on the work of Sandra Styres, researcher of Iethi’nihsténha Ohwentsia’kékha (Land), Resurgence, Reconciliation and the Politics of Education, who examines how colonial violence is expressed in academic settings through “micro-aggressions, purposeful ignorance, structural racism, lateral violence, isolation” and also in “representations and spaces.”

    Crucial time for righting relationships

    Our concern is informed by our combined research and personal engagement focused around reconciliatory education in elementary Catholic schools (Erenna) and Anishinaabe Catholic expressions of self-determination in the Church (Noah). Erenna is a settler and Noah is a member of Michipicoten First Nation.

    We are married writing partners who travelled to Québec City in July 2022 to witness the long-awaited penitential pilgrimage of the late Pope Francis. We left with an awareness that this is a critical time for the righting of relationships that have been severely fractured by a Church complicit in genocide.

    The DPCDSB flag policy speaks to an unwillingness of many to sever emotional attachments to the white imperialism that preserves a western way of thinking, doing and being, in the name of faith.

    When a major Catholic entity like the DPCDSB introduces policies that may cause harm, concerned people, regardless of creed, must pay attention to such injustices.

    Revised flag policy

    Delegate Melanie Cormier, representing the DPCSB’s Indigenous Education Network, shared a statement relaying that the board’s restrictive flag policy fails to acknowledge the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation whose traditional and treaty territory where the board resides. She states: “Your flag policy is in violation of our jurisdiction. To say that any of our flags can not be flown in our own territories is unacceptable.”

    Brea Corbet, the only trustee with voting power who did not vote to restrict the Pride flag, told an earlier bylaw policies meeting: “When we remove rainbow flags and heritage flags, we are not protecting our Catholic identity; we are revealing institutional fragility. The Pride flag does not threaten Catholic education, policies of exclusion do.”

    Three student trustees also opposed the restrictive policy, but their votes unfortunately aren’t counted. We argue this too speaks to the suppression of student voice within the board.

    This fragility disproportionately threatens the safety of Indigenous, 2SLGBTQI+ and marginalized students and staff as they are overlooked and dismissed by the flag policy.




    Read more:
    New Brunswick’s LGBTQ+ safe schools debate makes false opponents of parents and teachers


    Nurturing all students

    Kanienʼkehá:ka (Mohawk) education professor Frank Deer speaks of educational programming “that is congruent with the identity of the local community.” This programming, he writes, must go beyond curricula to address the school environment as well. Student safety, inclusion and identity affirmation must be prioritized in all aspects of school life.

    Jennifer Brant, a Kanienʼkehà:ka interdisciplinary scholar, speaks in depth about how silence during times like these equates to complicity in accepting injustices that are taking place within “the communities in which we live, the broader society and global communities.”

    Inaction in response to this policy is negligent.

    Detrimental ramifications may also extend to reconciliation efforts in religious spaces more generally. This regressive policy poses lingering questions about the longevity of Catholic schools if they fail to protect and nurture all students.

    Impacts on reconciliation

    The primary target of the DPCDSB’s sweeping flag policy is the 2SLGBTQI+ community. In addition, the flag ban attacks Indigenous sovereignty and Anishinaabek nationhood, perpetuating attitudes tied to the Doctrine of Discovery still present in the Catholic ethos.




    Read more:
    The Vatican just renounced a 500-year-old doctrine that justified colonial land theft … Now what? — Podcast


    Flying the flags of First Nations (at their request) is not only a matter of inclusion, it is a matter of respect — respect for the land, the people and the treaties that connect us.

    In denying this step towards relationality, this governing body of a Catholic school board sets back the Church’s reconciliation efforts riding on the momentum of the papal visit.




    Read more:
    Pope Francis showed in deeds and words he wanted to face the truth in Canada


    The board’s ignorance of how this policy risks damaging relationships with students, families and staff at the board, as well as the broader public, partly reflects an indifference that Pope Francis warned Catholics about during his visit:

    “I trust and pray that Christians and civil society in this land may grow in the ability to accept and respect the identity and the experience of the Indigenous Peoples. It is my hope that concrete ways can be found to make those peoples better known and esteemed, so that all may learn to walk together.”

    Walking together in solidarity

    As we write this piece, we can see through the window a local Toronto Catholic Distric School Board elementary school, where an Every Child Matters flag is flown alongside a Pride and Canadian flag.

    Catholic education, despite its sordid history and contested perspectives about interpreting and practising Church doctrine, can be a tool to drive reconciliation.

    Catholics cannot let a narrow vision overshadow Pope Francis’s pilgrimage and the global Church movement he, the Church’s bishops and Catholic lay people have participated in — via a global synod — to respond to the call to walk together in solidarity with Indigenous, 2SLGBTQI+ and other marginalized people.

    Counter-narratives of hope and possibility

    We wish to continue to hear counter-narratives of hope and possibility for Catholic education. We wish to see active changes that move the DPCDSB, as scholar Sheila Cote-Meek of the Teme-Augama Anishinabai, writes, “to a drastically different way of being, doing and working.”

    As other Catholic boards in Ontario initiate flag debates of their own, we are left with the lingering question. What is the future of Catholic education if it’s not intended to support the physical, emotional, mental and spiritual well-being of all those entrusted to its care?

    The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Catholic school board’s regressive flag policy sets back reconciliation in a post-Papal visit Canada – https://theconversation.com/catholic-school-boards-regressive-flag-policy-sets-back-reconciliation-in-a-post-papal-visit-canada-256765

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Light-powered reactions could make the chemical manufacturing industry more energy-efficient

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Arindam Sau, Ph.D. Candidate in Chemistry, University of Colorado Boulder

    Plants use light to make energy – and a team of scientists is using the same principle to power chemical reactions. fhm/Moment via Getty Images

    Manufactured chemicals and materials are necessary for practically every aspect of daily life, from life-saving pharmaceuticals to plastics, fuels and fertilizers. Yet manufacturing these important chemicals comes at a steep energy cost.

    Many of these industrial chemicals are derived primarily from fossil fuel-based materials. These compounds are typically very stable, making it difficult to transform them into useful products without applying harsh and energy-demanding reaction conditions.

    As a result, transforming these stubborn materials contributes significantly to the world’s overall energy use. In 2022, the industrial sector consumed 37% of the world’s total energy, with the chemical industry responsible for approximately 12% of that demand.

    Conventional chemical manufacturing processes use heat to generate the energy needed for reactions that take place at high temperatures and pressures. An approach that uses light instead of heat could lower energy demands and allow reactions to be run under gentler conditions — like at room temperature instead of extreme heat.

    Sunlight represents one of the most abundant yet underutilized energy sources on Earth. In nature, this energy is captured through photosynthesis, where plants convert light into chemical energy. Inspired by this process, our team of chemists at the Center for Sustainable Photoredox Catalysis, a research center funded by the National Science Foundation, has been working on a system that uses light to power reactions commonly used in the chemical manufacturing industry. We published our results in the journal Science in June 2025.

    We hope that this method could provide a more economical route for creating industrial chemicals out of fossil fuels. At the same time, since it doesn’t rely on super-high temperatures or pressures, the process is safer, with fewer chances for accidents.

    Plants capture sunlight to convert carbon dioxide from the air into carbohydrates, or sugars.
    Wattcle, Nefronus/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

    How does our system work?

    The photoredox catalyst system that our team has developed is powered by simple LEDs, and it operates efficiently at room temperature.

    At the core of our system is an organic photoredox catalyst: a specialized molecule that we know accelerates chemical reactions when exposed to light, without being consumed in the process.

    Much like how plants rely on pigments to harvest sunlight for photosynthesis, our photoredox catalyst absorbs multiple particles of light, called photons, in a sequence.

    These photons provide bursts of energy, which the catalyst stores and then uses to kick-start reactions. This “multi-photon” harvesting builds up enough energy to force very stubborn molecules into undergoing reactions that would otherwise need highly reactive metals. Once the reaction is complete, the photocatalyst resets itself, ready to harvest more light and keep the process going without creating extra waste.

    Designing molecules that can absorb multiple photons and react with stubborn molecules is tough. One big challenge is that after a molecule absorbs a photon, it only has a tiny window of time before that energy fades away or gets lost. Plus, making sure the molecule uses that energy the right way is not easy. The good news is we’ve found that our catalyst can do this efficiently at room temperature.

    Center for Sustainable Photoredox Catalysis researcher Amreen Bains performs a light-driven photoredox catalyzed reaction.
    John Cline, Colorado State University Photography

    Enabling greener chemical manufacturing

    Our work points toward a future where chemicals are made using light instead of heat. For example, our catalyst can turn benzene — a simple component of crude oil — into a form called cyclohexadienes. This is a key step in making the building blocks for nylon. Improving this part of the process could reduce the carbon footprint of nylon production.

    Imagine manufacturers using LED reactors or even sunlight to power the production of essential chemicals. LEDs still use electricity, but they need far less energy compared with the traditional heating methods used in chemical manufacturing. As we scale things up, we’re also figuring out ways to harness sunlight directly, making the entire process even more sustainable and energy-efficient.

    Right now, we’re using our photoredox catalysts successfully in small lab experiments — producing just milligrams at a time. But to move into commercial manufacturing, we’ll need to show that these catalysts can also work efficiently at a much larger scale, making kilograms or even tons of product. Testing them in these bigger reactions will ensure that they’re reliable and cost-effective enough for real-world chemical manufacturing.

    Similarly, scaling up this process would require large-scale reactors that use light efficiently. Building those will first require designing new types of reactors that let light reach deeper inside. They’ll need to be more transparent or built differently so the light can easily get to all parts of the reaction.

    Our team plans to keep developing new light-driven techniques inspired by nature’s efficiency. Sunlight is a plentiful resource, and by finding better ways to tap into it, we hope to make it easier and cleaner to produce the chemicals and materials that modern life depends on.

    The authors 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.

    ref. Light-powered reactions could make the chemical manufacturing industry more energy-efficient – https://theconversation.com/light-powered-reactions-could-make-the-chemical-manufacturing-industry-more-energy-efficient-257796

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Light-powered reactions could make the chemical manufacturing industry more energy-efficient

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Arindam Sau, Ph.D. Candidate in Chemistry, University of Colorado Boulder

    Plants use light to make energy – and a team of scientists is using the same principle to power chemical reactions. fhm/Moment via Getty Images

    Manufactured chemicals and materials are necessary for practically every aspect of daily life, from life-saving pharmaceuticals to plastics, fuels and fertilizers. Yet manufacturing these important chemicals comes at a steep energy cost.

    Many of these industrial chemicals are derived primarily from fossil fuel-based materials. These compounds are typically very stable, making it difficult to transform them into useful products without applying harsh and energy-demanding reaction conditions.

    As a result, transforming these stubborn materials contributes significantly to the world’s overall energy use. In 2022, the industrial sector consumed 37% of the world’s total energy, with the chemical industry responsible for approximately 12% of that demand.

    Conventional chemical manufacturing processes use heat to generate the energy needed for reactions that take place at high temperatures and pressures. An approach that uses light instead of heat could lower energy demands and allow reactions to be run under gentler conditions — like at room temperature instead of extreme heat.

    Sunlight represents one of the most abundant yet underutilized energy sources on Earth. In nature, this energy is captured through photosynthesis, where plants convert light into chemical energy. Inspired by this process, our team of chemists at the Center for Sustainable Photoredox Catalysis, a research center funded by the National Science Foundation, has been working on a system that uses light to power reactions commonly used in the chemical manufacturing industry. We published our results in the journal Science in June 2025.

    We hope that this method could provide a more economical route for creating industrial chemicals out of fossil fuels. At the same time, since it doesn’t rely on super-high temperatures or pressures, the process is safer, with fewer chances for accidents.

    Plants capture sunlight to convert carbon dioxide from the air into carbohydrates, or sugars.
    Wattcle, Nefronus/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

    How does our system work?

    The photoredox catalyst system that our team has developed is powered by simple LEDs, and it operates efficiently at room temperature.

    At the core of our system is an organic photoredox catalyst: a specialized molecule that we know accelerates chemical reactions when exposed to light, without being consumed in the process.

    Much like how plants rely on pigments to harvest sunlight for photosynthesis, our photoredox catalyst absorbs multiple particles of light, called photons, in a sequence.

    These photons provide bursts of energy, which the catalyst stores and then uses to kick-start reactions. This “multi-photon” harvesting builds up enough energy to force very stubborn molecules into undergoing reactions that would otherwise need highly reactive metals. Once the reaction is complete, the photocatalyst resets itself, ready to harvest more light and keep the process going without creating extra waste.

    Designing molecules that can absorb multiple photons and react with stubborn molecules is tough. One big challenge is that after a molecule absorbs a photon, it only has a tiny window of time before that energy fades away or gets lost. Plus, making sure the molecule uses that energy the right way is not easy. The good news is we’ve found that our catalyst can do this efficiently at room temperature.

    Center for Sustainable Photoredox Catalysis researcher Amreen Bains performs a light-driven photoredox catalyzed reaction.
    John Cline, Colorado State University Photography

    Enabling greener chemical manufacturing

    Our work points toward a future where chemicals are made using light instead of heat. For example, our catalyst can turn benzene — a simple component of crude oil — into a form called cyclohexadienes. This is a key step in making the building blocks for nylon. Improving this part of the process could reduce the carbon footprint of nylon production.

    Imagine manufacturers using LED reactors or even sunlight to power the production of essential chemicals. LEDs still use electricity, but they need far less energy compared with the traditional heating methods used in chemical manufacturing. As we scale things up, we’re also figuring out ways to harness sunlight directly, making the entire process even more sustainable and energy-efficient.

    Right now, we’re using our photoredox catalysts successfully in small lab experiments — producing just milligrams at a time. But to move into commercial manufacturing, we’ll need to show that these catalysts can also work efficiently at a much larger scale, making kilograms or even tons of product. Testing them in these bigger reactions will ensure that they’re reliable and cost-effective enough for real-world chemical manufacturing.

    Similarly, scaling up this process would require large-scale reactors that use light efficiently. Building those will first require designing new types of reactors that let light reach deeper inside. They’ll need to be more transparent or built differently so the light can easily get to all parts of the reaction.

    Our team plans to keep developing new light-driven techniques inspired by nature’s efficiency. Sunlight is a plentiful resource, and by finding better ways to tap into it, we hope to make it easier and cleaner to produce the chemicals and materials that modern life depends on.

    The authors 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.

    ref. Light-powered reactions could make the chemical manufacturing industry more energy-efficient – https://theconversation.com/light-powered-reactions-could-make-the-chemical-manufacturing-industry-more-energy-efficient-257796

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: What UK involvement in Iran could look like – and the political questions it raises

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Geraint Hughes, Reader in Diplomatic and Military History, King’s College London

    Lauren Hurley / No 10 Downing Street, CC BY-NC-ND

    At the time of writing, US President Donald Trump is deliberating over whether to join Israel’s air campaign to destroy Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons programme. This is already a contentious issue within Washington DC and the Trump administration. But if the president decides to take the US into a war with Iran, it will have significant implications for the US’s allies, not least the UK.

    As the recent strategic defence review emphasises, the US is Britain’s main ally, an essential partner in defence and intelligence.

    However, the Trump administration has made clear to its European allies that it no longer regards the defence of the continent as a US national security priority. And the president’s commitment to Nato is uncertain.

    It is possible that Britain and other European allies could be publicly pressured by Trump to support any intervention on Israel’s side. The US may expect this in return for the US’s continued involvement in Nato and its readiness to honour article 5 (the collective defence principle, which obliges collective retaliation to aggression against one member) for its allies.


    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.


    Given the importance of American military power in deterring wider Russian aggression in Europe – and Trump’s transactional character – this would present Keir Starmer with a particularly stark dilemma.

    A purely US air campaign against Iran is feasible. The US Navy will soon have two carrier strike groups in the Middle East region. And the US Air Force’s B2 strategic bombers can launch raids across the globe from bases in the continental US.

    The US also has several military bases in the region. However, as was the case with the 1991 and 2003 wars with Iraq, Washington DC will need permission from Gulf Arab allies to use them.

    Nonetheless, the Trump administration could request authorisation from the UK’s Labour government to use US airbases in the UK and its overseas territories to support an air campaign against Iran. This would not involve the UK deploying forces, but would require the UK to approve the use of the airbases.

    The Diego Garcia airbase in the Indian Ocean would be a useful asset in this case. But its employment would reopen the controversy over its establishment in the 1960s.

    It could also call into question the diplomatic deal the UK made with Mauritius last month to cede sovereignty of the Chagos Islands, while keeping this base open. The Mauritians are likely to oppose US airstrikes on Iran.

    Britain also has options for direct participation. RAF Typhoon jets stationed at Britain’s airbase in Akrotiri, Cyprus provided air defence support for Israel during the Iranian missile and drone strikes in April and October 2024. They could conduct similar missions now.

    But from the Royal Navy’s perspective, it would be difficult to divert the aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales from its deployment to the Indo-Pacific, partly because the task group it sails with is a multinational one.

    Given that the British armed forces are already overstretched, it is difficult to see whether the UK could provide more than basing rights and air support to the Israelis (if requested).

    A discreet commitment of UK special forces (the 22nd Special Air Service regiment and the Special Boat Service) on the ground is conceivable. This can be – and indeed has been – authorised by previous governments without parliamentary debate. But any further British military commitment is likely to cause a political row.

    Legal and political ramifications

    The key question for Starmer and his ministers will not be whether Britain could back a US war against Iran but whether it should. After the debacle of the Iraq war and the ensuing Chilcot inquiry, it is difficult to see how any government – let alone a Labour one – can take Britain into a major interstate conflict on this scale without firm parliamentary support and a solid case in international law.

    To this end, the Attorney General Richard Hermer has reportedly questioned the legality of Israel’s preemptive attack on Iran, and has argued that any British military intervention should be limited to the defence of its allies.

    We should not forget that Starmer was a human rights lawyer and the head of the Crown Prosecution Service before he became a politician.

    Another legacy of Iraq is that it is customary (though not a legal requirement) for prime ministers to seek parliamentary approval for any major military operation. David Cameron lost a vote in the House of Commons to approve airstrikes against Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria in August 2013. But he gained parliamentary support for Britain’s commitment to the fight against Islamic State in 2015.

    A similar debate now is unlikely to lead to approval of British military intervention in this case. Within the Labour party, there is already widespread condemnation of Israeli tactics and Palestinian civilian casualties in Gaza.

    There is little popular appetite for sending British sailors and airmen into a war with Iran. And, given the US vice-president’s own dismissive comments about the military experiences of European allies, the public is also entitled to ask why British servicemen should die or risk breaching international law for an administration that probably will not appreciate their sacrifice.

    Geraint Hughes does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. What UK involvement in Iran could look like – and the political questions it raises – https://theconversation.com/what-uk-involvement-in-iran-could-look-like-and-the-political-questions-it-raises-259420

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump’s unpredictable approach to Iran could seriously backfire

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Michelle Bentley, Professor of International Relations, Royal Holloway University of London

    US president Donald Trump has now publicly approved a plan of attack against Iran, which includes a strike against its underground nuclear facility at Fordow (though, at the time of writing, a final decision to go ahead hasn’t been made).

    The world is now waiting to see whether Trump will put this plan into action. And that’s exactly what Trump wants. This is not a case of indecision or buying time. Trump has long based his foreign policy on being unpredictable. Iran is another example of his strategy to be as elusive as possible. Yet, his approach has always been difficult – and now threatens to destabilise an already fractious conflict.

    One interpretation of Trump’s new public threat towards Iran could be deterrence. Trump is warning Iran that there would be significant consequences if they do not reverse their nuclear ambitions. Change or you will regret it.

    If this is Trump’s plan, then he is doing it badly. Successful deterrence relies on clearly communicating the exact penalties of not complying. While Trump has specified a possible attack on Fordow, the rest of the plan is extremely hazy. Trump said he wants “better than a ceasefire”.


    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.


    But what does that mean? Just Fordow? Boots on the ground? Regime change? His ambiguity creates problems for deterrence because if your adversary doesn’t know what the outcomes of their actions will be, they can’t formulate a response or will think you just aren’t serious.

    But current US foreign policy on Iran is more than bad deterrence. Trump’s vague rhetoric and his refusal to commit reflects his long-standing strategy of being unreliable when it comes to foreign policy.

    Trump’s prevarication has all the hallmarks of his unpredictability doctrine – which states that you should never let anyone know what you will do. The doctrine is also about uncertainty. The idea being that you unnerve your opponents by making them unsure, allowing you to take the advantage while they have no idea what to do themselves.

    Trump’s rhetoric on Iran reflects that unpredictability doctrine. Trump actively said of his future action: “I mean, nobody knows what I’m going to do.”

    This would not be the first time he has used unpredictability in relation to Iran. In 2018, Trump withdrew the US from the joint comprehensive plan of action (JCPOA). This agreement – signed by the US, France, Germany, the UK, China, Russia and the EU – was designed to limit Iran’s nuclear activity in return for sanctions relief. The US withdrawal was seen as disruptive and creating unnecessary uncertainty, not just for Iran but also US allies.

    Will the strategy work?

    Being unpredictable is a dangerous way of doing foreign policy. Stable international politics depends on knowing what everyone else will do. You can’t do that with Trump.

    The downsides of unpredictability will be even worse in a conflict. In the case of Iran, adding even more uncertainty to a fragile situation will only add fuel to what is already a massive fire.




    Read more:
    China positions itself as a stable economic partner and alternative to ‘unpredictable’ Trump


    Trump’s refusal to specify exactly what the US response would be is more proverbial petrol. The insinuation that this could escalate to regime change may be true or not (or just unpredictable bluster).

    It’s also the case that only 14% of Americans support military intervention and so a more aggressive policy may not be realistic. But if Iran is led to think that Trump is directly threatening their state, this could encourage them to hunker down as opposed to changing their nuclear policy – risking greater military action on both sides.

    Donald Trump being unclear about whether the US is going to bomb Iran.

    Even just the implicit threat of US military intervention will damage what little relations there are between America and Iran. Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has said: “Any US military intervention will undoubtedly cause irreparable damage.” Unpredictability then undermines any diplomatic negotiations or solution to the crisis.

    Trump is also risking his foreign policy relations beyond Iran. While preventing a new member of the nuclear club is a laudable aim, any US attack on a state over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) will lie in the difficult shadow of the “war on terror”, the US-led military campaign launched after 9/11.

    With the International Atomic Energy Agency questioning Iran’s capacity to build a nuclear bomb, the US’s legacy of intervention over the WMD in Iraq that never were still looms large. Trump will need to be fully transparent and clear if any action over nuclear arms is going to be seen as legitimate. Unpredictability does not allow for that.

    Trump’s fellow state leaders are going to feel disrupted by yet another example of unpredictability. Even if they support curbing Iran, they may find it difficult to back someone they simply can’t depend on. And if they feel cautious about the Iran situation because they can’t rely on Trump, Trump needs to start asking whether he can rely on them for support in whatever his next move is.

    Michelle Bentley does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Trump’s unpredictable approach to Iran could seriously backfire – https://theconversation.com/trumps-unpredictable-approach-to-iran-could-seriously-backfire-259399

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump’s unpredictable approach to Iran could seriously backfire

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Michelle Bentley, Professor of International Relations, Royal Holloway University of London

    US president Donald Trump has now publicly approved a plan of attack against Iran, which includes a strike against its underground nuclear facility at Fordow (though, at the time of writing, a final decision to go ahead hasn’t been made).

    The world is now waiting to see whether Trump will put this plan into action. And that’s exactly what Trump wants. This is not a case of indecision or buying time. Trump has long based his foreign policy on being unpredictable. Iran is another example of his strategy to be as elusive as possible. Yet, his approach has always been difficult – and now threatens to destabilise an already fractious conflict.

    One interpretation of Trump’s new public threat towards Iran could be deterrence. Trump is warning Iran that there would be significant consequences if they do not reverse their nuclear ambitions. Change or you will regret it.

    If this is Trump’s plan, then he is doing it badly. Successful deterrence relies on clearly communicating the exact penalties of not complying. While Trump has specified a possible attack on Fordow, the rest of the plan is extremely hazy. Trump said he wants “better than a ceasefire”.


    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.


    But what does that mean? Just Fordow? Boots on the ground? Regime change? His ambiguity creates problems for deterrence because if your adversary doesn’t know what the outcomes of their actions will be, they can’t formulate a response or will think you just aren’t serious.

    But current US foreign policy on Iran is more than bad deterrence. Trump’s vague rhetoric and his refusal to commit reflects his long-standing strategy of being unreliable when it comes to foreign policy.

    Trump’s prevarication has all the hallmarks of his unpredictability doctrine – which states that you should never let anyone know what you will do. The doctrine is also about uncertainty. The idea being that you unnerve your opponents by making them unsure, allowing you to take the advantage while they have no idea what to do themselves.

    Trump’s rhetoric on Iran reflects that unpredictability doctrine. Trump actively said of his future action: “I mean, nobody knows what I’m going to do.”

    This would not be the first time he has used unpredictability in relation to Iran. In 2018, Trump withdrew the US from the joint comprehensive plan of action (JCPOA). This agreement – signed by the US, France, Germany, the UK, China, Russia and the EU – was designed to limit Iran’s nuclear activity in return for sanctions relief. The US withdrawal was seen as disruptive and creating unnecessary uncertainty, not just for Iran but also US allies.

    Will the strategy work?

    Being unpredictable is a dangerous way of doing foreign policy. Stable international politics depends on knowing what everyone else will do. You can’t do that with Trump.

    The downsides of unpredictability will be even worse in a conflict. In the case of Iran, adding even more uncertainty to a fragile situation will only add fuel to what is already a massive fire.




    Read more:
    China positions itself as a stable economic partner and alternative to ‘unpredictable’ Trump


    Trump’s refusal to specify exactly what the US response would be is more proverbial petrol. The insinuation that this could escalate to regime change may be true or not (or just unpredictable bluster).

    It’s also the case that only 14% of Americans support military intervention and so a more aggressive policy may not be realistic. But if Iran is led to think that Trump is directly threatening their state, this could encourage them to hunker down as opposed to changing their nuclear policy – risking greater military action on both sides.

    Donald Trump being unclear about whether the US is going to bomb Iran.

    Even just the implicit threat of US military intervention will damage what little relations there are between America and Iran. Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has said: “Any US military intervention will undoubtedly cause irreparable damage.” Unpredictability then undermines any diplomatic negotiations or solution to the crisis.

    Trump is also risking his foreign policy relations beyond Iran. While preventing a new member of the nuclear club is a laudable aim, any US attack on a state over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) will lie in the difficult shadow of the “war on terror”, the US-led military campaign launched after 9/11.

    With the International Atomic Energy Agency questioning Iran’s capacity to build a nuclear bomb, the US’s legacy of intervention over the WMD in Iraq that never were still looms large. Trump will need to be fully transparent and clear if any action over nuclear arms is going to be seen as legitimate. Unpredictability does not allow for that.

    Trump’s fellow state leaders are going to feel disrupted by yet another example of unpredictability. Even if they support curbing Iran, they may find it difficult to back someone they simply can’t depend on. And if they feel cautious about the Iran situation because they can’t rely on Trump, Trump needs to start asking whether he can rely on them for support in whatever his next move is.

    Michelle Bentley does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Trump’s unpredictable approach to Iran could seriously backfire – https://theconversation.com/trumps-unpredictable-approach-to-iran-could-seriously-backfire-259399

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Israel’s attacks have exposed weaknesses in Iran, but it’s in little danger of collapsing

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Farhang Morady, Principal Lecturer in International Development, University of Westminster

    The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has said that his country’s campaign in Iran “could certainly” lead to regime change. In an interview with Fox News on June 15, he called the government in Tehran “very weak” and added that, given the opportunity, “80% of the [Iranian] people would throw these theological thugs out”.

    Israel’s military actions so far indicate that its goals probably do extend beyond eliminating Iran’s nuclear programme. Airstrikes have targeted military leadership, internal security facilities and the headquarters of Iran’s state broadcaster. Israel’s aim is seemingly to destabilise the regime by inciting a popular uprising and fragmenting elite support.

    Tehran, meanwhile, has been eager to project an image of strength and stability. It has sought to illustrate its resilience and unity through constant coverage by state media, highlighting its military readiness while also broadcasting public displays of loyalty. Government officials have also visited affected regions.

    This raises the question: is more than four decades of theocratic rule in Iran really as close to collapse as Netanyahu says it is?


    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.


    The Israeli attacks have exposed weaknesses in the Iranian state. Several senior military officials and top nuclear scientists have been killed, while Israel has been able to strike targets in the Iranian capital, Tehran, with relative ease after crippling Iran’s air defences.

    Strategic sites in Iran have proven vulnerable, with nuclear sites and military command headquarters hit hard. Many residents of Tehran have fled to other cities fearful that the situation will worsen.

    However, despite inflicting significant damage, the strikes have not caused the downfall of the regime’s core institutions. The deaths of at least 20 key commanders prompted the Iranian supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to reshuffle Iran’s military leadership to maintain stability and control. New appointments were made swiftly.

    And, at least publicly, the Iranian elite is maintaining its position that the country can endure the crisis without giving in to foreign pressure. Khamenei has even warned the US president, Donald Trump, that the US will “face irreparable harm” should it become involved in the conflict.

    Diplomatic manoeuvres behind the scenes, however, suggest the regime is demonstrating a willingness to compromise to ensure its survival. An unverified Iranian diplomatic statement on June 16 even indicated that the regime would be willing to suspend uranium enrichment to maintain itself.

    The Iranian government is probably displaying confidence in public as a strategic move to prevent domestic unrest. Iran is facing significant economic, political and social challenges. Over 60% of its population is under 30 years old, and this demographic is increasingly disconnected from the principles promoted by the regime.

    Widespread protests erupted in 2022 following the death of a young woman called Mahsa Amini while she was in police custody for allegedly violating hijab regulations. The protests demonstrated deep-seated discontent with the regime and its morality laws that dictate women’s attire and public behaviour.

    The protests were suppressed, but underlying discontent remains. Israeli leaders hope that striking Iran might start a chain reaction leading to an uprising that topples the Islamic Republic. Israel’s defence minister, Israel Katz, hinted as much on June 19. He said the military has been instructed to intensify strikes on targets in Tehran in order to destabilise the “Ayatollah regime”.

    No imminent collapse

    Despite immense pressure, the collapse of Iran’s theocratic regime is not imminent. It continues to hold authority over its military and controls the media. The regime sustains itself through its powerful institutional base rather than public approval.

    Opposition movements are also fragmented and lack an organised structure. Groups like Mojahedin-e-Khalq and the movement led by Reza Pahlavi, the exiled eldest son of the last shah of Iran, have sought to gain influence with western support. However, they lack popular backing within Iran.

    The Islamic Republic appears to be on a path of gradual deterioration rather than complete collapse. However, Trump does appear to be warming to the idea of helping Israel overthrow the government in Tehran. And any US involvement would intensify pressure on the regime significantly.

    On June 17, Trump described Khamenei as an “easy target” who is safe only “for now”. Trump has since said his patience with Iran had run out, saying “I may do it, I may not do it” when asked a question about US involvement in Iran.

    The US possesses the 30,000-pound “bunker buster” bomb capable of damaging Iran’s deep-lying uranium enrichment facilities and the B-2 stealth bomber to carry it. And it has been moving military assets to its bases in the Middle East.

    It is uncertain whether these actions represent direct provocation or simply an attempt by Trump to exert more pressure on Iran to negotiate an end to the conflict.

    Trump’s camp is split over potential US involvement in Iran. Some US military and intelligence officials – including the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard – have expressed concerns about a direct confrontation.

    It is also possible that Israeli and US attempts to impose a change of government in Iran could even unite the regime. The Islamic Republic has a history of using foreign pressure to justify domestic crackdowns and increase its domestic control.

    The external efforts to accelerate the collapse of the regime could, somewhat counterintuitively, help the regime survive in the short-term while deeper internal problems continue to exist.

    Farhang Morady does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Israel’s attacks have exposed weaknesses in Iran, but it’s in little danger of collapsing – https://theconversation.com/israels-attacks-have-exposed-weaknesses-in-iran-but-its-in-little-danger-of-collapsing-259230

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Israel’s attacks have exposed weaknesses in Iran, but it’s in little danger of collapsing

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Farhang Morady, Principal Lecturer in International Development, University of Westminster

    The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has said that his country’s campaign in Iran “could certainly” lead to regime change. In an interview with Fox News on June 15, he called the government in Tehran “very weak” and added that, given the opportunity, “80% of the [Iranian] people would throw these theological thugs out”.

    Israel’s military actions so far indicate that its goals probably do extend beyond eliminating Iran’s nuclear programme. Airstrikes have targeted military leadership, internal security facilities and the headquarters of Iran’s state broadcaster. Israel’s aim is seemingly to destabilise the regime by inciting a popular uprising and fragmenting elite support.

    Tehran, meanwhile, has been eager to project an image of strength and stability. It has sought to illustrate its resilience and unity through constant coverage by state media, highlighting its military readiness while also broadcasting public displays of loyalty. Government officials have also visited affected regions.

    This raises the question: is more than four decades of theocratic rule in Iran really as close to collapse as Netanyahu says it is?


    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.


    The Israeli attacks have exposed weaknesses in the Iranian state. Several senior military officials and top nuclear scientists have been killed, while Israel has been able to strike targets in the Iranian capital, Tehran, with relative ease after crippling Iran’s air defences.

    Strategic sites in Iran have proven vulnerable, with nuclear sites and military command headquarters hit hard. Many residents of Tehran have fled to other cities fearful that the situation will worsen.

    However, despite inflicting significant damage, the strikes have not caused the downfall of the regime’s core institutions. The deaths of at least 20 key commanders prompted the Iranian supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to reshuffle Iran’s military leadership to maintain stability and control. New appointments were made swiftly.

    And, at least publicly, the Iranian elite is maintaining its position that the country can endure the crisis without giving in to foreign pressure. Khamenei has even warned the US president, Donald Trump, that the US will “face irreparable harm” should it become involved in the conflict.

    Diplomatic manoeuvres behind the scenes, however, suggest the regime is demonstrating a willingness to compromise to ensure its survival. An unverified Iranian diplomatic statement on June 16 even indicated that the regime would be willing to suspend uranium enrichment to maintain itself.

    The Iranian government is probably displaying confidence in public as a strategic move to prevent domestic unrest. Iran is facing significant economic, political and social challenges. Over 60% of its population is under 30 years old, and this demographic is increasingly disconnected from the principles promoted by the regime.

    Widespread protests erupted in 2022 following the death of a young woman called Mahsa Amini while she was in police custody for allegedly violating hijab regulations. The protests demonstrated deep-seated discontent with the regime and its morality laws that dictate women’s attire and public behaviour.

    The protests were suppressed, but underlying discontent remains. Israeli leaders hope that striking Iran might start a chain reaction leading to an uprising that topples the Islamic Republic. Israel’s defence minister, Israel Katz, hinted as much on June 19. He said the military has been instructed to intensify strikes on targets in Tehran in order to destabilise the “Ayatollah regime”.

    No imminent collapse

    Despite immense pressure, the collapse of Iran’s theocratic regime is not imminent. It continues to hold authority over its military and controls the media. The regime sustains itself through its powerful institutional base rather than public approval.

    Opposition movements are also fragmented and lack an organised structure. Groups like Mojahedin-e-Khalq and the movement led by Reza Pahlavi, the exiled eldest son of the last shah of Iran, have sought to gain influence with western support. However, they lack popular backing within Iran.

    The Islamic Republic appears to be on a path of gradual deterioration rather than complete collapse. However, Trump does appear to be warming to the idea of helping Israel overthrow the government in Tehran. And any US involvement would intensify pressure on the regime significantly.

    On June 17, Trump described Khamenei as an “easy target” who is safe only “for now”. Trump has since said his patience with Iran had run out, saying “I may do it, I may not do it” when asked a question about US involvement in Iran.

    The US possesses the 30,000-pound “bunker buster” bomb capable of damaging Iran’s deep-lying uranium enrichment facilities and the B-2 stealth bomber to carry it. And it has been moving military assets to its bases in the Middle East.

    It is uncertain whether these actions represent direct provocation or simply an attempt by Trump to exert more pressure on Iran to negotiate an end to the conflict.

    Trump’s camp is split over potential US involvement in Iran. Some US military and intelligence officials – including the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard – have expressed concerns about a direct confrontation.

    It is also possible that Israeli and US attempts to impose a change of government in Iran could even unite the regime. The Islamic Republic has a history of using foreign pressure to justify domestic crackdowns and increase its domestic control.

    The external efforts to accelerate the collapse of the regime could, somewhat counterintuitively, help the regime survive in the short-term while deeper internal problems continue to exist.

    Farhang Morady does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Israel’s attacks have exposed weaknesses in Iran, but it’s in little danger of collapsing – https://theconversation.com/israels-attacks-have-exposed-weaknesses-in-iran-but-its-in-little-danger-of-collapsing-259230

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Jaws helped spur a fishing frenzy – so how have the world’s sharks fared since the 1975 release?

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By David Sims, Professor of Marine Ecology, University of Southampton

    Steven Spielberg’s Jaws opened across North America on June 20 1975, and immediately tapped into the primal human fear of being hunted by a huge, savvy predator.

    Set on a fictional island off the coast of New England, the film depicts an epic battle between three men on a boat and an enormous great white shark. Jaws was hugely popular, grossing a record US$100 million in its first 59 days.

    Young and already mad about sharks, I left the film wanting to know more about their behaviour and ecology. But films affect people in different ways, and the movie has since spawned what social scientists call “the Jaws effect”.

    This contended that sharks became widely demonised as a result of the film’s depiction of them as relentless killers obsessed with attacking humans. Director Spielberg’s inspired use of fleeting glimpses of the shark’s fin knifing through the water, accompanied by the film’s sinister and unforgettable music, heightened those feelings. That’s how Jaws affected us. But 50 years on, how have shark populations fared?


    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.


    Both Spielberg and Peter Benchley, Jaws author and screenplay contributor, regretted the film’s influence on public perception of sharks. Indeed, Benchley became an advocate for shark conservation who enjoyed working with scientists (I was invited onto his radio show to discuss my research satellite-tracking basking sharks).

    In the years following the film’s release, increasing numbers of sharks – including the movie’s great white – were reportedly killed in shark fishing tournaments that had risen in popularity.

    Sharks grow slowly, take a long time to reach sexual maturity and have relatively few offspring. This makes many species vulnerable to overfishing. Fishing at this level removes too many sharks from the population too quickly, such that the remaining sharks cannot replace them fast enough, and the population declines. A recorded decline can be relatively large if the starting population size is already small, like that of top predators such as the great white shark.

    Several data sources, including rod-and-reel and longline fishing, indicate a significant decline in the abundance of white sharks in the 1970s and 1980s along the US east coast where the film is set. The Jaws effect in action?

    Actually, rapid declines were not limited to US waters. White shark catches in bather protection nets off the southeast coast of Australia recorded a similarly large decrease in the mid-1970s. And this particular source suggests white shark populations had begun declining from the mid-1950s, 20 years before Jaws.

    Additional factors, such as commercial overfishing, were obviously at play. The film’s influence probably exacerbated white shark declines that were already happening.

    Globally, the white shark has been assessed as vulnerable by conservationists, with a decreasing population trend. Fortunately, there are signs of recovery.

    National protection measures for white sharks were implemented in the 1990s where these animals were formerly abundant, like the US, South Africa and Australia, and worldwide protections came a few years later.

    Since the 1990s, there have been apparent increases in abundance off the US east coast (when populations are so small and data so sparse, a short-term increase may not be a lasting trend). Welcome signs that measures such as prohibiting catches in 1997 are having a positive effect following decades of over-exploitation. But this species is still vulnerable to incidental capture, so protection measures must be maintained and enforced to sustain any recoveries.

    The Jaws effect was not limited to great white sharks. Many other large sharks were captured and killed in shark fishing tournaments that became more common following the film. Unfortunately, the killing continues in remaining US tournaments today.

    But over the past few decades the overwhelming cause of large shark declines globally, particularly in the open ocean far from shore, has been the expansion of industrial-scale commercial fisheries targeting sharks for their fins and meat.

    It was estimated in 2024 that fishing vessels are killing around 100 million sharks a year – a number that rose during the last decade. Nearly a third of shark species are now threatened with extinction.

    It was estimated in 2021 that the global abundance of shark and ray species which prowl the open ocean (such as the oceanic whitetip or shortfin mako) has declined by an average of 71% since 1970 due to rocketing fishing pressure on the high seas (areas beyond national jurisdictions).

    My own research analysing shark satellite tracks in collaboration with over 150 shark scientists, showed that 24% of the space used by these sharks each month on average falls under the footprint of surface longline fisheries. These include vessels that can deploy lines 100km-long carrying 1,000 baited hooks for up to 24 hours. We found the overlap was even greater, about 75%, for commercially valuable species such as the blue shark.

    More sharks die in these overlap hotspots than in adjacent areas, according to more recent research.

    Demystifying Jaws

    Are there any signs of recovery for these species under existing management measures? For many oceanic sharks, the answer is still no.

    At present, measures in place (if any) on the high seas are insufficient to safeguard populations. There is very little or no protection of shark activity hotspots. And some of the measures, such as shark finning bans, have been shown to be ineffective.

    My colleagues and I revealed that catches of internationally protected species are sometimes 90 times greater than official reports.

    So there is still a very long way to go to rebuild global shark populations.

    Jaws helped promote a negative image of sharks that has no basis in reality. Rather, shark behaviour appears as complex in some cases as that of birds and mammals.

    Tracking sharks revealed they can migrate thousands of kilometres to feed in specific remote habitats, before returning to the very same place they left months before. Some prefer to hang out with familiar individuals, and sharks even form persistent social networks. Giant basking sharks take part in speed-dating-like behaviour when they form courtship swimming circles at the end of summer.

    The serial killer image has probably made it harder to convince people to sympathise with the plight of sharks. Jaws came at a time when very little was known about sharks, so fiction filled the void.

    But there are now more shark scientists thanks to Jaws. Demystifying these creatures has been the first step to their potential recovery.


    Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

    Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.


    David Sims has received funding from the European Research Council, the European Commission’s Horizon Europe programme and the UK Natural Environment Research Council.

    ref. Jaws helped spur a fishing frenzy – so how have the world’s sharks fared since the 1975 release? – https://theconversation.com/jaws-helped-spur-a-fishing-frenzy-so-how-have-the-worlds-sharks-fared-since-the-1975-release-255444

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Israel’s conflict with Iran escalates as Trump considers US involvement

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sam Phelps, Commissioning Editor, International Affairs

    This article was first published in The Conversation UK’s World Affairs Briefing email newsletter. Sign up to receive weekly analysis of the latest developments in international relations, direct to your inbox.


    Israel’s attack on Iranian nuclear facilities and military leadership last week has quickly escalated into the most severe conflict between the two foes in decades. They have been trading missile attacks, with Israel now hinting that it seeks to overthrow the government in Tehran.

    On June 19, after an Iranian missile struck a hospital in the Israeli city of Beersheba, Israel’s defence minister, Israel Katz, announced that he had instructed the military to increase the intensity of attacks against Iran. The goal, he said, was to “undermine the regime”.

    Israel has long made it clear that it would like to see a change of government in Tehran – though not necessarily through direct military action. Katz’s comments, which also involved saying that the Iranian supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, “will pay for his crimes”, are the first time Israel has claimed regime change as an official goal since the conflict with Iran began.


    Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.


    We asked Farhang Morady, a lecturer in international development at the University of Westminster, how precarious the Iranian government’s grip on power really is. He explains that, despite being under immense pressure, the regime is not at imminent risk of collapse.

    Israeli strikes have inflicted significant damage, Morady says. But they have not caused the downfall of the regime’s core institutions. Khamenei has reshuffled Iran’s military leadership to maintain stability and control, swiftly appointing successors to replace assassinated commanders.

    At least publicly, Morady writes, the Iranian elite is eager to demonstrate its position that the country is capable of enduring the crisis without giving in to foreign pressure. At the same time, the regime has been employing back-channel diplomacy to ensure its survival. It has even reportedly indicated that it is willing to suspend uranium enrichment to maintain itself.




    Read more:
    Israel’s attacks have exposed weaknesses in Iran, but it’s in little danger of collapsing


    However, pressure on the regime could be set to intensify. US president Donald Trump has made it clear that he is considering joining Israel’s campaign against Iran.

    As part of a string of social media posts, which followed his early exit from the G7 summit in Canada, Trump described Khamenei as an “easy target” who is safe “for now”. Then, on June 18, when asked a question about the US striking Iran, Trump said: “I may do it, I may not do it.”

    Whether Trump’s antics are a bluff to force Iran to negotiate an end to the conflict – or, in his own words, an “unconditional surrender” – remains to be seen.

    But in the view of Natasha Lindstaedt, a professor in the department of government at the University of Essex, Trump’s statements suggest he is being won over by the Israeli government’s pressure campaign to convince Washington that the time is right for a joint military assault on Iran.

    The US possesses the 30,000-pound “bunker buster” bomb, and the B-2 stealth bomber to carry it, capable of destroying Iran’s deep-lying uranium enrichment sites. Lindstaedt sees a situation arising soon where Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, convinces Trump to use this weapon against Iran.




    Read more:
    Trump breaks from western allies at G7 summit as US weighs joining Iran strikes


    Any American military action in Iran has the potential to cause a split in Trump’s base of support, says Richard Hargy, an expert on US politics at Queen’s University Belfast. In this piece, Hargy details how Trump’s condemnation of former US presidents for leading the US into foreign wars won him plaudits with his “make America great again” (Maga) base.

    These people remain fiercely opposed to US involvement in another conflict in the Middle East. Steve Bannon, an America-first backer and staunch Trump ally, has warned that US action in Iran would “blow up” Trump’s coalition of support.

    At the same time, Hargy says Trump has several prominent Republican hawks urging him to take military action against Iran. Senator Lindsey Graham, for example, has this week called on Trump to go “all in” to help “Israel eliminate the [Iranian] nuclear threat”.

    Whatever Trump decides over Iran will be a pivotal moment for his presidency.




    Read more:
    Iran air strikes: Republicans split over support for Trump and another ‘foreign war’


    Confrontation was inevitable

    A direct conflict between Israel and Iran has been a long time coming. Tensions between the two countries have been simmering for years. But why did Israel chose to act now? Matthew Moran and Wyn Bowen, professors of international security at King’s College London, say two factors have converged that made this confrontation all but inevitable.

    First, Iran’s regime has been left exposed by events over the past 12 months or so. Israeli strikes in October 2024 seriously degraded Iran’s air defences, while Israel’s military response to the October 7 Hamas attacks has decimated Iran’s regional proxy network. These events have undermined Iran’s ability to deter adversaries and have emboldened Israel.

    And second, Iran’s nuclear programme has advanced since Trump withdrew the US from a deal negotiated during Barack Obama’s presidency that greatly rolled back Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

    Moran and Bowen point to a recent report by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security that suggests Iran could convert its current stock of 60% enriched uranium into enough weapons-grade uranium for seven nuclear weapons. This could be done in as little as three weeks.

    US national intelligence and the International Atomic Energy Agency say there is no evidence to suggest Iran is, in fact, looking to build a nuclear bomb. Nevertheless, even the possibility that Iran was close to developing one crossed an Israeli red line and triggered action.

    In the words of Moran and Bowen: “Iran’s brinkmanship around its effort to hedge its bets on a nuclear option meant it was always operating in a dangerous space.”




    Read more:
    Israeli aggression and Iranian nuclear brinkmanship made this confrontation all but inevitable


    According to Brian Brivati of Kingston University, there is one other factor may have encouraged Israel to take action against Iran: the collapsing credibility of the international legal order.

    In this piece, Brivati traces how the Israeli and US governments have systematically weakened the global institutions designed to uphold international law over the past few years. The Israeli government has ignored court rulings over its actions in Gaza, while the US has disabled the mechanisms of accountability.

    This has created a situation in which states can act with impunity, confident that international mechanisms can be ignored. Israel’s initial attack on Iran, which was conducted without authorisation from the UN security council, is a symptom of this. And other global powers like Russia and China may now look to follow its lead.

    We have arrived at a moment so stark, Brivati says, that it should be seen as a turning point for the international order.




    Read more:
    Israel, Iran and the US: why 2025 is a turning point for the international order


    World Affairs Briefing from The Conversation UK is available as a weekly email newsletter. Click here to get updates directly in your inbox.


    ref. Israel’s conflict with Iran escalates as Trump considers US involvement – https://theconversation.com/israels-conflict-with-iran-escalates-as-trump-considers-us-involvement-259201

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: The great coral reef relocation

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jack Marley, Environment + Energy Editor, UK edition

    An Acropora coral during a spawning event. Coral Brunner/Shutterstock

    This article was first published in The Conversation’s Imagine email newsletter. Sign up to receive a weekly roundup of the academic research on climate action.


    Underwater cities. Rainforests of the sea. Bulwarks against the ocean’s fury and sponsors of its bounty. Canaries in the coal mine that show how rapidly the once mild global climate is changing.

    Tropical coral reefs encrust the coastlines of islands and continents near Earth’s equator but this zone, which has offered sufficient light and warmth for corals to evolve over hundreds of millions of years, is no longer hospitable.

    The fourth global coral bleaching event is under way, thanks to unusually high ocean temperatures that have persisted since 2023. All of these events have happened in the last 30 years (2024-2025, 2014-2017, 2010 and 1998), hence the canary analogy.

    Scientists have seized on an idea for saving reefs. What if corals can do as many other species are doing and migrate out of the boiling tropics?

    What if we helped them move?


    This roundup of The Conversation’s climate coverage comes from our award-winning weekly climate action newsletter. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed.


    A quick biology lesson courtesy of Jörg Wiedenmann and Cecilia D’Angelo, ocean scientists at the University of Southampton. “Stony corals are soft-bodied animals made up of many individual polyps that live together as a colony,” they explain.




    Read more:
    How do coral reefs thrive in parts of the ocean that are low in nutrients? By eating their algal companions


    Corals that build reefs often share their calcium carbonate skeleton with tiny algae that photosynthesise like plants on land. The coral host gains food, the algae shelter. These algae are also responsible for the dazzling colour of reefs, but when conditions are too stressful – like during the ongoing marine heatwave – the algae depart and leave a bleached-white reef behind.

    The reef will die if conditions remain poor for too long.

    Going with the flow

    “While adult corals build solid structures that are firmly attached to the sea floor, baby corals are not confined to their reefs,” says Noam Vogt-Vincent, a
    postdoctoral fellow in marine biology at the University of Hawaii.

    These intrepid larvae carry with them the fate of their home, and one of Earth’s most wildlife-rich habitats. They can travel hundreds of miles before settling in a new location. This is what allows the distribution of corals to shift over time, and the fossil record shows coral reef expansions have happened before, Vogt-Vincent notes.

    Where larvae go is largely determined by ocean currents.




    Read more:
    Coral reefs face an uncertain recovery from the 4th global mass bleaching event – can climate refuges help?


    “Major ocean currents can carry baby corals to temperate seas. If new coral reefs form there as the waters warm, these areas might act as refuges for tropical corals, reducing the corals’ risk of extinction,” he says.

    Suitable water temperatures for coral are expected to expand outwards from the tropics by 25 miles (40km) per decade. So, if waters are warming in the subtropics and temperate seas to accommodate them, could a tropical coral exodus be the answer?

    To find out, Vogt-Vincent combined field and lab data on the conditions corals need to thrive with data on ocean currents. He and his colleagues created a global simulation to represent how corals are likely to respond to changing environmental conditions, and then added future climate projections.

    “We found that it will take centuries for coral reefs to shift away from the tropics. This is far too slow for temperate seas to save tropical coral species – they are facing severe threats right now and in the coming decades,” he says.

    A helping hand

    Could people expedite this migration and help corals to settle and thrive on new patches of seabed? This has been tried to some success before.

    South Sulawesi in Indonesia once hosted some of the world’s most vibrant and diverse coral reefs. They were decimated by dynamite fishing in the 1990s. However, divers working for the Mars coral restoration programme at Pulau Bontosua have kickstarted their recovery by transplanting healthy coral fragments into the sea by hand.




    Read more:
    Restored coral reefs can grow as fast as healthy reefs after just four years – new study


    When a marine heatwave struck the water south of Florida in July 2023, a heroic effort was launched to move young corals out of harm’s way. These included the fragments of coral kept and nurtured in artificial “nurseries” for transplantation on reefs.

    “Divers have been in the water every day, collecting thousands of corals from ocean nurseries along the Florida Keys reef tract and moving them to cooler water and into giant tanks on land,” said Michael Childress, a Clemson University coral scientist.




    Read more:
    The heroic effort to save Florida’s coral reef from extreme ocean heat as corals bleach across the Caribbean


    Sadly, Vogt-Vincent is doubtful.

    “Our research suggests that coral range expansion is mainly limited by slower coral growth at higher latitudes, not by dispersal,” he says.

    “Away from the equator, light intensity falls and temperature becomes more variable, reducing growth, and therefore the rate of range expansion, for many coral species.”

    What’s more, there are already species of coral living in temperate seas.

    “Establishing tropical corals within those ecosystems might disrupt existing species, so rapid expansions might not be a good thing in the first place,” Vogt-Vincent says.

    His team’s simulation suggests coral populations could expand in a few locations, particularly in southern Australia. But the expected loss of coral (roughly 10 million acres, or 4 million hectares) dwarfs the expected gain (6,000 acres, or 2,400 hectares).

    Coral reefs teeming with biodiversity are on the frontline of the climate crisis.
    Olendro heikham/Shutterstock

    There is another option that could drastically improve the outlook for tropical coral reefs. Perhaps you’ve already guessed it.

    “Our study suggests that reducing emissions at a faster pace, in accordance with the Paris climate agreement, could cut the coral loss by half compared with current policies,” Vogt-Vincent says. “That could boost reef health for centuries to come.”

    There is still hope for tropical coral reefs, but it depends on rapidly ending humanity’s reliance on fossil fuels for energy.

    ref. The great coral reef relocation – https://theconversation.com/the-great-coral-reef-relocation-258714

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Information overload: smartphones are exposing children to an avalanche of irrelevance

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dorje C. Brody, Professor of Mathematics, University of Surrey

    Aleksandra Suzi/Shutterstock

    More than 80% of children aged ten to 12 in the UK own a smartphone, according to a recent report by media watchdog Ofcom. Many people think this is a bad thing: there has been much debate about whether children should be allowed to have smartphones.

    The discussions around the potential negative aspects of children’s smartphone use often focus on the possible mental health risks of social media, or how spending too much time glued to a screen rather than in nature or interacting with others might affect children. On the other hand, smartphones may help children stay connected and interact with supportive communities.

    But there’s another aspect to this debate: information overload.

    My research is in the science of information. Here we encounter one of the most fundamental laws of nature, commonly known as the second law of thermodynamics. It says that over time, order is replaced by disorder, and information is overshadowed by noise.


    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.


    To understand this idea in the context of messaging, think of the development of communication facilities. A long time ago, when it was difficult to disseminate information – mainly through handwritten letters that might take months to arrive – people would do so only if the information was of importance.

    You wouldn’t expect a friend living a thousand miles away to inform you that their dog had just barked at a neighbour’s cat if it meant that missive would physically have to make a journey of a thousand miles.

    Printing, wire communications, the internet and mobile devices have changed this. With each innovation that eases communication, the quality of information that is transmitted reduces.

    Nowadays, much of the information surrounding us is noise. By noise, I mean insignificant and irrelevant information that no one needs to know. Nowadays, we know not only that our friend’s neighbour’s cat has been antagonising a dog, but about the lives of the cats and dogs of countless internet acquaintances and strangers.

    Increasing noise contamination is a consequence of the law of nature that cannot be beaten easily, if at all. That said, with concerted efforts, sometimes the effect can be reversed momentarily.

    Measuring information content

    If irrelevant and insignificant information is “noise”, we can – using the terminology of communication theory – call information of interest the “signal”.

    Imagine a child wanting to look up specific information on a smartphone for a school project – one of the planets in the Solar System, perhaps. The webpage they end up on contains a huge amount of unrelated information – reader comments, links to other content, maybe advertisements or videos. To reach the knowledge they are looking for, they will have to wade through, and end up absorbing, a huge amount of unnecessary information.

    Information online is accompanied by a lot of irrelevant ‘noise’.
    Ground Picture/Shutterstock

    You can think of the proportion of relevant versus irrelevant or incorrect information as the signal-to-noise ratio. A calculation shows that typically, if the noise level doubles, you will have to consume about twice the amount of information to obtain the same level of relevant knowledge. That amounts to doubling your screen time.

    So, if the noise level were to grow exponentially, as is inevitable from the second law, then you’ll have to consume exponentially more messages to get the same amount of relevant information. You’ll have to be glued to your smartphone 24-7. This is obviously something we want to avoid – for us and our children.

    To make matters worse, the information we consume will affect what we consume next, and information overload can negatively affect this process. When this happens, it becomes all too easy to end up hopping from one site to another without gathering any useful information.

    So is there a way out? Well, the answer, in theory, is simple. We just have to keep the level of noise low.

    Biological systems in natural environments – that is, without human intervention – tend to maintain stable communication without increasing noise level very much. This is because the methods of communication between animals, typically through sound, olfactory, or visual signals, or between green plants, typically through volatile organic compounds, have hardly changed for thousands of years. Only humans are capable of advancing technologies that significantly increase confusion.

    Limiting children’s access to these technologies means their environment becomes a lot less noisy and more calm. The same, of course, applies to adults. An outright ban on smartphones for children is impractical and possibly unhelpful – but creating an environment in which parents can comfortably say “no” to a smartphone, or alternatively in which parents can have an open and transparent dialogue with their children on their smartphone use, might work better.

    Dorje C. Brody does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Information overload: smartphones are exposing children to an avalanche of irrelevance – https://theconversation.com/information-overload-smartphones-are-exposing-children-to-an-avalanche-of-irrelevance-244604

    MIL OSI – Global Reports