There is a day we New Yorkers quietly celebrate, that we don’t have a name for.

It’s the morning when I can feel the earth peel back her blanket and stretch out for the first time in months. For once, she doesn’t have to reach for a sweater to throw over her nightgown; she might even step outside to greet the day.

I do the same, stepping outside to bask in the symphony of new sounds: the silly flap of sandals against the pavement, the no‑nonsense buzz of a bee hard at work, the crunch of a bunny snacking on wildflowers. No, that’s me getting carried away; there are no bunnies in my industrial part of Brooklyn.

But it is the first kiss of summer.

If you live in bear country and not Brooklyn, the warm months are signaled not with sundress debuts and iced coffee orders, but with the grumbles and growls of furry beasts who have emerged from hibernation.

Hibernation isn’t sleep. It’s a mastery of evolution, a collection of advanced adaptations and seemingly miraculous physiological strategies that allow so many critters to burrow underground for months without food or water and still look like their fuzzy, glorious selves as they totter out of their dens. After a hearty shake, the animals are rested and ready for action, with healthy, shiny fur coats at that.

But, however wondrous and exotic the ritual seems, hibernation is a challenging concept when you really get to thinking about it: What if humans were just as in tune with our bodies? Would it work out for us? What if we followed our bodily cues as attentively as bears and other animals do?

It took me a long time to learn I am a body. In a society that splits the mind as separate from the body, I question my own desires and needs as they arise. I even distrust them, commanding them to keep quiet so I can function normally in this culture that has so many ways to hide bodily requirements.

In most of contemporary society, we are practically forced to disembody if we want to have any chance at fitting in, keeping a job, getting accepted, even being seen as fully human. It is so outrageous (yet somehow normal) that grocery stores sell “hunger-reducing” gum and Ozempic is easily accessible so that our bodies can’t tell us when to eat, and absurd that we follow a labor schedule that was created for machines, and so upsetting that things like periods and panic attacks are seen as pesky hindrances to be hidden and worked through rather than honored with rest and support.

Read More: How To Use Your Body To Make Yourself Happier

Something I love about animals is that you never have to tell an animal “Be yourself.” They know no other way to be. Animals go to the bathroom, reject unwanted affection, gobble food, sleep for hours, and bite their toenails without a moment of hesitation or a shameful glance around to see if anyone’s looking.

The messages between their fuzzy bodies and their brains don’t go through any filtering system. Thought and action are practically one and the same: Hungry! Eat; Tired! Rest; Curious! Explore.

Animals have mastered embodiment, the experience of being a body rather than having a body. They don’t separate their physical self as an unruly object to control, argue with, be proud of, or disdain.

And for a long time, we humans were the same way. That is, until Plato came along and decided that body and mind were two different entities. His coping mechanism to escape the grind of Ancient Greece was to call the mind the “true self,” whereas a body was just a sloppy vessel to carry it around. While bodies were used and hurt by others, and, let’s face it, were kind of embarrassing, the mind was pure and could attain enlightenment.

It’s an interesting idea, but it’s gotten us into all kinds of trouble throughout history. Disembodiment, which denies any inherent preciousness of the body, has been used in service to humanity’s most egregious sins, from slavery to eugenics. If you can separate a body from a person, you’re more likely to accept the use of that body as an object. It now means that we endure the legacy of disembodiment as an accepted concept.

Take swimsuit season. As far as we’ve come from the SlimFast lunches and cabbage soup diet of the early 2000s, a lot of us still have diet culture leftovers lingering around in our minds when it comes to public displays of body appearance—especially their annual debuts in the summer.

I used to feel nothing but dread when I’d realize while packing my beach bag that I’d forgotten to get those abs I meant to get over the winter, or that last night’s dinner party with friends was showing up in some extra tummy bloat. I treated my rolls and squishy parts like they were evidence of my failures—a visible symbol that I lacked the saintly discipline that I’ve envied in other girls since middle school.

But bodies are living things who are entitled to change, strengthen, soften, expand, and spill out as evidence of a life lived—not a life restricted. A dinner party with friends is one of my greatest pleasures, and I didn’t get around to those abs in winter because I was too busy enjoying time for needed and delicious rest. If I’m a little flabbier for naturally responding to my joys and environment, so be it. Plunging into a swimming pool is another one of my greatest pleasures, and we all deserve to feel the unselfconscious glory of being a body in water on a hot day.

I quit blaming myself for my body’s naturalness when I learned to love life—not just my life, but the existence of any life on earth. The more I appreciated living things and their living-thing-ness, the more merciful I was toward myself. Subsequently, I learned to love signs of life: eye wrinkles, rolls of fat, chubby cheeks, jiggly arms, laugh lines, stretch marks, cellulite dimples, and colorful veins…all signs of vitality, age, changes, growth, and aliveness.

I smile when I think about bears who never have to learn any of this. They eat when they’re hungry, wander when they’re restless, and sleep when they’re tired. Somehow, after months in a comfy cave, they witness summer as the rest of us do: with energy and renewal. And it’s because they never questioned what their bodies needed.

When I catch myself questioning my needs, or scrutinizing my physical appearance, I remember what my soul experiences as a body: smelling the clothes of people I love, hearing cumbia music, applying blush, swimming in a cold lake, trying to stifle a laugh when it’s not appropriate to laugh, carrying an ice cream cone, twirling.

The first time I realized all that was the first time I really felt at home here, in my body. I know what it’s like to hate this home, and I know what it’s like to love being in it. I know what it’s like to feel my body as a brutalist office building made of concrete walls and right angles, restrictions and doors where I didn’t know the entrance code. And I know what it’s like to be in my body as a cozy cabin on a lake.

When I splash around a pool, more attentive to my soul’s elation than to the shape of my being in a bathing suit, I feel in touch with my human animal self, who experiences all the joys on earth through this natural, ever-changing body.

From HOW TO BE A LIVING THING by Mari Andrew, published by Penguin Life, an imprint of Penguin Publishing Group, a division of Penguin Random House, LLC. Copyright © 2025 by Mari Andrew.

Many of the Trump Administration’s recent actions, from its deployment of the National Guard and the Marines to Los Angeles to its military parade on June 14—which ostensibly commemorated the U.S. Army’s 250th year, but also happened to fall on the president’s birthday—threaten to politicize America’s military and erode civil-military relations.

In a speech at Fort Bragg, President Donald Trump attacked several Democratic politicians, including California Governor Gavin Newsom, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, and former President Joe Biden, at times urging the crowd to boo his opponents. Such actions can create the impression that the military is currently serving partisan, not national, interests.

Such perceptions are dangerous. As Stephen Saideman, an expert on civil-military relations and democratic backsliding notes, “Impartial militaries are a key ingredient for stable democracy…Turning the U.S. military into an ally of one politician against his opponents is more than just another instance of democratic backsliding. It is a serious step toward ending American democracy.”

Protecting the legitimacy of the U.S. military is especially important during periods of partisan acrimony such as our current moment. History shows that American political leaders have tried to avoid dragging the military into partisan conflicts, because they understood the dangers. One episode from the 1990s reveals the importance of this practice, not only for safeguarding American democracy, but also for enabling the U.S. to take military action to protect American security in turbulent political times. It exposes why Trump might want to think twice about politicizing the military, despite the temptation.

Read More: What To Know About Trump’s Military Parade

On Dec. 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton launched Operation Desert Fox, an air attack against Iraq, which had failed to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions and prevented U.N. weapons inspectors from accessing certain sites. The operation began the same day the House of Representatives was scheduled to vote to impeach the president over his scandal involving Monica Lewinsky.

Republicans, under the leadership of House Speaker Newt Gingrich, decried the administration’s campaign against Iraq, charging that Clinton was using Desert Fox to distract the nation from his pending impeachment. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott denounced the administration’s plan, stating, “Both the timing and the policy are subject to question.” House Majority Leader Dick Armey of Texas echoed Lott’s comments, arguing, “After months of lies, the President has given millions of people around the world reason to doubt that he has sent Americans into battle for the right reasons.”

Recognizing that he needed congressional support for the operation and to counter perceptions that he was using the military for his own political benefit, Clinton dispatched his Defense Secretary, William S. Cohen, to address these charges and win support from congressional Republicans.

Cohen was ideally positioned to provide credibility for the administration’s operation. He had spent 23 years in the House and Senate, accumulating a record marked by independent action, bipartisanship, and a commitment to truth. Perhaps most importantly, he was a Republican.

By the time he entered the Clinton Administration, Cohen had established a reputation in Washington as a straight shooter, and a serious, thoughtful, and diligent policymaker. He had been in the public eye since his earliest days in the House of Representatives, when, as a member of the House Judiciary Committee, he broke with most Republicans to advance articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon during the Watergate crisis. In a speech on the House floor in 1974, he emphasized the value he placed on honesty, diligence, and fealty to the law. Amid charges that impeachment could rip the country apart, Cohen remarked, “I think what would tear the country apart would be to turn our backs on the facts and our responsibilities to ascertain them.” He emphasized that leaders needed to fulfill their commitment to the rule of law, proclaiming that “Our laws and our Constitution are and they must be more than a pious wish.”

In 1996, Cohen announced his retirement from the Senate after three terms, and Clinton made him Defense Secretary. As a member of the president’s foreign policy team, Cohen helped maintain the legitimacy of America’s military amid the partisan fireworks that defined the Clinton era.

As Clinton faced a decision about what to do over Iraq’s defiance of U.N. inspectors, he recognized that he would face questions about his motivations given that the House was moving toward impeaching him. According to Martin Indyk, who was serving as Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, despite reassurance from senior foreign policy staff and cabinet members, Clinton worried, “There won’t be a single living soul in America who won’t believe I did this because of the impeachment.”

Read More: We Are Still Living in the Political Arena Ken Starr Helped Birth

But Cohen helped sway the president. In a Dec. 16 meeting between Clinton and his foreign policy team, the defense secretary pointed out that Clinton had initiated the plan to bomb Iraq more than a month in advance. “Four weeks ago you outlined to the world five things that Saddam Hussein had to do to avoid a military strike. He didn’t measure up in any category.” Cohen urged the president to move ahead, despite the inevitable criticism from Republicans.

According to Indyk, Cohen’s background as a Republican ensured that “his voice carried weight with the president.” When Cohen argued to the president that “If you don’t act here, the next argument will be that you’re paralyzed.” It proved persuasive, especially because Cohen was among the more dovish members of Clinton’s foreign policy team.

After Clinton announced the plan, Cohen and other foreign policy advisors convened a meeting with congressional leaders to demonstrate that the administration’s actions in Iraq had nothing to do with politics. 

Gingrich called on members to assemble in the well of the House of Representatives in an executive session. “The atmosphere,” according to Cohen, “was sulfurous. A seething anger was visible on the faces of the members.”

But Cohen addressed the resentment and skepticism of his fellow Republicans head on. He stated “I am prepared to place 30 years of public service on the line to say the only factor that was important in this decision is what is in the American people’s interest. There were no other factors.” Cohen reassured the Republican House members, and by the time the session ended, “most members were on their feet and signaling their approval with applause.”

Following Cohen’s meeting with Gingrich and members of the House, they delayed the impeachment vote, holding off until the final day of the bombing campaign on Dec. 19.

The military respected Cohen’s willingness to protect the institution’s nonpartisan standing. Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre tells us that this moment was critical for “Insulating the [Defense] Department so that we were not put into awkward political things. It was making sure that we stayed really just a professional, nonpartisan organization. And it worked.”

This safeguarded the military’s credibility and enabled Clinton to protect American national security at a moment of partisan warfare.

The episode speaks to why Trump may not want to turn the military into a partisan player: doing so threatens the ability of a president to protect American national security. The bombing campaign against Iraq was only politically possible because Cohen had the credibility to assure his fellow Republicans and the nation that the military wasn’t acting to protect the president’s political interests.

Politicizing the military also endangers our democratic institutions. If officers are promoted based on loyalty instead of merit, then our fighting forces will be less effective. Using the military to quash peaceful protestors endangers the legitimacy of our armed forces in the eyes of the American public. If the Pentagon loses the ability to credibly claim that it is serving national, not partisan, interests, it puts us all—and our democracy—at risk.

Ryan LaRochelle is senior lecturer at the Cohen Institute for Leadership and Public Service at the University of Maine.

Kate Flynn graduated from the University of Maine with a B.A. in Political Science in 2024.

Political attacks on higher education are escalating as we approach next year’s 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Members of the Trump Administration, state legislatures, and think tanks like the Heritage Foundation call universities “the enemy” to justify severe funding cuts, censorship, and restrictions on academic freedom.

Yet, higher education has shaped the American experiment from the beginning. Enlightenment ideas studied in 18th-century universities provided the rationale for independence from Great Britain in 1776. Founders of the republic viewed higher learning as essential to its success. Indeed, Thomas Jefferson used ideas learned during his own college education to write the Declaration of Independence and establish one of the most consequential political doctrines in modern history: all people are created equal and possess inherent rights to a government based on their consent.

Jefferson studied at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia, from 1760 to 1762 under his primary mentor, Dr. William Small, professor of natural philosophy. Small introduced students from the privileged social classes who attended William and Mary to Enlightenment thought. He taught students like Jefferson intellectually revolutionary theories of empirical science, natural rights, and popular government.

Small’s influence over Jefferson was extensive. His teachings, Jefferson said, “probably fixed the destinies of my life” and provided “my first views of the expansion of science and of the system of things in which we are placed.”

References to “the system of things” as Jefferson understood it dominate early passages of the Declaration. Jefferson rooted the Declaration in natural philosophy, or the philosophical study of nature and the physical universe without consideration of supernatural causes. This was Small’s specialty and the language of this academic orientation—such as “course of human events,” “powers of the earth,” and “Laws of Nature”—suffuses the document.

Read More: College Presidents Are Right to Defy Trump’s War on Higher Education

Members of the Continental Congress of 1776 substantially revised Jefferson’s original draft. Some of these revisions indicate that members of congress, not only Jefferson, wanted the Declaration to reflect advanced education of the time. Benjamin Franklin made a momentous revision in this respect: he changed Jefferson’s original statement “We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable” to “We hold these truths to be self-evident.” The word “sacred,” Franklin observed, suggested that those truths were matters of religious faith. The term “self-evident” invoked Isaac Newton.

In the language of Newtonian science, a “self-evident” truth needs no supernatural explanation. It is purely rational, empirically observable. Like Newton’s laws of the physical world, the final version of the Declaration posits a natural law of the political world: people will always seek new forms of government to protect their rights.

This decision to ground authority in reason, science, and secular humanism was profound at a time when European monarchs claimed that God had appointed them to the throne. In 1610, James I of England had declared that kings were “God’s lieutenants upon earth” and “even by God himself, they are called gods.” By the 18th century, French monarchs professed to be deities on earth with “absolute” power.

Although the Declaration mentioned that people “are endowed by their Creator” with “unalienable Rights,” such statements vastly diminished the role of God as a source of rights and government compared to standard proclamations from European monarchs of the day. Jefferson’s words implied that people are free to believe that a “Creator” of their chosen faith is the source of their rights. The Declaration thus subtly rejected any official state religion as an element of American independence.

The phrase “Nature’s God” was even more pointed in the Declaration. It classified “God” as a passive possession of “Nature.” The true agent of political events, in this formulation, is nature. The sole reference to God in the Declaration emphasizes empiricism over religiosity. Notably, Small was the only non-clergy member of the William and Mary faculty when he mentored Jefferson.

The Declaration’s references to John Locke’s political treatises, which Small also taught to Jefferson and other students at William and Mary, further underscored its rejection of supernatural authority. Jefferson declared rights of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” by imitating Locke’s argument that all men possess a right to “life, liberty, and estate [or property].”

In 1689, Locke examined natural rights in the second treatise of Two Treatises on Government, but his first treatise established the full meaning of those rights. Throughout that first treatise, Locke excoriated the divine right of kings. For him, rights of “life, liberty, and property” were incompatible with a divine right to rule.

When Jefferson extended those rights beyond property-holders, replacing “estate” with the “pursuit of Happiness,” he invited a much larger portion of humanity to reject supernatural justifications for government. That invitation reflected the philosophy that inspired him in college.

In other words, the meaning of the Declaration of Independence depends on Enlightenment ideas that university-educated classes in general, and Jefferson in particular, enthusiastically studied.

After the country’s founding, many framers of the new republic advocated for institutions of higher learning to educate citizens in their rights and responsibilities. Doing so, they argued, would promote equality over aristocracy, knowledge over religious superstition, and self-determination over servitude.

Read More: The Complicated History of Government Influence Over Universities

Jefferson was immensely proud of his role in founding the University of Virginia—a publicly funded institution established to educate “the mass of citizens” in everything they needed for their individual wellbeing and responsible civic participation. Franklin did not attend college formally but he was instrumental in founding the College of Philadelphia, which later became the University of Pennsylvania. Throughout his life, Franklin advocated educational opportunities for working classes as well as the upper class. As president, Washington proposed a publicly funded “national university” for the general diffusion of knowledge to promote unity in the new republic. These are only a few examples of the deep ties between higher education and the founding generation; approximately half of them attained some form of it—an impressively high level of advanced learning for the time.

Like the political ideals of Jefferson and other founders, however, the ideal of higher education remained out of reach for many Americans. He and many signers of the Declaration deemed Black people especially incapable of advanced study. For much of its existence, U.S. higher education has been badly segregated by race, class, sex and gender, religion, and more.  

The personal prejudices of founders like Jefferson, however, do not diminish the power of the ideals that they forged from university study. Free Black people and enslaved Africans in the late 18th century recognized that the revolution was unfinished without equal access to civic institutions, particularly those of higher education. From the Jim Crow era to modern struggles for civil rights, historically disenfranchised communities (people of color, women, LGBTQ Americans, and more) have cited the Declaration in their petitions for desegregated higher education.

Universities have always been integral to American independence, from Jefferson’s words to later generations of Americans who pursued the full implications of those words. Defending institutions of higher education from increasingly authoritarian measures is an important way to safeguard not only academic freedom, but the legacy of 1776 as well.

Bradford Vivian is Professor of Communication Arts and Sciences at Penn State and author of Campus Misinformation: The Real Threat to Free Speech in American Higher Education (Oxford University Press).

Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Learn more about Made by History at TIME here. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors.

When the world’s first marine reserves were established in the 1920s, Jacques Cousteau was an adolescent. The deepest we could dive was about 500 ft. Humans were beginning to imagine what could be beneath the surface, what discoveries lay waiting, and what might deserve protecting. 

Nearly a century later, we’ve made a lot of progress. The ocean is the center of the world economy, providing food, labor, transportation, tourism, and so much more. It has brought us promising treatments for disease, animal-inspired engineering and robotics, and even the basis for space exploration technology. Inspired by the U.N. Decade of Ocean Science—which launched a 10-year push for action in 2021—marine researchers, philanthropists, and political leaders worldwide aim to map the entire seafloor and identify 100,000 new species by 2030. And at the United Nations Ocean Conference (UNOC) earlier this month, the global community made progress on financial commitments for preservation, support for pausing deep-sea mining, expanding marine protected areas—with French Polynesia notably vowing to protect 900,000 square kilometers of sea—and on the High Seas Treaty to protect marine life in international waters.

And yet, much remains to be discovered about our ocean and its role in sustaining all life on Earth—and much remains to be done to protect it. To build on the momentum of UNOC, ocean conservation—through robust marine protected areas and other measures—must continue to advance, alongside exploration and research. And until the next conference in 2028, while governments must lead the way, every sector of society has a role in saving the seas.

Read more: Fishing Communities in the Philippines Are Fighting for their Future as Waters Rise

Over the past two decades, evidence has repeatedly shown that protecting the ocean supports not only the planet but also all of us who rely on it. One recent study found that protecting swaths of ocean increases catch for valuable fish, including large migratory species like bigeye and yellowfin tuna, which alone support $40 billion in global business. Another report showed that marine protected areas not only help rebuild fish stock, they also drive higher income and food security for nearby coastal communities. 

Despite the evidence, and despite our advances toward better stewardship, however, we are facing strong headwinds: from reversals on protected areas to warming ocean waters. 

Governments, international and civil society organizations, and philanthropies like the Schmidt Ocean Institute, Schmidt Sciences, Dona Bertarelli Philanthropy, and the Bertarelli Foundation, which we help lead, are stepping up to support ocean exploration and protection efforts—and it’s working. Public-private sector partnerships will be essential in moving the needle from ocean science to ocean action. 

The waters surrounding the Galapagos Islands provide an example of what’s possible through long-term partnership across sectors. Famed for their endemic plant and animal life that inspired Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, the islands’ waters were first granted legal protection 50 years ago. Today, the reserve, managed by the Ecuadorian government in consultation with local fishers and scientists, allows for fishing and tourism while keeping stricter rules in more sensitive areas. Ecuador recently added more than 23,000 square miles to the protected waters, working in partnership with Costa Rica, Colombia, and Panama. In a deal supported by Dona Bertarelli Philanthropy through Pew Bertarelli Ocean Legacy and other partners, Ecuador converted $1.6 billion of its existing commercial debt into a $656 million loan that will provide $12 million in financing for marine conservation activities each year, in perpetuity. Complementing this work, the Bertarelli Philanthropy also supported the development of the Global Fishing Watch Marine Manager, which provides open-source, interactive data on the Galapagos area, and worldwide, to support conservation, policy, and research.

Read more: The World Isn’t Valuing Oceans Properly

Indeed, scientists are still uncovering new findings around the Galapagos. The Schmidt Ocean Institute’s philanthropic research vessel Falkor (too) undertook two expeditions around the islands in 2023 and encountered two large, pristine coral reefs as well as a hydrothermal vent field—all previously unknown to humankind, all livestreamed for free on YouTube to anyone who wished to watch. As with the Global Fishing Watch Marine Manager, the livestream offers an intimate connection with the ocean for a global audience—a far cry from the days when only a few humans had the chance to explore, and at no great depth. Both the reefs and vents offer clues about the still dramatically under-researched deep sea and the role it plays in keeping the broader ocean, and indeed the entire planet, healthy. 

The Galapagos aren’t the only place where marine protected areas (MPA) have benefited both people and the planet. A recent study of 59 MPAs established by California—which created a network of reserves in 1999—saw more and larger fish across the entire network, particularly in species sought by fisheries. This was true despite the MPAs being diverse in how they choose to ban or limit activities like fishing, shipping, and tourism—though stronger and longer lasting protections correlated with more significant results. 

The more we explore and protect the ocean, the more we reap the benefits, whether in the form of economic returns or scientific breakthroughs. Advancing conservation—through MPAs as well as a host of complementary policies and data collection efforts—supports economies and scientific research in a virtuous cycle. The world has come a long way from just a century ago, when we could only see as far into the ocean as the sun allowed. As philanthropists, we seek to contribute to a better understanding of the ocean through science and data—the groundwork for accountability and action. We call on the policymakers, experts, and advocates—and everyone who is enthralled by the sea—to remember that the more we search and the more we find, the closer we come to a healthy ocean and a healthy planet. 

Dona Bertarelli is executive chair of Dona Bertarelli Philanthropy and co-chair of the Bertarelli Foundation. Wendy Schmidt is co-founder and president of the Schmidt Ocean Institute and co-founder of Schmidt Sciences.

Read this story in English here

نمازی گروگان سابق آمریکایی در ایران است و اکنون عضو هیئت مشاوران ابتکار آزادی برای زندانیان سیاسی در مؤسسه مک‌کین و گروه کمک جهانی به گروگان‌ها است.

وقتی تصاویر دروازه‌ی ورودی زندان اوین را دیدم که با حمله‌ی هوایی اسرائیل تکه تکه شده بود، چشمانم پر از اشک شد. من هشت سال پشت آن دروازه به‌عنوان گروگان جمهوری اسلامی نگهداری شدم — در مکانی که ظلم، قانون است و امید قاچاق می‌شود.

اما اشک‌هایم از خوشحالی نبود. از این‌که کسانی که من و بعدتر پدر بیمارم را به سلول انفرادی انداختند بالاخره تاوانی پس داده‌اند، لذتی نمی‌بردم. قبلم پر از اندوه بود وقتی به وحشتی فکر می‌کردم که اکنون بسیاری از زندانیان بی‌گناه — از جمله کسانی که سال‌ها هم‌سلولی‌ام بودند — و خانواده‌هایشان تجربه می‌کنند.

این فقط یک حمله به نماد سرکوب نبود. اسرائیل تنها درِ زندان را منفجر نکرد. بمب‌هایش، در ساعات کاری، مجتمع قضایی شهید مقدس را نیز به شدت تخریب کرد. جایی که زندانیان را پیش بازپرسان بی‌رحم می‌برند و وارد ماشین سرکوب دادگاه انقلاب می‌کنند. من در آن اتاق‌ها بوده‌ام، دست‌بند خورده و تحقیر شده، مقابل مردانی که خود را قاضی می‌نامیدند اما مانند زیردستان مأموران اطلاعات رفتار می‌کردند و هر حکمی که آنها می‌دادند را امضا می‌کردند. یکی‌شان را در خفا “جنایت‌کار” صدا می‌زدم، لقبی که بازی با نامش بود و بین ما ماندگار شد. یادم هست وقتی در بی‌خبری کامل و قطع از دنیای بیرون به سر می‌بردم با پوزخندی گفت: «مادرت طبقه‌ی پایین منتظره. هر روز میاد و التماس می‌کنه برای ملاقات»؛ پوزخندی که دلم می‌خواست با سیلی از صورتش پاک کنم.

اما آن مرکز بی‌عدالتی فقط پر از جلاد نبود. بمب‌ها بین بازپرسان ظالم و زندانیان سیاسی، و یا سربازان وظیفه ۱۸ تا ۲۰ ساله که صرفاً مأمور همراهی زندانیان هستند فرق نمی‌گذارند. آیا وکلای حقوق بشری که با شجاعت از بی‌دفاع‌ها دفاع می‌کردند هم در میان قربانیان بودند؟ چند نفر از نظافت‌چی‌ها و کارمندان اداری که از حومه‌ی دور و فقیر تهران برای کار می‌آمدند حالا کشته یا مجروح شده‌اند؟ خانواده‌هایی که در سالن انتظار بودند، مثل زمانی که مادرم هر روز می‌آمد تا درخواست ملاقات یا دارو کند، چه سرنوشتی پیدا کردند؟

بمب‌های اسرائیل درمانگاه زندان را هم زدند؛ جایی که من و بسیاری دیگر بارها برای ویزیت به صف می‌شدیم. جائی که پر از ناامیدی بود، اما شجاعت‌های پنهانی هم وجود داشت. بر سر آن دکتر زن جوان که من «قهرمان» خطابش می‌کردم چه آمد؟ او یک بار در دوران کرونا با شجاعت وارد بند زنان شد مسئولان زندان را مجبور کرد که یک زندانی سیاسی را که وضعیت وخیم کرونایی داشت، به بیمارستان منتقل کنند. او جان آن زن را نجات داد. کارکنان درمانگاه بارها به ما کمک کردند — کمک‌هایی که نمی‌توانم علنی بگویم. مهربانی‌های بی‌منت و بی‌پاداش‌شان به ما امید ادامه زندگی می‌داد. حالا آن درمانگاه ویران شده است.

بند ۴، که محل نگهداری بسیاری از زندانیان سیاسی و گروگان‌های دوتابعیتی یا خارجی است، نیز آسیب دیده. از جمله کتابخانه، تنها پناهگاه ما، جایی که من بیشتر روزها را آن‌جا می‌گذراندم. بند زنان هم آسیب دیده. بلافاصله بعد از حمله، زندانیان سیاسی زن و مرد را ناگهانی سوار اتوبوس کرده‌اند و بدون وسایل شخصی‌شان به مکانی نامعلوم منتقل کرده‌اند. خانواده‌های وحشت‌زده اکنون مستاصل با یکدیگر تماس می‌گیرند، دنبال خبری از عزیزانشان هستند، دعا می‌کنند که زنده باشند و نظام سعی نکند از آن‌ها انتقام حمله اسرائیلی‌ها را بگیرد‌.

زندان اوین شامل چندین بازداشتگاه است. بدترین‌شان زیر نظر وزارت اطلاعات و سپاه پاسداران قرار دارد. بنا به خبرهای رسید، آن‌ها نیز آسیب دیده‌اند. من بیش از دو سال در یکی از همان بازداشتگاه‌ها بودم. نمی‌دانیم آیا بازجوهایی که من را کتک می‌زدند آسیب دیده‌اند یا نه، همان‌طور که نمی‌دانیم آیا زندانیان سیاسی زیر آوار سلول‌های انفرادی و اتاق‌های شکنجه مدفون شده‌اند یا نه.

مرکز ملاقات زندان هم آسیب دیده. چند زندانی، خانواده یا وکیل در آن‌جا کشته یا مجروح شده‌اند؟ آن ناظر مهربانی که اجازه می‌داد مادرم بیشتر بماند و محدودیت ۲۰ دقیقه‌ای ملاقات‌ها را نادیده می‌گرفت و می‌گفت: «این تنها کمکیه که می‌تونم به خانواده شما که انقدر ظلم دیده بکنم»، چه سرنوشتی یافت؟

این یک حمله‌ی هدفمند به فرماندهان نظامی یا مقامات عالی‌رتبه رژیم نبود. این بمب‌ها مردم ایران را تشویق نمی‌کند تا علیه جمهوری اسلامی برخیزند. برعکس. یکی از زندانیان سابق می‌گوید خانواده‌های زندانیان، نگهبانان و کارکنان آن بیرون زندان جمع شده‌اند تا بلکه خبری از عزیزشان بشنوند و در کنار هم در حال اشک ریختن هستند.

بمباران اوین نشان می‌دهد وقتی دو نظام غیراخلاقیبا هم برخورد می‌کنند، چه اتفاقی می‌افتد: یکی بی‌گناهان را زندانی می‌کند، و دیگری با بمب‌بارانشان مدعی آزادی آن‌ها است. تنها امید ما این است که آتش‌بس شکننده میان ایران، اسرائیل و آمریکا پابرجا بماند و این دیوانگی پایان یابد.

اما حتی اگر چنین شود، همه می‌دانیم بعدش چه خواهد شد. آیت‌الله‌ها که نتوانسته‌اند جلوی بمب‌ها را بگیرند، خشم خود را به داخل نشانه خواهند گرفت. آن‌ها سعی خواهند کرد با خشونت قدرت خود را بازگردانند. هزاران نفر دستگیر، شکنجه و اعدام خواهند شد تا رژیم با ایجاد ترس زنده بماند. جوامع آسیب‌پذیرتر — مانند بهائیان — احتمالاً جزو نخستین قربانیان خواهند بود.

همان‌طور که همیشه بوده، بی‌گناهان بیشترین تاوان را خواهند داد.

The Iran-Israel ceasefire seems to be holding. Arab capitals are relieved about the de-escalation. But they are also alarmed about what the latest flare up means for the Middle East.

When Iran signed the JCPOA nuclear deal with the Obama Administration, its reception in the Arab Gulf was, at best, frosty. The Iranian regime’s role in propping up Bashar al-Assad’s rule in Syria—one of the most devastating in modern Arab history—combined with its nefarious influence in Iraq and Lebanon, ensured that Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain saw the deal not as a diplomatic breakthrough, but as an endorsement of a destabilizing actor.

So when President Donald Trump withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018, these same states applauded the move. Others in the region, including Egypt and Jordan, while more muted, also expressed concern about Tehran’s regional agenda. Yet fast forward to the present and the very same states opposed a fight with Iran, and support re-engagement.

This U-Turn is not due to any newfound trust in Tehran. The Arab Gulf states, broadly speaking, remain deeply cynical about the Iranian regime. If the Islamic Republic could be replaced with something more pragmatic and less ideologically driven than Khomeini’s revolutionary doctrine, few in the Arab Gulf would mourn. But this cynicism has evolved into a pragmatic rejection of war—especially one at the behest of a belligerent Israel and a complicit Washington.

For these reasons, the overwhelming response in Arab capitals has been fierce opposition to Israel’s strikes, and America’s bombing on June 22.

There are two core reasons for this opposition. First, these strikes are not happening in isolation. Over the past 20 months, Israel has waged a deadly and destructive campaign in Gaza following the Oct. 7 Hamas attack, which has brought about a genocide case at the International Court of Justice. Israel has also expanded its military footprint beyond the occupied Syrian Golan Heights, amid the chaos following the ouster of Assad. And it has struck Beirut and parts of Lebanon repeatedly, including within the past week.

In short, even among states that are highly critical of Iran, there are concerns about an unrestrained Israel. A vision of a new regional order where Israel behaves with impunity while dictating security norms to its neighbors is profoundly unwelcome to Arab states, including traditionally pro-Western Arab governments such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

The second reason is more fundamental. For decades, Arab societies have criticized the West’s selective enforcement of international norms. That includes the 2003 Iraq war, Israel’s ongoing occupation in the West Bank and Gaza, and more recently the U.S. denunciation of the ICJ case and sanctioning of ICC judges after it issued arrest warrants for Israeli leaders. There is a perception that powerful Western states shield Tel Aviv from consequences.

Read More: The West Is Losing the Global South Over Gaza

To be sure, the Arab states are hardly models of legality themselves. Various U.N. reports have repeatedly described an undemocratic region rife with issues around corruption, nepotism, and closed civil society spaces. But the powerful Western countries that erected the “rules-based” order should be exemplar pillars of it—otherwise, trust in the project altogether collapses.

That’s why the U.S. bombing of Iran—using the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, the heaviest non-nuclear weapon in its arsenal—set a dangerous precedent. Despite the undeniable nature of Iran being a nefarious actor in the region, there was no imminent threat, no U.N. Security Council authorization, and no widespread international consensus to engage in such a military strike.

The war between Iran and Israel is over, at least for now. Whether Iran’s nuclear program has been hobbled is a separate question, one that analysts and intelligence agencies will continue to assess in the weeks and months to come. 

But something else may have also ended. A new era is emerging in the region increasingly defined by a presumption that might equals right. The consequences of this have yet to be truly understood—but there are likely to be many repercussions indeed.

Questions remain over the true damage to Iran’s nuclear program. But as conflicting comments and reports come in from the Trump Administration and Pentagon intelligence estimates, one thing is certain: Trump’s failed diplomacy got us in this mess. 

I should know. Ten years ago, I was in Vienna as part of the U.S. team negotiating a deal to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. 

Those negotiations culminated in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). It was Trump’s decision in 2018 to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal that ultimately led to the perilous situation in the Middle East today. 

The JCPOA was the result of a sustained campaign of principled, effective U.S. diplomacy. President Obama began laying groundwork for this nuclear deal as soon as he came to office in 2009. His view—shared then and now across the U.S. political spectrum—was that the U.S. cannot accept a nuclear-armed Iran. At the time, Iran claimed that its nuclear energy program was for exclusively peaceful uses. Yet given evidence of Iran’s past interest in possessing a nuclear bomb prior to 2003, the U.S. could not take this claim at face value.

To get the nuclear deal, Obama and his national security team rallied the world to increase pressure on Tehran. The U.S., E.U., and other allies put in place punishing sanctions. The U.N. Security Council followed suit with a fresh round of sanctions in June 2010 that were wide-ranging and targeted the nuclear program. 

These sanctions worked: they convinced Iran to come to the negotiating table. To iron out the technical provisions of a deal, the U.S. then put together a team of top career diplomats, nuclear scientists, lawyers, and sanctions experts. It was a remarkable lineup of American patriots and professionals. It was my great honor to serve on that team.

Our goal was to offer Iran phased and reversible sanctions relief in exchange for far-reaching limits on Iran’s nuclear activities. To maximize leverage, we coordinated with other countries, including not just European allies but also Russia and China. It was difficult, exacting, high-stakes work—for months on end.

The effort paid off. Iran agreed to substantial limits on its nuclear activities, including to export out of the country around 98% of its enriched uranium stockpile. Iran’s commitments were then subject to intrusive and permanent international monitoring. By the end of the Obama Administration, the deal was working, with all sides implementing their commitments. 

Trump’s abrupt withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018 led to the predictable result: Iran’s nuclear program surged ahead, breaking free of the deal’s constraints.

When Trump returned to office in January, he launched a hasty effort to negotiate a new deal. But it bore a striking resemblance to the deal negotiated by Obama, with one nuclear expert calling the Trump framework a “dollar store JCPOA.”

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu tanked these talks with airstrikes on June 12. The U.S. launched its own strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities on June 22. 

Trump seems convinced the matter is now resolved. But what will be the fate of the tons of enriched uranium that Iran stockpiled after Trump withdrew from the JCPOA? How much Iranian nuclear infrastructure remains intact? Will Iran ever welcome back intrusive international monitoring of its nuclear activities, such as specified in the JCPOA?

To resolve these questions, the Trump Administration will need to do the tedious, difficult work of pursuing complex negotiations. Talks look set to resume next week.

But it will require a high level of technical expertise and diplomatic capacity. And the timing couldn’t be worse, as Trump and Elon Musk’s culture war on the so-called “Deep State” has hollowed out and demoralized the ranks of government experts whose support was critical to achieving the JCPOA in the first place. 

This sad saga has reminded me of what we’ve lost in the Trump era. The JCPOA was a product of effective and principled American diplomacy, undertaken in close coordination with our closest allies. It was a team effort by countless government professionals and specialists, all motivated by patriotism and a sense of mission, and operating in an era where they were celebrated not denigrated. It was a victory of dialogue and diplomacy over bluster and bombs.

Ten years ago that approach delivered results for the American people and the world. I worry about what comes next.

For connoisseurs of dating reality TV, the arrival of warm weather means one thing: Love Island, by far one of Britain’s most significant cultural imports, is back. (There are offshoots, including Australia and the United States, but the UK version remains the blueprint.) The premise is simple: a group of attractive, tanned young people flock to a “villa” somewhere very warm (usually Spain or South Africa) and attempt to couple up for love—and money and social media fame. At its heart, the show is a game, with the fate of each couple inevitably falling into the hands of the public, who make the final call on which couples make it to the end. Committing to an entire season requires stamina and dedication for both viewers and participants. But should you embark on this journey, your perseverance will be greatly rewarded.

Admittedly, one of the deeper pleasures of the show is that it is quite often a little bit boring. But if you stay the course and watch each episode, what unfurls is a remarkable record of how people try (and fail) to make connections, almost in real time. These connections are extremely important because money and fame (and yes, sometimes love) are on the line, and are also formed on a very tight timeline. This means that the couples are either extremely sure of their love or not really sure at all. And because these moppets are horny, prone to drama, and above all, young, a word they say so much, all the time, is “like.”

Read More: Love Island USA Made Me Believe In Love Again

Nothing about this is particularly surprising. “Like” is a word that is largely associated with the youth and a word that many people write off as useless—a verbal gristle meant to be trimmed from the meat of your speech, in service of hewing to an outdated standard of what sounds “right.” It’s silly, really—being concerned with something as trivial as this when there are far more pressing horrors in the world. Perhaps it’s also a tremendous waste of time. But paying close attention to when we hear “like” is a useful exercise. Listen and you’ll reach a thrilling conclusion: “like” is a valuable tool that we all have (and should be using) to make and maintain connection.

“Like” is often deployed to ease the burden of communication and to give a little grace to yourself to figure out what you’re really trying to say. In emotionally charged situations where matters of the heart are concerned, “like” gives you the space to collect your thoughts. This is a minute calculation that’s so small as to feel imperceptible and likely happens without much thought at all.

If you watch Love Island with the captions on, this point becomes remarkably clear—each “like” that peppers a side chat between two people is there to bolster teensy attempts at vulnerability. Consider the aftermath of a devastating recoupling, where some already-established couples are ripped from each other’s sides and paired with someone new. After the tears dry, the new lovebirds are faced with the onerous task of getting to know each other. And these conversations come in fits and starts, and the space between thoughts is usually linked with “like.” It’s a word that literally buys you time—just a second or two— in a way that’s much more pleasing than the alternative, dead air. “Like” shows that you care in a way that silence could never. You’re giving yourself a minute to collect your thoughts while alerting the other person that you’re doing so, all without saying very much at all. You’re also giving the other person the grace to do the same. 

There’s a gendered reason why we don’t like to say this word. The old chestnut about “like” is that it’s the Valley girls’ fault that we say it in the first place, which has negative connotations because they’re thought to be “dumb teenage girls.” But this is an antiquated line of thought. Teenage girls and women are actually linguistic innovators and have influenced the way most people have spoken for generations. Millennials who were old enough to see Clueless in theaters are now gracefully sliding into middle age. They have climbed the corporate ladder enough to have achieved nominal positions of power. They grew up slinging “like” around, so one assumes it is part of their speech, both at home and in the workplace. If your boss says, “Can you send me that thing I asked about like, sometime next week?” and nothing sounds amiss, that’s worth noting. “Like” isn’t improper or unprofessional; it’s just a manner of speaking that sounds a little different than the past.

What naysayers of “like” are truly upset about, on some level, is women, and specifically, that the way they naturally speak is inferior and should be treated as such. We know that this is not the case. But women’s speech has traditionally been coded as weak and men’s as strong, as linguistics professor Robin Lakoff noted in her landmark book Language and Women’s Place. The inference here is that women’s speech is coded as weak and men’s, the direct opposite. 

But if we start to think about the word as an asset rather than a liability, then its potential really starts to show. When we revisit the lovelorn singles of Love Island’s villa, we can see quite clearly that both the men and the women dabble in “soft” language about their feelings, not only with members of the opposite sex, but with each other, too. And yes, Love Island is purportedly a show about love, but it is really about all types of connection—of love, sure, but what they really end up with is friendship. And “like” allows them to forge the connections that lead to it, one chat at a time. 

It’s a lesson that we could all learn, in ways large and small—that the English language’s flexibility is so intrinsically intertwined with how we connect. In fact, if we all stop fearing “like,” we might be surprised at what happens.

The sweeping victory of the charismatic Zohran Mamdani in the Democratic New York mayoral election has the business community alarmed, if not downright distressed. Immediately after the election, many New York CEOs and financiers predicted an accelerated flight of capital to lower tax states like Texas and Florida.  

Mamdani’s victory fits the emerging pattern of angry and fed-up voters from across the spectrum, as some notable anti-establishment populists have swept to victory in the US and across the globe on both the left and the right. But the prospect of the capital of capitalism going socialist poses a challenge for those who want to see New York City prosper.  

Mamdani’s economic proposals do not match the real challenges of today. He has proposed building a network of city-run, subsidized grocery stores to drive food prices down, bragging that he drew inspiration from none other than Donald Trump. Mamdani, blames grocery stores for running up food costs when in reality, grocery stores are some of the lowest-margin businesses around, with 1-2% profit margins in good times. 

In fact, when we ran analysis of the 2014-2023 fiscal year revenues and profits for Fortune 100 companies has found little evidence of corporate price gouging or profiteering. On the contrary, the research indicates that large corporations responded to consumer needs by limiting price hikes and launching value products and discount programs. Those actions have become evident in the current inflation rate, which is nearly in line with the Federal Reserve’s 2% target.

Mamdani has made “freeze the rent” a rallying cry, even though that would backfire, as rent caps would disincentivize developers to build new housing supply at a time when more housing is desperately needed. He has also proposed nationalizing all utility companies, arguing that private companies are inherently incapable of addressing climate change, which even fellow green environmentalists oppose. 

The Democratic nominee estimates his agenda will cost taxpayers $10 billion annually. His solution for financing the hefty price tag is to increase taxes on big corporations and the wealthy. Never mind the questionable math used by the campaign to raise the $10 billion in municipal tax revenues, any tax increase – even at the local level – must be approved by the state assembly.

While checks and balances may be established for tax policies, Mamdani has other levers that could damage the local economy if misused. Adjustments to land use and zoning laws, licensing and permitting processes, and environmental restrictions could be used by the would-be mayor to disadvantage major business leaders, real estate developers, successful entrepreneurs, and wealthy investors, among others, all of whom significantly contribute to New York City’s economic vitality.

Mamdani makes no defense of his lack of experience. His peak responsibility has been managing a staff of five as state assemblyman. His inability to build a record of achievement there has been described by many, including the New York Times opinion page which warned earlier this month, “We do not believe that Mr. Mamdani deserves a spot on New Yorkers’ ballots.”

Mamdani’s socialist taunts of big business are misguided. When big companies leave New York City do to rising costs to operate here, Mamdani’s constituents are the true victims. Already, by last year, JP Morgan Chase, which was founded in New York City more than 200 years ago and has 24,000 employees still in New York today, has started moving workers out of New York by the thousands. Texas has now already surpassed New York as the largest base of its workers with 30,000 employees there, and with another 15,000 based in Miami. Other pillars of New York’s financial community such as Goldman Sachs and Citigroup have similarly been relocating workers thousands of miles away from Wall Street.  In earlier years, such global beacons of American capitalism and major employers of choice, from American Airlines and AT&T to Exxon and International Paper fled their historic New York homes for Texas. The loss of such businesses takes away jobs and the vital tax base needed to support infrastructure, social services, as well as educational and cultural institutions, while eroding economic development. 

The villainizing of business is regressive, not progressive. History has repeatedly shown that socialism doesn’t work, as ideas that seem good in theory often turn into a mess of government bureaucracy, inefficiency, and inertia, setting society and living standards back instead of moving them forward. Capitalism is truly progressive, as capitalism has been directly responsible for the massive leaps in quality of life and prosperity, feeding the dynamic wellspring of innovation and creative destruction which underlies genuine and societal progress. Our hope is that New Yorkers will continue to keep this dynamic city the capital of capitalism.

On Monday, after Iran targeted the largest U.S. military base in Qatar in a choreographed response to the American bombing of its nuclear facilities, President Donald Trump briskly dismissed Tehran’s attack and announced a ceasefire. 

In the short term, the U.S. leader’s declaration and subsequent lashing out against ceasefire violations might have ended the recent war between the regional rivals—but over the long term, the future of the conflict between Tehran and Tel Aviv depends on how the various parties manage what remains a brittle peace.

It is clear that, when Trump announced the ceasefire, Iran and Israel were ready to stop fighting. Israel’s military success was undisputed; it had assassinated scores of Iranian military leaders, damaged several Iranian nuclear facilities and missile sites, and dominated Iranian skies. Yet it was also incomplete, in terms of Israel’s stated goal of destroying the Iranian nuclear program; U.S. bombings pushed the program back, but reportedly only by a few months. 

On the other side, although bruised and bloodied, Iran could insist on being unbowed, on holding its own with enough of its missiles penetrating the Iron Dome and other Israeli air defense systems to compel Tel Aviv and the United States to seek a ceasefire. 

Yet this tenuous pause in fighting does not lay the foundations of peace. Israel has already said it will strike Iran again if it resumes its nuclear efforts. And unless there is a new comprehensive nuclear deal between Iran and the United States, Tehran is likely to seek to reassemble its nuclear program. That sets the stage for another confrontation. 

It won’t happen immediately, of course. Iran needs to introspect upon the magnitude of its losses, address its immense intelligence vulnerabilities, regroup its battered military apparatus after the spate of assassinations, and more generally rebuild its defenses. Israel, meanwhile, needs to rebuild and improve its air defenses which failed to prevent Iranian missiles from striking strategic and civilian targets.

None of this, however, would stop Israel from continuing to launch lower-level attacks on Iran despite the ceasefire—applying the same strategy it has used in Lebanon despite its ceasefire with Hezbollah. Such attacks would elicit limited retaliation, as for now Iran’s focus is likely to be on recovering from the recent war.

The long road to a lasting peace

Further out, the question is: how do we go from the events of the past few weeks to real stability, not another return to war? How, in other words, does stability return to the region?

The answer hinges on two major factors—one inside Iran, and the other to do with diplomacy between the U.S. and Tehran. 

Domestically, beyond replenishing and rebuilding its military capacity, for there to be stablity in the Middle East, Iran has to address its greatest vulnerability: an angry population. 

Iranians have been at odds with the country’s leadership for some time. Economic hardship and isolation have taken a toll, and an increasingly large number of Iranian citizens no longer subscribe to the Islamic Republic’s revolutionary values or support its foreign policy, which they blame for the country’s isolation and economic woes. 

The more ambiguously stated objective of Israel and the United States during the war was to incite the Iranians to rebel and topple the Islamic Republic. Iranians did no such thing. Yet in the coming days, domestic popular anger at Israeli aggression and the consequent material and psychological loss that Iranians have suffered is likely to lead to serious questioning of the Islamic Republic’s policies.

After all, Iranians are patriotic but they also crave peace, security, and economic prosperity. Israeli attacks killed hundreds of civilians and injured thousands more, and destroyed or damaged hundreds of homes and civilian infrastructure, including oil refineries which have led to fuel shortages. The expected conversation and contestation between the Iranian people and the Islamic Republic and the response of the regime will be important in determining how Tehran manages the ceasefire. 

Beyond Iran, the ceasefire also presents a test for President Trump. He took a risk by getting the U.S. involved in the attack on Iran. As we have already seen, unease about the U.S. getting dragged into another brutal, expensive, and potentially long war in the Middle East created factures within his MAGA movement.  

Now, with the ceasefire, President Trump has a direct stake in ensuring that the peace holds. To make it last, he needs to effectively manage Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who might see benefits in breaking the ceasefire to further establish military dominance over Tehran. It is also possible that he might break it to handicap any renewed diplomatic efforts between the U.S. and Iran over the latter’s nuclear ambitions. 

But that is precisely what the U.S. must do now to create a pathway for a durable peace: work towards resuming nuclear talks with Tehran. 

Even after this war, Iran still possesses its stockpile of 400 kilograms of highly enriched Uranium that, if still intact, could be used to build as many as 10 nuclear bombs, according to U.S. military estimates. And it retains the expertise to rebuild its nuclear program. The speed at which Iran could move toward weaponization—if it makes that decision—depends on how much of its highly enriched uranium survived the American and Israeli bombing of nuclear sites. 

To learn that, the United States has to ensure ongoing access to nuclear sites by the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors ( the Iranian parliament has moved a bill to suspend cooperation with the IAEA). All this would have to be part of a nuclear deal. 

Iran has been clearly weakened by this war but that won’t make its nuclear diplomacy with the United States straightforward or easy; it also understands that President Trump has a stake in maintaining the ceasefire and ensuring that there isn’t a resumption of a war that could easily spiral into a wider regional conflagration, exacting grave political costs for all involved. 

And so, President Trump might now have to consider incentives other than coercion and the threat of further bombing Iranian nuclear sites.

This might mean offering Iran greater economic relief, giving it guarantees that the U.S. will not seek or support regime change, and provide a security guarantee against future Israeli attacks. Ultimately, the Iranians do not trust the U.S. leader. He walked away from the 2015 nuclear deal and allowed Israel to attack Iran while he was still negotiating a nuclear deal with Tehran. So the bar for him to win their trust is very high.

This fraught history is bound to make renewed nuclear negotiations more difficult. Still, Iran needs to address its economic challenges, and Trump could offer the incentive of sanctions relief, guarantee that it would happen quickly, and won’t be easily reversed. And Trump too needs a deal to avoid the risk of entering the United States into yet another war. Successful nuclear diplomacy—hard as it might be—is still possible, and remains the best option for both Iran and the United States.