Trump’s Exchange With Pope Leo Reflects Deep‑Rooted Tensions Between The Vatican And The United States: 4 Essential Reads

Pope Leo XIV speaks to journalists aboard his flight bound for Algiers on April 13, 2026. Alberto Pizzoli/Pool Photo via AP

BY KALPANA JAIN

President Donald Trump and Pope Leo XIV, the U.S.-born head of the Catholic Church, had an unusual and acrimonious public exchange over the weekend.

In a scathing attack on Truth Social, the social media platform he launched in 2022, Trump accused the pope of being “WEAK on Crime and terrible for Foreign Policy.” The lengthy post on April 12, 2026, told Leo to “focus on being a Great Pope, not a Politician.”

Later that night, Trump told reporters that he was “not a big fan of Pope Leo” and did not think the pope was “doing a very good job.” Leo has repeatedly called for peace amid wars in the Middle East and described Trump’s April 7 threat to destroy Iranian civilization as “truly unacceptable.”

Several hours later, aboard a papal flight to Algiers – where he will begin a 10-day trip to Africa – Leo told reporters that he did not want to get into a debate with Trump, and that his words were not “meant as attacks on anyone.” But striking a firm note, he said he had “no fear” of the Trump administration.

“I do not look at my role as being political, a politician,” the pope said, adding, “I will continue to speak out loudly against war, looking to promote peace, promoting dialogue and multilateral relationships among states, to look for just solutions to problems. Too many people are suffering in the world today. Too many innocent people are being killed. And I think someone has to stand up and say, ‘There’s a better way to do this.’”

The public nature of Trump’s criticism may feel unprecedented. But there have long been tensions between the United States and the Vatican’s effort to seek peace, as scholars writing for The Conversation have shown in past articles.
1. History of anti-Catholicism

In February 2016, Pope Francis criticized Trump’s campaign pledge of building a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. Back then, too, Trump attacked Francis for being a “very political person.”

Temple University historian David Mislin wrote how the comments suggesting that the pope was interfering in U.S. politics reminded some commentators of an “older religious bigotry.”

During the 19th century, when large numbers of Catholics immigrated to the U.S., they were looked at with suspicion. Some Americans claimed that “Catholics maintained allegiance to the church first and to American values and institutions second,” Mislin explained.

“Anti-Catholic cartoons suggested that Catholics would use political power to dismantle the nation’s institutions,” he added.

It was once “unthinkable” for American presidents to be seen with the pope. Dwight Eisenhower became the first U.S. president to visit the Vatican in 1959.
2. Mutual influence

It was only in 1984 – under President Ronald Reagan – that the U.S. and the Vatican established diplomatic relations, as church historian Massimo Faggioli noted in an 2015 article.

Faggioli, a professor at Trinity College Dublin, wrote in the lead-up to Francis’ trip to the United States. That visit reflected “a story about change in religion and politics,” he noted – about relations between the papacy and the Catholic Church, on one side, and the United States, on the other.

Francis addressed Congress on this trip, which, according to Faggioli, “would have shocked most Americans only 30 years ago.”

He also noted how much world Catholicism had been influenced by American ideas in recent years, becoming “much more American than it used to be – and much more American than Italian, for that matter.” Catholic teachings “on religious freedom and democracy and the new sensibility on the role of women in the Church came to Rome largely thanks to the experience of Catholics in the United States,” Faggioli wrote.

His broader point was that the Vatican and the U.S. have had an influence on each other – something that can be “seen only over a long period of time.”
3. How Francis changed church’s foreign policy

Part of the change – at least at the Vatican end – is reflected in the church’s relationship with political power, as Loughborough University researcher Massimo D’Angelo pointed out.

Francis’ predecessor, Joseph Ratzinger – who became Pope Benedict XVI – may have often seen political alliances as a necessity for the church’s survival in times of secular decline. “Francis rejected this approach,” D'Angelo wrote.

“The sacred must not be instrumentalised by the profane,” Francis stated in Kazakhstan in 2022. In other words, religion should not be a tool in the hands of the powerful. Francis also made constant appeals for peace amid the Ukraine and Gaza wars, though he avoided direct condemnation – which, at times, led to some criticism.

Even so, as D'Angelo said, it was “another major transformation” in how the church related with political power.
4. Shared principles

Trump’s Truth Social post accused Leo of “catering to the radical left.” Mark Yenson, a religious studies scholar at Western University in Canada, explained why such terms may not be applicable in the context of the papacy, where “conservative” and “liberal” labels don’t work the same way as in polarized American politics.

Many Americans viewed Benedict as more conservative than Francis, his successor. Yet some of the two popes’ history suggests that they appealed to shared principles, which were theological rather than political, Yenson wrote in 2025. These were “not reducible to liberal versus conservative categories.”

As he wrote, “The role of the pope, highlighted in Francis’ teaching on ecology, is to inspire a different kind of social and moral imagination, one not reducible to particular ideological positions.”

Leo, like Francis, has been critical of the Trump administration. Yenson reminds readers that the pope’s choice of name hearkens to Pope Leo XIII, who initiated modern Catholic social teaching and emphasized peace and justice. Additionally, he wrote, Leo’s “career as a missionary, bishop and Vatican cardinal outside of the U.S. means that his context is not confined to the polarizations of the U.S. Catholic Church and its bishops.”

Far from an isolated spat, Trump and Leo’s exchange might well show a recurring dynamic – in which papal intervention on global issues is rarely seen as neutral.

This story is a roundup of articles from The Conversation’s archives.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

1776’s Declaration Of Independence Inspired Washington’s Troops To Fight Against The Odds – And Also Helped Bring In Powerful Allies

The first page of the original draft of the Declaration of Independence with minor emendations in the hands of John Adams and Benjamin Franklin. Jefferson Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress

BY CHRISTOPHER MAGRA

PROFESSOR OF AMERICAN HISTORY,

UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE

A crowd gathered along the waterfront in New York City in the summer of 1776. The scene they witnessed was terrifying.

The largest expeditionary force in British history sailed into the American harbor. Over 300 ships brought 32,000 professional soldiers and Hessian mercenaries to crush a rebellion.

Nearby, Gen. George Washington’s army gathered to hear their commander read a document that would forever change the nature of their fight: the Declaration of Independence.

And contrary to how Americans now think of that document – as an inspiring declaration that detailed the grievances of Colonists against the British king and announced their independence from Great Britain – what Washington read to his army was also something else.

The Declaration of Independence was America’s first formal declaration of war. It planted a symbolic flag for Patriots to rally around. It transformed illegitimate rebels without hope of foreign aid into state-sponsored freedom fighters eligible for military alliances.

This foundational American text wasn’t just a philosophical breakup letter but a strategic move to secure vital support for the American war effort. America’s first declaration of war was a high-stakes geopolitical gamble essential to achieving independence.

Converting rebels into soldiers

As I and other military historians show in our forthcoming collection of essays, “America’s First War: The Military History of the Declaration of Independence,” the declaration was written within the confines of 18th-century legal standards that strictly governed diplomacy and warfare.

Thomas Jefferson, the foremost writer of the declaration, relied heavily on the Swiss jurist Emer de Vattel’s 1758 treatise “The Law of Nations.” Vattel stressed the fact that in the eyes of European courts, providing aid to rebels was a violation of sovereignty and a dangerous precedent.

Vattel argued that for foreign powers to intervene legally in conflicts, the oppressed party had to formally declare its independence and assume the status of a state. Jefferson kept Vattel’s treatise open while he was working on the Declaration of Independence to ensure he used the specific terminology required to transform the American rebellion into a just war.

By framing independence as “necessary,” Jefferson was not just waxing philosophical. He was satisfying the legal requirement set out by Vattel that all peaceful avenues for reconciliation had been exhausted, which justified war to the “Powers of the Earth.”

A formal declaration of war, approved by Congress, increased support for the American military here at home. It rallied a divided and wary population. Even as late as 1776, there were Americans who remained fence-sitters, uncertain about the risks of a total break with the British Empire.

The declaration functioned as a public rallying flag that allowed Americans to identify themselves as a legitimate, unified group. Like Thomas Paine’s widely read pamphlet “Common Sense,” the declaration educated the uncommitted on the inescapable necessity of breaking away from the British Empire:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident,” the declaration reads, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

By framing the fight in the universal language of the preamble, Jefferson sought to inspire and unite disparate Americans through a shared vision of a better life.

In doing so, he helped transform localized resistance movements into a collective national mission. In the words of the declaration, “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

The declaration and the American army

This psychological shift was especially critical for the rank-and-file soldiers in the Continental Army.

That’s why, on July 9, 1776, Washington ordered the declaration to be read to his troops in New York. His aim: to provide a fresh incentive for the coming struggle.

This public address was intended to transform the nature of their service. They were no longer disloyal subjects in rebellion against a legitimate sovereign, but soldiers of a new nation defending their own homeland. Through Jefferson’s words and Washington’s address, the declaration fueled enthusiasm for a new political system and rededicated America’s soldiers to a cause that was not yet won.

Washington told the troops he hoped “this important Event will serve as a fresh incentive to every officer, and soldier, to act with Fidelity and Courage, as knowing that now the peace and safety of his Country depends (under God) solely on the success of our arms.”

America’s first declaration of war bolstered troop morale at a pivotal point in the conflict. The Continental Army was going to square off against the largest expeditionary force in British history in the summer of 1776. And Washington’s troops consisted of approximately 19,000 militiamen.

The British army had the British navy. Washington had only minimal naval support. The arrival of the first waves of Hessian mercenaries, auxiliaries for Britain, in July 1776 only deepened American resolve to seek out their own foreign military allies.

Forging alliances

The declaration helped bring about much-needed support for the American war effort among foreign governments.

The primary strategic target of the declaration was the Bourbon monarchies of France and Spain, Britain’s chief rivals. The Continental Congress understood that the fledgling United States could not withstand British military might without receiving overseas shipments of gold and gunpowder, in addition to warships, sailors and soldiers.

Silas Deane, the Americans’ first secret envoy, arrived in Paris in July 1776 with instructions to procure equipment for an army of 30,000 men and to inquire about a formal alliance once independence was declared.

Working with the French playwright Pierre-Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais, Deane established the shell company Roderigue Hortalez and Co. to funnel secret aid from the French government to America. This clandestine supply chain eventually provided thousands of muskets, field artillery and millions of pounds of gunpowder that made possible the 1777 victory at Saratoga and France’s subsequent formal alliance.

While France provided the bulk of the naval support, Spain’s role was equally critical to the American war effort.

Following the declaration, the Continental Congress intensified its appeals to Spain. Bernardo de Gálvez, the governor of Spanish Louisiana, became a central figure in this secret war. Even before Spain formally entered the war in 1779, Gálvez channeled over $70,000 worth of medicine, weapons and uniforms up the Mississippi River to Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. This southern lifeline kept the American war effort viable in the Western theater and forced the British to maintain a defensive posture on multiple fronts.

Reframing the declaration as a strategic war measure highlights the Founding Fathers’ sophisticated understanding of power.

They recognized that each individual’s “unalienable rights” were a fantasy without the “full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, [and] contract Alliances.” Jefferson and the members of Congress understood that American freedom required support for the war effort at home and abroad.

By transforming a localized insurrection into a state-sponsored homeland defense and an international conflict, the declaration ensured that the American Revolution would not be a mere sound of one hand clapping, but a successful geopolitical struggle that brought about independence.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Nigeria Imports 70% Of Its Medicines – Why Local Manufacturing Doesn’t Meet Demand

BY EFEFIOM KOFON

SOAS, UNIVERSITY OF LONDON

Nigeria imports at least 70% of its medicines. This is striking for a country of over 230 million people and at least 120 active pharmaceutical manufacturers.

Domestic manufacturing is largely concentrated in lower-end medicines that require relatively simple production processes. The more complex and higher-value pharmaceutical products continue to be imported.

This pattern has persisted for decades. It reflects two things. First is the limited impact of policies aimed at reducing import dependence. The other is the entrenched interests across pharmaceutical companies. An incentive structure that favours imports over local production.

I recently completed my doctorate studies focusing on the political economy of pharmaceutical manufacturing in Nigeria, with comparisons to Uganda, Bangladesh and India. My research looked at how the industry had evolved and analysed how the distribution of organisational power and manufacturing capabilities has made it difficult for reforms to work.

I found that policy interventions have largely failed because weak institutions cannot influence manufacturers to expand their production capabilties.

The biggest obstacles stem from how power and benefits are distributed across political, bureaucratic and pharmaceutical actors.

Any policy that does not fully take this into account will likely be resisted.

Factors militating against Nigerian manufacturers

Nigerian manufacturers face:

a lack of protection and incentives to produce certain medicines

high levels of imports of finished medicines

pressure to import as well as manufacture

low manufacturing capabilities.

Weak incentive structure:

The first policy to specifically support domestic manufacturers of medicines was introduced in 2005, when the Nigerian government restricted the importation of 17 lower-end medicines. The prohibited medicines included paracetamol, aspirin and metronidazole (antibiotic) tablets.

The protectionist policy has not been expanded since then. So manufacturers have no incentive to invest in technological upgrading to make more complex medicines.

Importation of finished medicines:

At least 100 manufacturers also import medicines – including some that are produced locally. In some cases, manufacturers both produce and import the same medicine, marketing them under different brand names.

Two medicines illustrate this. The antibiotic ciprofloxacin (tablet form) is currently imported by at least 93 registered pharmaceutical companies, even though 21 domestic producers make it too.

A similar pattern is evident for artemether-lumefantrine, a widely used antimalarial medicine. Fewer than 30 pharmaceutical companies produce it locally. More than 200 import it – including some established manufacturers.

Manufacturers as producers and importers:

Many companies combine local manufacturing with importing finished medicines as a way of managing risk.

This creates commercially attractive, lower-risk revenue streams for manufacturers. They are likely to resist policy or reforms that would limit imports in favour of expanded local production.

Low manufacturing capacities:

Nigerian pharmaceutical companies have low manufacturing capacities. And the learning process involved in complex manufacturing is time consuming, costly and risky.

It is also difficult to compel a company to do something where governance is weak.

In the absence of adequate and sustained policy support, many manufacturers rely on political networks to protect their interests or challenge policies that threaten them.

An example is the modification of a regional tariff in 2016 because it threatened locally manufactured medicines. The regional trade policy had imposed zero duty on essential finished medicines and up to 20% on the raw materials used in medicine manufacturing. This was to increase the availability and affordability of essential medicines across the region. Nigerian manufacturers exerted pressure on government to reject it.

In the absence of credible policy support for upgrading into technologically sophisticated medicines, manufacturers continue to rely on imports. Similarly, they continue to influence policy decisions that could disrupt existing revenue streams.

Why the problem persists

When some pharmaceutical companies manufacture medicines locally while others import the same products, it weakens collective action. It’s harder to mobilise around shared policy demands.

The Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Group of Manufacturers Association of Nigeria, an influential trade association, illustrates this challenge. One of its objectives is to lobby for increased market protection for locally produced medicines. But member firms have differing commercial interests in locally manufactured and imported medicines. This often works against policy objectives.

It impedes how member firms form alliances to support or oppose policies. It also affects influence over them.

Nigeria’s reliance on imported medicines has less to do with the commonly cited capability constraints. It is the outcome of a policy vacuum that has made it more attractive to import products.

This dynamic is also evident in some other African countries, such as Ghana, Kenya, and Uganda. Manufacturers similarly import more complex medicines and produce simple medicines locally. There is limited support for domestic manufacturing of more complex medicines.

Moving forward

High levels of imports limit the rewards for expanding manufacturing capabilities and any credible path to competitiveness. The significant revenues generated from imports also weaken incentives to invest in learning how to produce more complex medicines.

Recognising this matters for policymakers and international development organisations.

The challenge is not simply increasing financial support or political commitment. It is designing policies that reconfigure current benefits. They need to make it worthwhile to invest in more complex pharmaceutical manufacturing.

THE CON

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Brutal Mau Mau Camps In Kenya Were An Extension Of Britain’s Colonial Prison System – Historian Traces Their Roots

Soldiers round up suspected Mau Mau rebels in Kenya. Getty Images

BY IAN CAISTOR-PARKER

PH.D STUDENT,

UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK

During the Mau Mau uprising between 1952 and 1960, the British colonial government confined an estimated 150,000 Kenyans in a sprawling network of “emergency” detention camps.

None of those held in the camps had been found guilty in a court of law. Instead, they were detained on suspicion of supporting the uprising.

British control over Kenya was effectively declared in 1895. A distinctive feature of colonial rule was the decision to encourage white settlement. These settlers were granted vast tracts of Kenya’s most fertile land and pushed policy in an increasingly harsh and unequal direction.

By the early 1950s, many African Kenyans were facing severe land shortages in the countryside and desperate living conditions in urban areas.

In 1952, this situation erupted into the Mau Mau uprising, a broadly anti-colonial rebellion.

The British government responded with overwhelming force. It declared a state of emergency and suppressed the uprising militarily.

Revelations about the extreme violence employed in some emergency detention camps made the continuation of British rule untenable. Particularly key was the Hola massacre of 1959. Guards beat 11 detainees to death and the colonial government attempted to cover up the crime.

Outrage at these events shattered Britain’s grip on the colony, and Kenya achieved independence in 1963 under the leadership of Jomo Kenyatta.

A great deal is known about these detention camps. They were sites of neglect and brutal violence. Detainees were forced to go through a so-called rehabilitation system designed to make them renounce their support for Mau Mau.

In practice, they were subjected to brutal compulsory labour, were at risk of assault and lived in unhygienic conditions. Some of those who refused to cooperate ultimately faced systematic, state-sanctioned torture.

I am a historian researching punishment in Kenya, and I have been investigating the deeper history of detention camps. My research shows that this emergency detention system was shaped by an earlier network of “ordinary” detention camps. These were established in 1926 and processed more than 400,000 people before the uprising.

These camps, intended as a milder alternative to prison, evolved into a poorly regulated system characterised by exploitation, overcrowding and weak accountability.

These findings challenge the idea that the detention system of the 1950s was exceptional. Instead, it was rooted in long-standing colonial practices, shaped by economic incentives, administrative gaps and coercive labour systems.

Understanding this deeper history matters because it changes how we view the Mau Mau emergency. It proves that the brutal 1950s detention system didn’t just emerge from nowhere – it was built on a foundation of state violence and disorder that had been normalised for decades.

The roots

Influenced by a draconian-minded European settler minority, the Kenyan colonial government adopted a harsh approach to punishing the local population. Judges frequently imprisoned Africans for “technical” offences lacking criminal intent. These included failing to pay tax and minor violations of coercive labour laws.

By the 1920s, Kenya’s prisons were overcrowded and “technical” offenders inevitably mixed with hardened criminals.

In response, the colonial government introduced detention in 1926 as a supposedly milder alternative for technical offenders who had simply broken administrative rules. In theory, prisons were to be reserved for those who had committed crimes involving moral violation. In practice, however, these distinctions didn’t (or couldn’t) hold.

To visibly separate detention from imprisonment, the colonial government gave day-to-day control of detention camps to district commissioners (the powerful heads of local governments), not the prison department.

However, this separation was incomplete. Detainees were legally classified as prisoners (though they were not informed of this). The prison department retained ultimate authority over the camps.

This overlapping authority produced a gap in accountability, which ultimately proved disastrous.

In 1930, seeking to divert more people from formal prisons, government officials removed almost all sentencing restrictions on detention. Subsequently, the only limitations were that sentences had to be under six months and that those with more than one prior prison conviction were ineligible.

Numbers surged immediately, with more convicted offenders sent to detention than formal prisons almost every year until 1952.

Judges increasingly used detention for serious offences, including manslaughter. A limited criminal records system meant that individuals with prior convictions – sometimes as many as 16 – ended up in detention.

Conversely, the amendment did not stop harsh magistrates from continuing to send significant numbers of minor offenders to prisons.

This blurring of populations, combined with a lack of structural and legal separation, meant detention camps mutated into a parallel prison system, serving a different colonial master, district commissioners, but lacking fundamental distinction.

Detention camp living conditions were atrocious. Most district commissioners delegated almost all duties to Kenyan African “overseers”. Overseers were under-trained. Yet they were expected to be on duty constantly and often had to guard more than 60 detainees, making meaningful supervision impossible.

Camps were generally collections of temporary wattle-and-daub huts. Over time, these decayed but were not replaced, resulting in squalid conditions.

Furthermore, overcrowding was endemic. Food rations were poor and basic facilities were often absent. Sickness rates were significant. Detainees responded by escaping at a rate of more than one a day.

Failed reform

In 1937, a high-level committee condemned the system as dangerous and inefficient. Calls for reform from London also grew.

But nothing changed.

Why?

The primary reason was economic. Detainees were a vital reservoir of free labour for cash-strapped district commissioners. When camps were introduced, local governments’ labour budgets were cut. This made detainee labour crucial for maintaining government stations.

In the late 1930s, penal officials sought to reintroduce stricter eligibility criteria for detention. However, they abandoned this idea as it would add to overcrowding in the prison system.

Trapped by bureaucratic gridlock, underfunding and economic dependency, Kenya’s detention system limped into the 1952 emergency – unreformed.

Ultimately, “ordinary” detention camps persisted until the 1980s, far outliving their emergency counterparts.

The consequences

This history exposes stark continuities between the pre-emergency and Mau Mau penal systems. Furthermore, as they were under the control of district officials and lacked standard prison regulations, existing detention camps could, and did, easily become dumping grounds for Mau Mau suspects in the early months of the emergency. Ordinary detention was both a model and enabling mechanism for emergency detention.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Maternity Health Services In Nigeria Are Failing Women: 4 Steps To Better Care

The paediatric ward, Jos University Teaching Hospital, Plateau State in Nigeria. Photo by Stefan Heunis/AFP via Getty Images

BY OBASANJO BOLARINWA SND REBECCA TADOKERA

Nigeria faces one of the world’s highest maternal mortality rates. Around 1,047 women die for every 100,000 live births, far above the African regional average of about 531 deaths per 100,000. This highlights the fact that not all women are getting maternal healthcare.

Reasons include:

differences in access to healthcare between geographical regions

socio-demographic factors such as education, poverty, age and limited decision-making power within households

religious affiliation, which in some communities shapes health-seeking behaviour

limited exposure to health information

poverty and unemployment

a lack of health insurance.

Nigeria has implemented several maternal health programmes over the past two decades. The National Integrated Maternal, Newborn and Child Strategy, Midwives Service Scheme and Free Maternal and Child Health Programmes were designed to increase skilled birth attendance, improve access to antenatal and postnatal care, and reduce financial barriers to maternal health services.

But progress in reducing maternal deaths has been uneven across Nigeria. Maternal mortality in the north-east and north-west exceeds 1,000 deaths per 100,000 live births, far higher than rates in southern regions of the country. Many women still do not receive essential maternal health services. For example, only 47.8% of women reported delivering with a skilled birth attendant, and millions of women have limited access to regular antenatal care.

The challenge is no longer about identifying the problem. It is about removing the real barriers Nigerian women face.

We are global public health researchers with a focus on maternal health systems in low- and middle-income countries.

Our recent published policy brief highlighted why many women in Nigeria aren’t using maternity services. Our findings suggest that there are four practical shifts that the Nigerian government could make to improve the use of maternity services across Nigeria. These are:

region-specific interventions

increasing the coverage of services so that they’re closer to where women live

removing financial barriers to care

using digital capabilities to overcome gaps in services.

Four interventions that can make a difference

1. Target regions differently

Maternal health policies often take a national approach, but Nigeria is not uniform. Northern and some southern regions face different cultural, religious and geographic barriers. Government policies therefore need to target specific barriers in different regions. For example, improving transport and health facility access in rural areas, expanding community-based maternal services, and strengthening culturally appropriate health education programmes.

Such policies would typically be developed by Nigeria’s Federal Ministry of Health in collaboration with state governments, local health authorities and community organisations. Regional inequalities in maternal death have shown why a uniform policy approach is ineffective. For example, skilled birth attendance is far lower in the north-west than in southern regions.

The Federal Ministry of Health should empower the state governments to:

work with the religious and traditional leaders to promote skilled birth attendance

engage community influencers to counter harmful norms

train health workers in culturally sensitive care

strengthen primary healthcare services in underserved districts.

When communities trust the system, they use it.

2. Take services closer to women

Distance remains a barrier, especially in rural areas. Many women cannot travel long distances while pregnant. In many parts of Nigeria, a health facility may be more than 5-10 kilometres away, and poor roads, limited transport and travel costs make it difficult to reach care.

Mobile health clinics can bridge this gap. They bring antenatal care, family planning and basic obstetric services directly to remote communities. These clinics can be established and operated by state ministries of health and local government health authorities. Though there are mobile clinics in Nigeria currently, there ought to be more.

Outreach teams dedicated to maternal health specifically and including trained midwives, nurses, community health extension workers, volunteer community health workers, supported by local primary healthcare staff should:

provide health education in local languages

offer on-the-spot referrals

use community health workers to track pregnancies early.

Care that comes closer to women increases uptake, as seen in western Kenya.

3. Remove financial barriers

Out-of-pocket payments still prevent many Nigerian women from seeking care. Health insurance coverage remains low. Fewer than 10% of Nigerians are currently covered by any form of health insurance, leaving the majority of households to pay directly for services. This is despite the fact that it was made mandatory for all Nigerians and legal residents in 2022.

Maternal health is meant to be free. But the policy isn’t implemented consistently.

Three reforms are critical:

expand health insurance coverage for maternity service

enforce policies that prevent informal or hidden charges

introduce targeted financial incentives such as vouchers or conditional cash transfers for poor women.

These reforms would require coordinated action across Nigeria’s federal, state and local health systems, which jointly oversee healthcare financing and service delivery.

Evidence from other low- and middle-income countries shows that financial incentives increase service use. When cost is removed, utilisation rises.

Long-term economic empowerment of women is equally important. Women with stable incomes are more likely to seek care.

4. Use digital health to widen access

Nigeria’s digital penetration is growing rapidly. More than 100 million Nigerians use the internet, representing about 45% of the population. Mobile phone penetration exceeds 80% of the population. This creates an opportunity to create digital platforms that:

send appointment reminders

provide pregnancy education

support teleconsultations

use artificial intelligence tools to improve risk screening.

Digital health will not replace physical services. But it can reduce delays, improve awareness and connect women to care earlier.

Rwanda has integrated AI into healthcare through digital platforms that support remote consultations and clinical triage. Tools such as the Babyl telemedicine platform use AI-assisted systems to help nurses assess symptoms, guide treatment decisions and connect patients to doctors through mobile phones, expanding access to care in rural areas. This shows what is possible when technology is used strategically. Nigeria can adapt similar models for maternal health.

Way forward

Nigeria does not need more policy documents. It needs targeted implementation.

First, federal and state governments must align efforts. Nigeria already has national institutions coordinating maternal health policy, including the Federal Ministry of Health and Social Welfare and the National Primary Health Care Development Agency. But because health services are delivered largely by state and local governments, implementation varies widely. Maternal health policies should be state-specific but nationally coordinated and adapted to state-specific realities.

Second, funding must prioritise primary healthcare and community engagement. Investments should focus on where utilisation is lowest.

Third, monitoring systems must improve. Data should guide decisions at local levels. Programmes that work should be scaled. Those that fail should be redesigned.

Finally, women themselves must be part of policy design. Solutions imposed from above rarely succeed. Improving maternity service use is not only a health goal. It strengthens families, communities and the economy.

The next step is clear: implement smarter, targeted policies that remove barriers and bring care closer to every woman.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Shiite Grief Over Attacks In Iran’s Sacred Cities Has Deep Historical Roots

The shrine of Fatima Masumeh in Qom, Iran. Mansoreh Motamedi/Moment via Getty images

BY MARY THURLKILL

PROFESSOR OF RELIGION,

UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI

Several Shiite communities in South Asia recently refrained from celebrating Eid as they mourned the death of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. From Nigeria to Kashmir – well beyond the Gulf region – the assassination has stirred deep concerns among Shiite Muslims.

Shiite Islam is the official, and majority, religion of Iran. Shiite minorities in other countries tend to view Iranian leaders as protectors and have sometimes risked personal safety to protest the war.

As the violence expands around Tehran, Shiites are not only grieving the death of their leaders but also fear the loss of holy cities and shrines that anchor their collective memory.

Many of the cities targeted in the war today are home to these types of shrines, including Qom, Isfahan and Mashhad. In Isfahan, the 17th-century Jame Abbasi Mosque, also known as Shah Mosque, sustained damage during one of the airstrikes. After the ayatollah’s death, Shiites gathered at Imam Reza Shrine in Mashhad to mourn his loss. In a signal recognized by all Shiites, Iran raised the black flag at the shrine’s dome to mark the community’s shared grief.

Qom, located about 80 miles south of Tehran, has attracted much media attention because of the large-scale military attacks against it. Various social media platforms are showing destroyed buildings and plumes of smoke filling the skyline.

After Khamenei’s death, the city was targeted because the Assembly of Experts gathered there to elect his successor. Israel attacked Qom’s Shokouhiyeh Industrial Zone, known for its drone production companies.

With the news blackout in Iran and Gulf states, it’s impossible to know the impact of military operations on holy sites like Qom. Regardless of the level of material damage, Shiites are deploring the physical and spiritual assaults against their sacred landscape.

That’s because in Shiite Islam, grief is not only personal but collective. As a scholar of medieval Islam and Shiite piety, I have seen how this grief is expressed through rituals, pilgrimage and devotion to saints.

Redemptive suffering

Shared sorrow is a key part of Iran’s Twelver Shiite identity, which venerates the Prophet Muhammad’s family through daughter Fatima and cousin and son-in-law, Ali.

Fatima and Ali’s lineage is called the Imamate, with each individual imam recognized as a sinless spiritual leader. Each imam is responsible for providing guidance as the “proof of God” on earth.

Ali’s leadership and the imams’ leadership wasn’t recognized by all Muslims, however. Some of Muhammad’s companions and early leaders of the Umayyad dynasty, which ruled from 661-750 C.E., rejected their authority and punished their followers.

According to Shiite tradition, in 680 C.E. supporters of Ali’s family living in Kufa – in modern-day Iraq – appealed to Husayn, the prophet’s grandson, for assistance. They had refused to pledge their allegiance to the Umayyad Caliph Yazid because they viewed him as illegitimate and oppressive.

Husayn gathered a small group of friends and family, including wives, children and siblings, and headed to Kufa. Their party was intercepted outside the city, on the plains of Karbala, by Yazid’s forces led by Umar ibn Sa’d.

Cut off from water and vastly outnumbered, Husayn’s camp suffered for 10 days in the desert, and the Kufans never rallied to their defense. Desperate from thirst, Husayn rode out of the camp with his infant son to appeal for water, but an enemy archer shot an arrow through the child’s neck.

Tradition says that on the 10th of Muharram, Husayn and his companions met Yazid’s military on the battlefield and were massacred. Many of the men were beheaded and women captured; Umar ibn Sa’d marched the spiked heads and shackled women through various towns on the way back to Caliph Yazid in Damascus to deter further protest.

Husayn’s Kufan supporters acknowledged their failure to aid the imam and pledged to publicly atone. In 685 C.E. about 4,000 penitents revolted against Umayyads in Syria; the majority died.

Shiites worldwide still commemorate Husayn’s death at Karbala as a sacrifice for the community’s collective redemption.

Shiites frame their own suffering – from facing injustice to martyrdom – as symbolically participating in Husayn’s sacrifice. Public ceremonies include “taziyeh” plays performed during Muharram that recreate Husayn’s martyrdom and the public recitation of poetry dedicated to his family.

A sacred landscape

America and Israel associate holy sites such as Qom with underground bunkers, uranium plants and military headquarters. But for Shiites they are centers of pilgrimage, where the faithful seek connection with God, the imams and their sacred history.

Qom has universities and stunning sacred architecture that date back to the Safavids, a dynasty that ruled Iran from 1501 through 1736. Its seminary is the foremost clerical institution in the world, training students from Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan in a wide range of topics, including Shiite jurisprudence, Quranic interpretation and Arabic literature. Women also attend the seminary but with segregated classrooms and some course restrictions.

Qom’s primary sacred site, the shrine of Fatima bint Musa, who died in 816 C.E., is one of the most important sacred sites for Shii Muslims worldwide and attracts millions of pilgrims each year.

Popularly known as Fatima Masuma, she is the daughter of seventh imam Musa al-Kazim and sister to the eighth imam, Ali al-Rida.

Iranian Shiites – known as Twelvers – believe there are 12 imams in the Prophet Muhammad’s family lineage with exalted spiritual status, and that the 12th imam never died but went into “hiding.” Shiites know the 12th imam as al-Mahdi, or the messiah: they believe he will return at the world’s end times to restore God’s justice and peace.

According to Fatima’s hagiographies, or popular sacred stories, she remained unmarried and devoted herself to scholarship. She’s known as a trustworthy transmitter of hadith – sayings from the prophet and his family – and she studied the Quran and jurisprudence. She’s especially revered in Shiite Islam because of her kinship with the imams.

Tradition notes that when Fatima’s father, Musa al-Kazim, was unable to meet visitors with spiritual questions, he directed them to consult his daughter.

During her lifetime, the Abbasid dynasty rose to power in Baghdad and quickly sought to curtail the imamate’s popularity because many Muslims viewed Ali’s family as the only legitimate rulers.

Saintly intercession

Just on the outskirts of Qom is a village called Jamkaran, home to another important pilgrimage site. According to tradition, the 12th imam, or Imam al-Mahdi, appeared to a devotee in the 10th century and requested a shrine be constructed.

From 1995 to 2005 the Iranian government greatly expanded the mosque complex and city infrastructure to support the millions of pilgrims who visit annually.

Shiites believe al-Mahdi is mysteriously present at the site and listens to their concerns. In a popular ritual of prayer and piety, visitors write personal requests on bits of paper and drop them down the “Well of Requests.”

Shiites share political pain and injustice not only with each other but also with the imams, bound in collective grief and prayers for redemption. These traditions help explain the powerful reactions seen across Shiite communities following attacks on sacred sites and the killing of Grand Ayatollah Khamenei.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

What Americans Can Learn From Other Civil Activism Movements Against Authoritarian Regimes

AUTHORS:

JOHN SHATTUCK

PROFESSOR OF PRACTICE IN

DIPLOMACY, FLETCHER SCHOOL 

OF LAW & DIPLOMACY, TUFTS UNIVERSITY

OLIVER KAPLAN

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF INTERNATIONAL

STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF DENVER

On Feb. 24, The Conversation hosted a webinar titled, “What Americans can learn from other nonviolent civil activism movements.”

Executive editor and general manager Beth Daley interviewed John Shattuck, professor of practice at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, and Oliver Kaplan, associate professor at Josef Korbel School of Global and Public Affairs at the University of Denver and a visiting scholar at Stanford University.

Shattuck is the former president of Central European University in Hungary, where he defended academic freedom against a rising authoritarian government. Kaplan is the author of “Resisting War: How Communities Protect Themselves.” This interview has been condensed and edited for print.

Beth Daley: What is an authoritarian regime, and what are their characteristics?

John Shattuck: The authoritarian, often referred to as a “king,” is the ideal role from the point of view of the king, but certainly not from the point of view of the people. Authoritarian characteristics include centralized unlimited power, the opposite of democracy; no accountability and no rule of law; no independent courts; no checks and balances on how the king operates; rule by fear and coercion, and when necessary, in order to carry out the king’s orders, rule by by force. There are no individual rights or civil liberties except those the king decides to allow those who are loyal to him to have, at least until he decides to take them away.

That’s a nutshell informal description of an authoritarian regime. A special threat today is that an authoritarian can emerge from a democratic election, and, indeed, a democratic election can be used to turn a weak democracy into an authoritarian regime. But when this happens, it opens the door to challenge the authoritarian in a subsequent election if civic activism can defend the electoral process by which the authoritarian was elected.

BD: What are we seeing and not seeing in the U.S. that other countries have gone through in terms of authoritarian government?

Oliver Kaplan: I think we are heading toward an autocracy, if not there already. In their 2026 report, the Varieties of Democracy Project writes that the U.S. is no longer a liberal democracy and is moving into “competitive authoritarianism,” marked by executive overreach and erosion of judicial and legislative checks. The report notes that U.S. democracy is being dismantled at a speed that is “unprecedented in modern history.”

We are seeing shifts in terms of concentration of power to the executive branch and a disregard of the rule of law, things like ignoring court orders and difficulty with holding the executive branch accountable. We are also seeing the militarization of law enforcement, monitoring of U.S. citizens, and what some refer to as the dual state – that the state is working for some people while causing more challenges for or oppressing other people.

One of the things we’re not seeing at full force yet is a complete shutdown of civic space. We’re able to hold this kind of conversation, and people are still able to dialogue and go out on the street. There are some efforts at curtailing free speech, and I think there’s some self-censorship possibly happening. But there’s still this open space and a powerful mass movement growing in this country.

BD: John, you were on the front lines, particularly in Hungary as the head of Central European University. What did you see there that has parallels today to the U.S.?

JS: There’s certainly a parallel between Hungary and the U.S., even though the countries are very different in size, history and background. What I saw in Hungary when I became president of Central European University in 2009 was a weak, new democracy that was only established in 1990 after 70 years of fascism and communism.

I was in Hungary from 2009 to 2016 and, despite the differences, I could begin to see some parallels. Many people had grievances in Hungary about how their economy was operating, particularly after the global financial crisis that affected Hungary more than any other Eastern European country. Then there was an urban-rural divide, the urban elite versus the rural majority in the country.

Along came a cynical populist-nationalist politician, Viktor Orbán. Orban started manipulating these grievances, and did so to significantly divide Hungarian society. He attacked many of the institutions of democracy, which were increasingly unpopular because of people’s grievances. He went after elites, and foreigners, and migrants, and the media. And he blamed all of them for the country’s problems. He then was able to ride these grievances into office.

Once in office, Orban amended the constitution and laws relating to the parliament. He undermined the independence of the media and the judiciary so as to centralize power. All of this happened while I was running an international university in Budapest, which remained independent because it received no funding from the Hungarian government. We were able to resist the increasingly authoritarian regime over issues of academic freedom. The government tried to shut down our programs of migration studies and gender studies, and tried to censor aspects of our history department.

These authoritarian attacks are similar to what we’ve seen happening in the U.S., and in fact, Viktor Orban was greatly admired by Donald Trump, and a lot of the playbook that Orban has followed was mirrored in Project 2025 in the U.S. under Trump.

BD: How do communities respond in different ways to authoritarian regimes?

OK: Pro-democracy movements and protection types of movements at the local level often co-occur. For example, in Colombia there have been various leftist movements and political parties that have pushed for greater democratic opening while communities mobilize to keep people safe and help them cope with repressive conditions. In places like Chile, El Salvador and Guatemala, communities built trust and support networks to provide aid, such as for people who needed food assistance. This provides space to independently operate and preserve the community.

The U.S. has parallels, such as innovating early warning networks to get advance notice of risks and threats, by communicating using the Signal app. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, villages set up radio networks, and in Ukraine they have sophisticated early warning networks to get word of airstrikes and drone attacks.

Fact-finding and countering stigma are important, and in the U.S. we’re seeing that in the form of the video recording and publicizing of harmful actions. This has played out similarly in Syria with fact-finding to protect nongovernment organizations.

There’s also accompaniment where outside actors come in to provide support to communities. Around the world, church organizations play important accompaniment roles. We’re seeing clergy in the U.S. step up and visit places that are at risk.

And then, there are protests, the most visible kind of action. In Minnesota, we’ve seen communities actually setting up community barricades, which has also happened in Mexico, Colombia and Northern Ireland. Communicating the nonviolent nature of these movements is important to avoid any pretext for additional crackdowns.

I think Americans have been taking similar actions to places around the world in part because there are some similar background conditions: repression and strong social capital networks. Those two things come together to produce these strategies.

BD: Could you speak more about the need to build a clear narrative and a positive one?

JS: There are two basic rules for how to resist authoritarianism that I’ve learned from experience: Build a diverse coalition and develop a unifying theme. You need a diverse coalition in order to appeal to a broad range of the public, and in order to do that, you need agreement on the goal and values of what you’re trying to accomplish. You need a clear and unifying narrative. The narrative often involves economic issues and issues of corruption, since there’s often a great deal of corruption in authoritarian regimes.

Hungary will have its next parliamentary election in April in which Orban will seek his fifth term as prime minister. The opposition has developed a broad coalition and a unifying theme, while Orban is using the centralized instruments of government and media that he controls to try to manipulate public opinion. The opposition coalition is headed by Peter Magyar, who was once a major supporter of Orban’s government. Magyar’s name can be magical in Hungary – sort of like a “Joe America” in the U.S.

With Magyar as its head, the opposition is aiming to peel off supporters of the regime. It’s campaigning on economic grounds, with a positive message and on moderate terms. And most importantly, it includes parties from the left, right and center.

Poland has succeeded in doing what the Hungarian opposition is attempting. It managed to vote out an authoritarian government by putting together a broad coalition to defend the independence of the Polish judiciary. That became a coalition to elect parliamentarians in 2023, and that succeeded in changing the government.

BD: How important is the preexisting social fabric of a community to the success of a protest movement?

JS: It’s important, but complicated. Hungary had a very weak civil society after 70 years of totalitarian fascism and communism. When I was there, the very word to “volunteer,” which we think of as the essence of community action and service, was seen to be a bad word in Hungarian because it was closely associated with collaborating with the regime.

In the U.S., we’re the opposite in a sense, although the U.S. is now slipping on this. We have a long history of volunteerism, we have all these civil society organizations, we have a tradition of barn raising, people getting together with their neighbors and doing things in their communities. This is very much a part of the American spirit and a core value.

But today, I would say a combination of consumerism and economic individualism coming out of decades of economic deregulation has caused our civil society to fray. But the authoritarian challenge that we face now, and the way in which we are beginning to respond to it, is in fact bringing communities back together again. I think what happened in Minneapolis is an example of that. And this may reflect a growing capacity to resist an authoritarian regime.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

As The Oscars Approach, Hollywood Grapples With AI’s Growing Influence On Filmmaking

BY HOLLY WILLIS

PROFESSOR OF CINEMATIC ARTS,

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

I teach a course on AI and filmmaking at USC’s School of Cinematic Arts, and lately, rather than planning each session well in advance, I’ve been structuring the class the night before. I’ll browse platforms like X, Substack and YouTube, selecting the most provocative articles and video clips to present the following morning.

It’s a testament to how quickly artificial intelligence’s relationship to filmmaking is evolving: Each week brings new – often startling – developments.

The next morning in class, my students and I debate the ethics, aesthetics and the storytelling changes taking place in these collaborations with AI.

And we’re not alone: Throughout Hollywood, everyone – aspiring actors and filmmakers, stars, screenwriters and studio execs – seems to have a take on what’s coming next. But I think three trends in particular are going to be hot topics of conversation at this year’s Oscars parties.

Nothing uncanny about this clip

In February 2026, a 15-second AI-generated video clip of Tom Cruise battling Brad Pitt on a burned-out highway overpass went viral.

Depending on the viewer, the video elicited either admiration, outrage or existential hand-wringing.

Created by Irish filmmaker Ruairi Robinson via a generative-AI tool called Seedance 2.0, the video marked yet another milestone in the propulsive growth of AI tools.

Seedance 2.0 – which was developed by ByteDance, the Chinese company behind TikTok – is now one of the many AI tools available to create short-form video clips. But unlike most AI-generated videos, Pitt and Cruise don’t look creepy, uncanny or animated in the clip, which almost perfectly mimics live-action footage. The appearance of two A-list stars in a fairly realistic scene created by a relatively unknown director using stolen likenesses jolted the industry.

The backlash was swift. Disney sent a cease-and-desist letter, claiming that the video was generated from a dataset that most likely includes Disney’s copyrighted characters. The actors’ union, SAG-AFTRA, pointed to the video’s “blatant infringement” of the actors’ likenesses, as well as their voices.

“SAG-AFTRA stands with the studios in condemning the blatant infringement enabled by Bytedance’s new AI video model Seedance 2.0,” the guild wrote in a statement. This practice, the guild added, “undercuts the ability of human talent to earn a livelihood,” while disregarding “law, ethics, industry standards and basic principles of consent.”

In class, after watching the video, we explored the ethics of using someone’s likeness without permission, the challenges facing actors who build careers based on their unique ability to embody characters, and what the future holds for our understanding of acting.

If filmmakers can prompt fake actors to deliver precise performances, where does that leave human actors?

In with the old

Since 2023, the skyline of the Las Vegas strip has been dominated by an illuminated orb called the Sphere: an entertainment complex featuring a 360-degree LED screen covering 160,000 square feet (14,864 square meters). The Sphere recently surpassed 2 million tickets sold for a reimagining of the classic 1939 film “The Wizard of Oz.”

The film, which premiered in August 2024, was shortened, its color was enhanced, and it was stretched to expand across the interior of the dome. AI was used to transfer the imagery from the film’s original, modest aspect ratio to the giant dome. This required generating new imagery around the edges of the original shots in what’s known as “AI outpainting.” The technology was also deployed to boost the original film’s resolution and to enhance certain scenes.

Some critics fretted that this fairly radical augmentation of the original classic would offend viewers. Instead, it has drawn them in droves to the Sphere, where they’ve been willing to shell out between US$100 and $200 per ticket.

Not bad for a movie about a girl from Kansas made in 1939.

Given the resounding success of “The Wizard of Oz,” experts expect producers to plumb the film archives for other potential hits and enhance them with AI before screening them in venues as varied as IMAX theaters and Cosm, another 360-degree dome with locations in Los Angeles, Dallas and Atlanta.

Or AI can simply be used to create material that was never completed for a historic film.

In fact, The New Yorker recently profiled AI media entrepreneur Edward Saatchi, who is working to recreate and reincorporate lost footage from Orson Welles’ 1942 feature “The Magnificent Ambersons.” While Welles was in Brazil shooting a documentary, executives at RKO Radio Pictures reedited the film without his approval after a poor preview screening. They cut around 45 minutes, replaced the original ending with a happier one and destroyed most of the footage that had been removed.

Saatchi’s idea is to build a dataset that includes the existing film, as well as scripts, notes, images and even new performances by actors. Then he plans to use his AI platform, Showrunner, to create new scenes from this data.

While Saatchi hopes to honor the director’s creative vision by producing the film he originally intended, his efforts open up some thorny questions.

Is it appropriate to take an existing artwork and revise it without the creator’s input? Isn’t there something sacrosanct about a film, the intentions of the director and the performances of the actors in a film’s original form? To what extent should these questions be overlooked if refashioning old movies will introduce them to new audiences?

Fewer opportunities?

There’s also an undercurrent of anxiety in my classes. What will happen, my students often wonder, once they graduate?

They’re worried that within a year or two, AI will have replaced entry-level film industry jobs, from concept artists to apprentice-level editors, before they’ve even had a chance to enter the workforce.

They have reason to fear.

In 2024, the Animation Guild published a sobering report claiming that by 2026, “creative workers will be facing an era of disruption, defined by the consolidation of some job roles, the replacement of existing job roles with new ones, and the elimination of many jobs entirely.”

Some of those predictions have borne out: 41,000 jobs in film and television have disappeared in Los Angeles County alone over the past three years.

But I’ve tried to counter the hard statistics with some stories of thoughtful practices.

For example, filmmaker Paul Trillo at the AI studio Asteria has talked about how he seeks to keep artists at the center of the process. When he detailed the company’s work on a music video for the singer-songwriter Cuco, he was keen to highlight the number of artists working on the project. Yes, AI tools were used. But they were integrated in a way that replaced the tedious work, not the creative practice.

“Rather than removing [artists] from the process, it actually allowed them to do a lot more so a small team can dream a lot bigger,” Trillo explains at the end of the video.

In January 2026, the management consulting firm McKinsey published a report that largely echoes Trillo’s positive outlook. It forecasts more adoption of AI throughout the industry. But it also points to ways that the technology could lead to different kinds of work and open up new possibilities. For example, as AI-generated scenes become commonplace, studios will need technicians who know how to blend real footage with digitally created worlds. And as AI lowers the cost of producing polished films and shows, it could allow more “micro-studios” and independent filmmakers to create professional-quality content.

At the same time, the report also quotes a studio executive who concedes that AI could represent “a more significant platform shift than we have ever seen before in our industry.”

So it’s no wonder my students, along with varied critics, commentators and industry professionals, are nervous.

However, from where I stand, I’m convinced that the industry will weather this radical disruption. It’s adapted to big changes in the past: the addition of sound in the 1920s, the threat posed by videotape in the 1980s and streaming in the 2000s.

In the end, people will always crave new, artfully told stories. While the filmmaking tools and job market may be in transition, that core need for storytelling is not going away.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Trump And Netanyahu Want Regime Change, But Iran’s Regime Was Built For Survival. A Long War Is Now Likely

Smoke rises in central Tehran after the US-Israel attack. Abedin Taherkenareh/EPA

BY AMIN SAIKAL

EMERITUS PROFESSR OF MIDDLE EASTERN STUDIES, 

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY; THE

UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA; VICTORIA

UNIVERSITY

The joint US–Israel strikes on Iran, which killed the Iranian supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and Tehran’s retaliatory strikes on Israel and neighbouring Arab countries have again plunged the Middle East into war.

US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said their aim is to bring about a favourable regime change in Iran. The implications of this for Iran, the region and beyond should not be underestimated.

Although Khamenei’s killing is a significant blow to the Islamic regime, it is not insurmountable. Many Iranian leaders have been killed in the past, including Qassem Soleimani, Tehran’s regional security architect, who was assassinated by the US in January 2020.

But they have been replaced relatively smoothly, and the Islamic regime has endured.

Khamenei’s departure is unlikely to mean the end of the Islamic regime in the short run. He anticipated this eventuality, and reportedly last week arranged a line of succession for his leadership and that of senior military, security and political leaders if they were “martyred”.

However, Khamenei was both a political and spiritual leader. He has commanded followers not only among devout Shias in Iran, but also many Muslims across the wider region. His assassination will spur some of them to seek revenge, potentially sparking a wave of extremist violent actions in the region and beyond.

A regime built for survival

Under a constitutional provision of the Islamic Republic, the Assembly of Experts – the body responsible for appointing and dismissing a supreme leader – will now meet and appoint an interim or long-term leader, either from among their own ranks or outside.

There are three likely candidates to be his successor:

* Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Eje’i, the head of the judiciary

* Ali Asghar Hejazi, Khamenei’s chief-of-staff
*Hassan Khomeini, the grandson of the founder of the Islamic Republic,

 Ayatollah Rohullah Khomeini.

The regime has every incentive to do what it must to ensure its survival. There are many regime enforcers and defenders, led by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its subordinate paramilitary Basij group, across the country to suppress any domestic uprisings and fight for the endurance of the regime.

Their fortunes are intimately tied to the regime. So are a range of administrators and bureaucrats in the Iranian government, as well as regime sympathisers among ordinary Iranians. They are motivated by a blend of Shi’ism and fierce nationalism to remain loyal to the regime.

Trump and Netanyahu have called on the Iranian people – some 60% of whom are below the age of 30 – to topple the regime once the US-Israeli operations have crippled it.

Many are deeply aggrieved by the regime’s theocratic impositions and dire economic situation and took to the streets in protests in late 2025 and early 2026. The regime cracked down harshly then, killing thousands.

Could a public uprising happen now? So far, the coercive and administrative state apparatus seems to be solidly backing the regime. Without serious cracks appearing among these figures – particularly the IRGC – the regime can be expected to survive this crisis.

Global economic pain

The regime has also been able to respond very quickly to outside aggression. It has already hit back at Israel and US military bases across the Persian Gulf, using short-range and long-range advanced ballistic missiles and drones.

While many of the projectiles have been repelled, some have hit their targets, causing serious damage.

The IRGC has also set out to choke the Strait of Hormuz – the narrow strategic waterway that connects the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and Indian Ocean. Some 20% of the world’s oil and 25% of its liquefied gas flows through the strait every day.

The United States has vowed to keep the strait open, but the IRGC is potentially well-placed to block traffic from going through. There could be serious implications for the global energy supply and broader economy.

Both sides in this conflict have trespassed all of the previous red lines. They are now in open warfare, which is engulfing the entire region.

A prolonged war looks likely

If there was any pretence on the part of Washington and Jerusalem that their attacks would not lead to a regional war, they were wrong. This is already happening.

Many countries that have close cooperation agreements with Iran, including China and Russia, have condemned the US-Israeli actions. The United Nations secretary-general António Guterres has also urgently called for de-escalation and a return to diplomatic negotiations, as have many others.

But the chances for this look very slim. The US and Iran were in the middle of a second round of talks over Tehran’s nuclear program when the attacks happened. The Omani foreign minister, who mediated between the two sides, publicly said just days ago that “peace was within reach”.

But this was not enough to convince Trump and Netanyahu to let the negotiations continue. They sensed now was the best time to strike the Islamic Republic to destroy not just its nuclear program but also its military capability after Israel degraded some of Tehran’s regional affiliates, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, and expanded its footprint in Lebanon and Syria over the last two and a half years.

While it is difficult to be definitive about where the war is likely to lead, the scene is set for a long conflict. It may not last days, but rather weeks. The US and Israel do not want anything short of regime change, and the regime is determined to survive.

With this war, the Trump leadership is also signalling to its adversaries – China, in particular – that the US remains the preeminent global power, while Netanyahu is seeking to cement Israel’s position as the dominant regional actor.

Pity the Iranian people, the region and the world that have to endure the consequences of another war of choice in the Middle East for geopolitical gains in an already deeply troubled world.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE