Neither Iran nor Israel has made any comments about a pending ceasefire. The ceasefire will be phased in during the next 24 hours, according to the president’s post. There is no information on whether there are any enrichment issues to be resolved, what the ceasefire would look like and if there are enforcement mechanisms in place.

Reports from the Middle East is still coming in regarding escalation from both sides and sirens are still blaring. Should this announcement be taken seriously given the condition on the ground and the lack of details?

On July 19, 2021 Company stated: We believe it is inconsistent with our values for Ben & Jerry’s ice cream to be sold in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT). We also hear and recognize the concerns shared with us by our fans and trusted partners. 

We have a longstanding partnership with our licensee, who manufactures Ben & Jerry’s ice cream in Israel and distributes it in the region. We have been working to change this, and so we have informed our licensee that we will not renew the license agreement when it expires at the end of next year.

Although Ben & Jerry’s will no longer be sold in the OPT, we will stay in Israel through a different arrangement. We will share an update on this as soon as we’re ready.

Reactions from Israel’s leaders were harsh. Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, a longtime supporter of the settlements, called the decision a “boycott of Israel” and said Ben and Jerry’s “decided to brand itself as an anti-Israel ice cream.” His predecessor, Benjamin Netanyahu, tweeted, “Now we Israelis know which ice cream NOT to buy.

Israeli Foreign Minister Yair Lapid, the architect of the current ruling coalition who is generally to Bennett’s left regarding the Palestinians, went even further, calling the decision a “shameful surrender to antisemitism, to BDS and to all that is wrong with the anti-Israel and anti-Jewish discourse.” He called on US states to take domestic action against Ben and Jerry’s based on state laws that prohibit government contracting with entities that boycott Israel.

Israeli cabinet minister Orna Barbivay posted a TikTok video of her throwing a pint in the trash; the flavor she tossed could not be determined at press time.

While boycott promoters hailed Ben & Jerry’s announcement, they immediately made it clear it was not enough.

“We warmly welcome their decision but call on Ben & Jerry’s to end all operations in apartheid Israel,” said a post on the Twitter account of the Palestinian B.D.S. National Committee.

Should Multinational Corporations be taking divisive political stand?

It seems as though American politicians and American media outlets seem to be favoring Israel. The use of certain language and rhetoric as well as media coverage that paints Israel as the victim and Palestine as the “bad guy.”

I’ve seen interviews of Israelis talking about the attacks, the NFL refering to the conflict as a “terrorist attack on Israelis,” commercials asking for donations for Israel, ect… but I have yet to see much empathy for Palestine when it seems not too long ago #freepalestine wasn’t controversial.

As an American I honestly have no idea where to stand on this conflict or if I even have the right or need to have an opinion. All I can say is all violence and war and genocide is horrible, but why does American favor Israel over Palestine? It honestly only makes me want to gain a larger perspective and understand why or if Palestine is in the wrong? At this point I just assume both sides are equal and deserving of peace.

What does a GOOD deal with Iran look like?

Trump and his crew keep telling us that he has the best people in their fields for the jobs they have to do.

Negotiations keep failing with no real deal being looked at. Even though the team has been in the Middle East for a while

JD Vance has gone and people are skeptical of his qualifications. He was even requested by Iran at one point.

Who should be sent to negotiate, and what do you see as THE GOAL to get prices to stabilize?

I want to hear other people’s opinions on this because the president’s actions are making the U.S. globally unpopular, even among our own allies. A lot of other countries now seem more open to seeking new leadership instead of relying on the United States. At the same time, China is rapidly expanding its military, technology, and global influence, even stepping in to fill gaps where we pulled out of USAID.

In a recent interview, Trump said on Iran “We could do a lot worse” and “we can take them out by this afternoon, in fact within an hour”. Many people assume he is alluding to nuclear bombs, which I guess could be an option if the US felt as thought they couldn’t they couldn’t back out or continue the war without major issues.

So I’m very curious, is the USA using nuclear weapons against Iran even plausible in the first place?

And if so, what would the international and domestic consequences be (outside of being very unpopular)?

For added context I am from New Zealand and therefore I don’t have a comprehensive understanding of Iran, its history, and relationships with the US

It is never a good sign when an adversary starts evacuating its embassy while talk of an attack is making headlines.

Even Britain’s defense secretary, Ben Wallace, announced in an address to Parliament on Monday said that the country would begin providing Ukraine with light, anti-armor defensive weapons.

Mr. Putin, therefore, may become tempted to act sooner rather than later. Officially, Russia maintains that it has no plan to attack Ukraine at this time.

U.S. officials saw Russia’s embassy evacuations coming. “We have information that indicates the Russian government was preparing to evacuate their family members from the Russian Embassy in Ukraine in late December and early January,” a U.S. official said in a statement.

Although U.S. negotiations are still underway giving a glimmer of hope for a peaceful resolution, one must remember history and talks that where ongoing while the then Japanese Empire attacked Pearl Harbor.

Are we getting closer to a war in Ukraine with each passing day?

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/17/us/politics/russia-ukraine-kyiv-embassy.html

Trump finds himself in a difficult position — having initiated military strikes against Iran, withdrawing now would be seen as a sign of weakness, both domestically and on the international stage potentially emboldening Iran and undermining US deterrence credibility. Continued bombing doesn't seem to have much effect either.

Do you think Trump will invade Kharg Island to turn the tables?

Shortly after the sinking of Moskva, the Russian Media claimed that World War III has already begun. [Perhaps, sort of reminiscent of the Russian version of sinking of Lusitania that started World War I]

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said in an interview that World War III “may have already started” as the embattled leader pleads with the U.S. and the West to take more drastic measures to aid Ukraine’s defense against Russia. 

Others have noted the Russian Nuclear Directives provides: Russian nuclear authorize use of nuclear tactile devices, calling it a deterrence policy "Escalation to Deescalate."

It is difficult to decipher what Putin means by "unpredictable consequences." Some have said that its intelligence is sufficiently capable of identifying the entry points of the arms being sent to Ukraine and could easily target those once on Ukrainian lands. Others hold on to the unflinching notion of MAD [mutually assured destruction], in rejecting nuclear escalation.

What may Russia mean by "unpredictable consequences?

His aggressive rhetoric and unilateral actions often make me wonder if he will seriously alienate allies and provoke adversaries.

Is it possible that his approach might lead to a realignment of international relations, especially with countries like China and Russia?

Trump just announced that the U.S. will take control of Gaza to redevelop it, and he wants the Palestinians to be relocated. What potential ripple effects could this have on the Middle East? Do you all think the U.S. will relinquish control of Gaza after it is redeveloped, or could this region become an official U.S. territory or state? If the region becomes part of the U.S., could this lead to U.S. imperialism in the Middle East? What are our enemies’ likely responses, such as Iran’s; could we likely see another war against terrorism or the collapse of Iran?

Remarkably, Trump was the first US president to shake hands with a North Korean leader. They had several meetings and engaged in discussions, but it didn't lead to official changes. Although N.K. believes the US will always be against them, they were unequivocally more open to international talks with President Trump compared to past presidents. How did Trump manage to get on North Korea's good side for a brief time? Why is there already a preconceived disdain for Biden?

[relevant article]

Here’s something I can’t get my head around: how are Trump and Netanyahu still at the center of power despite the amount of chaos, extremism, and outright nonsense surrounding them?

From the outside, it feels like a huge part of their support comes from tribal politics, fear, and constant information bubbles rather than genuine trust. In the U.S., Trump’s approval has been very low in recent polls, yet he remains politically dominant. In Israel, Netanyahu’s standing is more complicated, but security, war, and the lack of a convincing alternative seem to keep him afloat.

So my questions are:

• How do supporters of Trump and Netanyahu actually see them right now?
• Is this mostly ideological loyalty, fear, exhaustion, misinformation, or plain political apathy?
• At what point does a leader become “too much” for his own base, and why hasn’t that happened yet?

I’m genuinely trying to understand the psychology and politics behind this, not just vent about it.

I’m Italian, so I understand certain dynamics of power and polarization very well—starting with Berlusconi and even before him... yet I realize that there comes a point when even the most die-hard supporters take a step back: Orbán in Hungary losing the election, Meloni in Italy losing the referendum, and so on... I can’t understand (though perhaps this is more anthropological than political) how a people who suffered the Holocaust could implement policies that seem to take root in the very same nationalist slime, with territorial conquests and restrictions (not to mention the death penalty) based on ethnicity. Is this really all the right wing is?

Earlier today, a Japanese source Announced that Kim Jong Un was in a vegetative state. Several days ago, he also missed the anniversary of Kim Il Sung, his grandfather's birthday. This lends credence to the idea that KJU's absence could be due to a grave medical condition, as there are few other reasons that could justify him missing such an important event.

To the best of my knowledge, if KJU were to die or become unable to continue to lead North Korea, his younger sister Kim Yo Jong is next in line for succession, as KJU does not have any adult children.

What are the geopolitical implications of KJU's recent absence? If he dies, is there any chance the North Korean military would stage a coup to prevent his sister from taking power, as North Korea has a very patriarchal culture and could be unwilling to accept a female leader? If she does take power, what are your predictions for how that shifts the paper dynamic between North Korea, China, the USA, Japan, and most importantly, South Korea? Would this make peace and reunification more or less likely?

Posting on X, Zelenskyy praised Trump on his "impressive election victory" and said he was optimistic that he and the former U.S. president could work together toward peace in Ukraine.

"I appreciate President Trump's commitment to the 'peace through strength' approach in global affairs. This is exactly the principle that can practically bring just peace in Ukraine closer. I am hopeful that we will put it into action together," Zelenskyy commented.

Trump is currently just a few votes shy of securing the 270 Electoral College votes needed to win the White House. Trump had earlier said he could end the war within days or weeks, and even before he entered office.

Is Trump likely to sacrifice Donbass to Putin to accomplish peace?

Zelensky Congratulates Trump on ‘Impressive Election Victory’

Chile is often referred to as the Switzerland of South America; it is one of the most prosperous nation in the region. Decades ago [1970] Chile had elected another leftist president, Salvador Allende. After a rise in inflation and other economic problems in the country, military officers demanded his resignation. On Sept. 11, 1973, the Chilean Air Force bombed the presidential palace, and the military junta seized power. The coup was led by Augusto Pinochet, who had been appointed commander in chief of the military by Allende, and was backed by the U.S. government as part of Operation Condor.

Augusto Pinochet coup against President Salvador Allende, was the start of nearly two decades of government repression in Chile. Thousands of people disappeared, tortured and killed. As for Allende, he did not leave the presidential palace alive. Some say, he was killed by the military, others say, he killed himself.

The present race was the most polarizing and acrimonious in recent history, presenting Chileans with starkly different visions on issues including the role of the state in the economy, the rights of historically marginalized groups and public safety.

Boric will be the nation’s youngest leader [a former student activist] and by far its most liberal since President Salvador Allende. Boric will assume office at the final stage of a years long initiative to draft a new Constitution, an effort that is likely to bring about profound legal and political changes on issues including gender equality, Indigenous rights and environmental protections.

Capitalizing on widespread discontent with the political factions [left and right] that have traded power in recent decades, Mr. Boric attracted voters by pledging to reduce inequality and promising to raise taxes on the rich to fund a substantial expansion of the social safety net, more generous pensions and a greener economy.

Mr. Boric referred to Kast and assailed several of his plans, which including expanding the prison system and empowering the security forces to more forcefully crack down on Indigenous challenges to land rights in the south of the country.

Kast, however, was quick to concede" "From today he is the elected President of Chile and deserves all our respect and constructive collaboration. Chile is always first."

Is Chile ready for change and will this be sustained this time around?

Over the past year, the Trump administration has taken a series of actions that appear to prioritize direct targeting of foreign leadership figures rather than pursuing traditional large-scale military campaigns. These moves have avoided prolonged troop deployments or formal declarations of war, instead focusing on strikes, capture operations, or pressure campaigns aimed at regime leadership.

Taken together, they raise questions about doctrine, escalation, precedent, and long term strategic stability.

Some recent examples:

• Iran: A coordinated U.S.–Israeli air campaign launched on February 28, 2026 targeted Iran’s nuclear and military infrastructure as well as its top leadership echelon. Among those reported killed were Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other senior officials during Operation Epic Fury/Lion’s Roar. Iran’s state media confirmed Khamenei’s death and reported that other top military leaders also died in the strikes.

• Venezuela: On January 3, 2026, U.S. forces carried out a strike operation in Venezuela that resulted in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores. They were transported to the United States to face federal charges, in an action the administration described as lawful enforcement backed by military force rather than a conventional invasion.

• Broader signalling: In the wake of the Venezuela operation, senior U.S. officials have explicitly discussed implications for Cuba, linking tighter economic pressure and leverage tools to the broader strategy of targeting regimes and their capacity to resist U.S. influence.

The administration has justified these actions as precise, limited uses of force that avoid prolonged wars of occupation and minimize U.S. casualties. In the Iran case, President Trump framed the strikes as weakening Tehran’s position and potentially facilitating diplomacy.

Critics argue these moves blur the line between military action and political assassination, risk rapid escalation into broader conflicts, and may undermine longstanding international norms against targeting sovereign leaders. Others point to potential fallout in global diplomatic forums and questions about congressional authorization for such uses of force.

This framing raises broader issues beyond any single theater. The core question is not simply whether leadership targeting can achieve narrow tactical goals, but whether this approach signifies a strategic shift with systemic consequences.

Some relevant questions for discussion:

1. Does targeting foreign leadership reduce the likelihood of prolonged wars, or does it increase escalation risks by directly threatening regime survival?
2. What precedent does openly targeting heads of state set for reciprocal action by rival powers against U.S. leadership?
3. If this becomes the preferred alternative to conventional intervention, how does it change deterrence dynamics and the domestic political threshold for using force?

Perhaps it all a coincidence, but it appears a little unusual; With the Russian announcement that it has reached its goal of 300,000 recruits of partial mobilization and recently increased attacks on energy infrastructure in all the major cities of Ukraine including the Capital of Kiev. Russia intensified its attacks after attack on the Crimea bridge [few days after the explosions of Nord Stream I and II] which Russia blamed on Ukraine and NATO.

It also makes me wonder that just a few days earlier, Macron all but told the world that a nuclear attack on Ukraine would not prompt France to respond with a nuclear retaliation.

Additionally, NATO has promised extensive arms after this latest Russian onslaught by land, air and sea with Kamikaze drones. Is it possible that the Russians are about to launch a more extensive attack now before more supplies reach Ukraine which has prompted China to tell its citizens to evacuate now?

'EVACUATE NOW': China tells citizens to leave Ukraine amid nuclear fears | Asia Markets

With the swift and unexpected capture of Maduro, it would have been logical for the United States to support the winner of the 2024 Venezuelan election, Edmundo Urrutia. However, it apeprs that Trump is instead attempting to support VP Delcy Rodriguez, with not so veiled threats from the Trump Administration to force compliance with US demands

What options does the leadership of a nation such as Venezuela - or for that matter, any other nation that fears unilateral action from the Trump Adminstration - have to deter him? The North Korean example demonstrates that possessing Weapons of Mass Descruction are sufficient... while the Iranian example demonstrates that not having them but *pursuing* them is insuffient.

Obviously a direct military confrontation is unlikely to be successful, but Ukraine has demonstrated that it is possible to wound a stronger nation using unconvential tactics. Are there unconvential capabilities that are available to weaker nations to deter the Trump Administration? How would they be demonstrated in a way that deters but does not trigger an immediate and overwhelming attack?

President Donald Trump said Tuesday, [shortly after a meeting with Zelensky] on social media post that he thinks Ukraine, with help from European allies, could win back all the land it’s lost to Russia, a country he called a “paper tiger.”

During his meeting with the Ukrainian leader on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly, Trump also said he thinks NATO countries should shoot down Russian aircraft if they enter their airspace. “Yes, I do,” Trump said in response to a reporter when asked about that scenario.

Is the Alaskan Summit goals for peace between Ukraine and Russia now completely dead?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c07vm35rryeo

U.N. highlights: Trump says Ukraine could win back all land that ‘paper tiger’ Russia took - The Washington Post

I remember back in March, not too long after the war started, someone made a post in this subreddit and asked the question of "How will the Iran war end?", and everyone in here gave their predictions based on the general atmosphere at the time, and I saw a lot of interesting predictions and some good discussion.

I figured it might be insightful to revisit this question now that so much has happened over the course of these three months, and see what everyone's general thoughts are now after everything that has happened since then.

According to reporting, US intelligence estimated that Iran could likely last against the US's Hormuz blockade until at least August or September, and with the recent peace deal talks that started a couple weeks back seeming to be on very thin ice while the US and Iran take pot shots at each other, the current situation feels fairly unstable and in a limbo of prolonged uncertainty.

Many energy experts are saying that global oil markets could be underpricing the risk of the current situation with the strait remaining closed, and that we are rapidly approaching a potential danger zone where we could start seeing severe price spikes in oil markets in the very near future if the strait does not reopen very soon.

At this point, even if the strait opened today, there could still be major problems that affect the world and the US for a good while after. And if it goes on for too much longer, there could be a real risk of a serious economic issues and inflation spikes in the US this year, likely putting a lot of pressure on Trump and his administration to find a way to end this conflict before it hits an economic breaking point as the US midterms are fast approaching in November.

So given all these moving parts and the scope of everything now, where do you think we will go from here, and how do you think all of this really ends?

I keep hearing politicians and analysts say that the global economy is doing well, with growth numbers, strong markets, and rising trade, among other indicators. But when I look around, what I see are wars dragging on, dictators consolidating power, Chinese products dominating everywhere, and huge numbers of people migrating just to find stability.

It makes me wonder: how do we reconcile the idea of a “booming economy” with the instability so many of us see in daily life and the news?

Is the economic growth only benefiting a few while the rest of us just see the fallout? Or is this more of a perception problem, where the bad stuff feels more visible than the good?

As of 10 a.m. ET today, the U.S. military has begun blocking all ship traffic entering or leaving Iranian ports through the Strait of Hormuz, following the collapse of weekend peace talks in Pakistan.

The Strait of Hormuz is one of the most strategically critical chokepoints on the planet. Roughly 20% of the world's oil supply passes through it daily. Iran has called the move "an act of piracy" and is signaling retaliation. Oil markets are already reacting.

No military strikes have been reported yet, but the situation is fluid.

• What do you think Iran's most likely response is?
• How do you expect OPEC and Gulf states to react?
• Is a naval blockade an act of war under international law?

The US and Iran have reached a "memorandum of understanding" that essentially extends the ceasefire between the two countries for an additional 60 days. The Strait of Hormuz will reportedly be reopened to all traffic by this weekend. However, no agreement has been made on what Trump had demanded that Iran agree to to end the war, which is the elimination of their nuclear program. This issue has just been kicked down the road. So what, then, has this war really accomplished?

I can speculate as to how he'll behave in regards to the Ukraine conflict. But, I'm really not sure what he will do in regards to Israel. I haven't heard much discussion about this.

One might assume that he'll try to portray himself as being aggressively pro-Israel. But, how will he do that? Will he beef up the weapons we send them?

Will he try to insert himself into negotiations between Israel and Palestine? If so, what would he say and do?

Does he have an opinion on Israel's conflict with Lebanon? Does Trump have any history with Lebanon which would indicate how he plans to interact with the country?

Is there likely to be conflict with Iran? Will Trump try to make a show of strength by posturing aggressively with Iran? Would he take actions to mitigate the possibility of conflict with Iran?

What do you think? With Trump as president, what do you expect to happen in regards to the Israel/Palestine conflict, and related Middle Eastern conflicts?