international relations

At Glastonbury Festival, Bob Vylan incited chants against the IDF and for a free Palestine, sparking backlash from politicians, the Israeli embassy, and festival organizers. This event has stirred discussions on free speech limits, broadcasters' duties, and cultural events' influence on politics.

In an era of shifting alliances and emerging power blocs, the age-old adage that “there are no permanent friends nor permanent foes, only permanent interests” has never felt more apt. Trade wars, strategic realignments, and titanic global challenges from Ukraine to Palestine test the durability of relationships once taken for granted. Yet they also underscore the capacity of sovereign states to recalibrate, cooperate, and—even after prolonged estrangement—find common ground when it serves their national interests.

In the charred aftermath of World War II, fifty nations gathered at San Francisco’s War Memorial Opera House to sign the United Nations Charter on June 26, 1945. Their aim: “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” Drafted over four months by delegates from Allied powers and smaller states alike, the 19-chapter, 111-article document established fundamental principles of international conduct—sovereign equality, peaceful dispute resolution, collective security and the protection of human rights. It created the Security Council with five permanent veto-wielding members, the General Assembly, the Secretariat led by the secretary-general, and set up the International Court of Justice to adjudicate inter-state disputes.

On April 2, 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump’s declaration of universal “reciprocal” tariffs sent ripples through global markets, marking what many commentators have called the death knell of the post–World War II rules-based system. The 100 percent levies on imports from major trading partners—including Southeast Asia—underscored a turn toward unilateralism, protectionism, and economic nationalism under the banner of “Making America Great Again.”

For one intensive week in mid-June, a cohort of 25 senior professionals and policymakers from 21 countries gathered at Kämpasten, a serene retreat outside Sigtuna, Sweden, to participate in the in-person masterclass of the Executive Programme in International Politics and Diplomacy for Health. Jointly organized by Karolinska Institutet and the Stockholm School of Economics, this flagship programme equips health leaders with the political acumen and negotiation skills required to influence complex decision-making processes at both global and regional levels.

Two days after US strikes on Iran's nuclear sites, explosions hit Doha, Qatar. Iran confirmed missile launches at US bases in Qatar and Iraq. Qatar claimed its sovereignty was breached but stated all missiles were intercepted. No casualties occurred, yet the attack led to airspace closures in the Gulf, disrupted international flights, and heightened fears of broader regional conflict.

President Trump's recent authorization of U.S. airstrikes on Iranian sites has plunged America into direct conflict with Iran. Although officials claimed these were precise strikes to weaken Iran's supposed nuclear weapons program and not a step towards full-scale war, many experts, allies, and opponents agree that the U.S. has embarked on a dangerous new phase of military engagement in the Middle East.

As Israel’s air strikes on Iran intensify and Iran’s retaliatory missile launches continue, ordinary Iranians find themselves caught between fear for their safety and cautious hope for political change. From gridlocked highways leading out of Tehran to shuttered marketplaces and hushed whispers of regime collapse, citizens across Iran are navigating unprecedented turmoil. This article explores the lived experiences, anxieties, and aspirations of Iranians in Tehran, Ahvaz, Khuzestan, Isfahan, and beyond.