differences

WASHINGTON — President Trump has turned to naval blockades to pressure the governments of Venezuela, Cuba and now Iran to meet his demands, but his preferred tactic is confronting a very different reality in the Middle East than in the Caribbean.

Unlike Cuba or Venezuela, Iran choked off a crucial trade route for energy shipments, meaning the longer the standoff persists, the more the global economy will suffer. Tehran also poses a greater military threat than those two adversaries in America’s own hemisphere and requires a sustained military presence far from U.S. shores.

Iran’s leverage over the Strait of Hormuz gives it power during a shaky ceasefire because the widening economic risks, especially higher U.S. gas prices in an election year, could force the Republican president to end the blockade on Iran’s ports and coastline, experts say.

“It’s really a question now of which country, the U.S. or Iran, has a greater pain tolerance,” said Max Boot, a military historian and senior fellow for national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Iran presents ‘major differences’ from other blockades

The effectiveness of Trump’s use of the world’s most powerful navy to block the trade of Iran’s sanctioned oil and other goods is very much up for debate. But it certainly appears to be intensifying as the war grinds on.

The U.S. military on Thursday announced the seizure of another tanker associated with the smuggling of Iranian oil, a day after Iran’s paramilitary Revolutionary Guards took control of two vessels in the crucial waterway.

Trump also announced he has ordered the U.S. military to “shoot and kill” Iranian small boats laying sea mines in the strait.

But the situation in Iran is not exactly analogous to what is playing out with the U.S. operations in Venezuela and Cuba.

Some experts say Trump’s success in Venezuela probably had more to do with the U.S. military raid that captured leader Nicolás Maduro than American warships seizing sanctioned oil tankers to enforce U.S. control over the South American country.

A U.S. oil embargo on Cuba, meanwhile, has caused the island’s most severe economic crisis in decades. While U.S. and Cuban officials have met recently on the island for rare talks, the financial strangulation has failed to produce the Trump administration’s stated goal of leadership change.

“I do think that the success of the Maduro mission in Venezuela has probably emboldened the president,” said Todd Huntley, director of Georgetown University’s National Security Law Program.

That does not make the situations in Venezuela and Iran similar — geographically, militarily or politically. “There are some major differences,” said Huntley, a retired Navy captain and judge advocate general.

While the blockade against Iran has delivered a severe blow to its economy, including stopping freighters from importing various supplies, the country has still been able to move some of its sanctioned oil, ship-tracking companies say.

Iran has rejected Trump’s demands to reopen the strait, where 20% of the world’s oil normally flows, and it has been firing on ships again this week. Stalled shipments through the strait have sent gasoline prices skyrocketing far beyond the region and raised the cost of food and a wide array of other products, creating a political problem for Trump before the November’s elections.

“Blockades are usually just one tool of a mechanism used in a conflict,” said Salvatore Mercogliano, a maritime history professor at Campbell University in North Carolina. “They can be important. But it’s only one element. And I don’t think it’s going to be enough to convince the Iranians.”

Effectiveness of U.S. blockade called into question

Adm. Brad Cooper, head of U.S. Central Command, claimed last week that “no ship has evaded U.S. forces.” The command overseeing the Middle East said it has directed 31 ships to turn around or return to port as of Wednesday.

Merchant shipping groups are skeptical.

Lloyd’s List Intelligence said “a steady flow of shadow fleet traffic” has passed in and out of the Persian Gulf, including 11 tankers with Iranian cargo that have left the Gulf of Oman outside the strait since April 13.

The maritime intelligence firm Windward said this week that Iranian traffic continues to flow “via deception.”

Iranian ships have several ways to sneak through the blockade, including spoofing their location tracking data or traveling through Pakistani territorial waters, Mercogliano said. He also noted that the sheer volume of shipping traffic the military needs to screen is a challenging task.

Blockades require patience to work

The last time the U.S. mounted a blockade similar to the one focused on Iranian ships was during the Kennedy administration in the early 1960s, against Cuba, Huntley said.

“And it wasn’t even called a blockade,” he said. “We called it quarantine.”

Some naval blockades over the course of history have had an impact, such as Britain’s blockade on Germany during World War I. “But they tend to be very long-term impacts, whereas Trump is looking for short-term, quick results,” according to Boot, the military historian.

He said Trump probably saw the blockade on sanctioned oil tankers tied to Venezuela as playing a large role in the success of leadership changes in that country. But Boot said it had more to do with the U.S. ousting Maduro and the subsequent cooperation from his vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, who is now the acting president.

“There is no Delcy Rodríguez in Cuba or Iran,” Boot said. “I think his success in Venezuela led him astray, thinking that this was a template that could be replicated elsewhere. He sees it as a huge success at little cost. And, in fact, it turns out to be a unique set of circumstances.”

Finley, Klepper and Toropin write for the Associated Press.

Two of our esteemed gubernatorial candidates, the cowboy and the dilettante, apparently could not find ties for the first debate Wednesday night, showing up with dress shirts casually unbuttoned.

Mr. Middleground sported a scruffy sorta-beard, apparently unable to pay for a razor in the midst of California’s affordability crisis. It’s a trademark look that always makes me think if this doesn’t work out, he’ll opt to live on a boat in some not-too-expensive slip by the Bay.

The billionaire wore Nikes instead of dress shoes, a sartorial nod perhaps to his bid to be the outsider-fighter. Or maybe his feet just hurt.

The last two contenders were remarkably unremarkable.

Why start with fashion? Honestly, it might be the most interesting, and telling, bit of insight that came from this first (of three) chances for our next governor to let us know who they are and what they’re made of. If the debate showed us anything, it’s that none of these candidates are hiding follow-me charisma or an excitement-inducing political vision for our collective future.

Yes, there were a few decent jabs here and there about Tom Steyer’s money, Katie Porter’s temper, Matt Mahan’s tech ties and Chad Bianco’s far-right world view. But even those were predictable.

Still, in between the yawns, there were a couple of answers worth noting, ones that might actually give us insight into how the Democratic candidates differ (Despite all the hype, it seems increasingly unlikely that two Republicans will come out of the primary, and even more unlikely that in a Democratic vs. Republican race, the Democrat would lose in blue California.)

I’ll start with a surprising place where I agreed with Steve Hilton, the Republican endorsed by President Trump.

The candidates were asked if they would support a ban on social media for kids under age 16. This is a quickly accelerating idea not beloved by tech companies. Australia and Indonesia already have bans in place. Other countries, including France and Portugal, have them in the works. Florida banned children under 14 from opening social media accounts on their own last year.

And a Los Angeles jury last month dealt a blow to Meta and YouTube when it found the platforms had damaged the mental health of a young woman with their addictive features.

Hilton took the ban question a step further, saying it “misses the point.” He has long argued that it isn’t just social media that is the problem, but having kids staring at a digital device for hours a day instead of interacting in the real world. It was one of the most genuine answers of the night.

“We’ve got to get to the heart of the problem, and that’s the devices and the screens,” he said. “I think that every parent in their heart knows that it’s wrong.”

While Steyer and Xavier Becerra, the former California attorney general, both said they would support such a ban, the remaining three candidates hedged or said they would not. Porter said no to a ban under age 16, but said she “might consider a different ban,” without being specific.

Mahan, who is backed by significant tech money, and Bianco both said they believed requiring parental consent was the way to go (though Mahan said he would ban devices in schools).

As Becerra pointed out, “kids have died as a result of their use of social media,” so it’s a place where policy matters. And if a candidate doesn’t see government’s role in controlling the dangers of social media, what will happen with artificial intelligence?

The candidates also had differences in how they would handle homelessness and the related crisis of housing affordability, though the devil was often buried in the details.

At least for Democrats. For Bianco, the difference was stark.

“We are not dealing with homeless. So stop calling it homeless,” he snapped at the moderators. “It has nothing to do with homes. This is drug- and alcohol-induced psychosis, mental illness.”

Of course, this is wrong. Last year, the UC San Francisco Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative released the results of the state’s most comprehensive survey of homeless people. It found that for most people living on our streets, “the cost of housing had simply become unsustainable.” It also found an increasing percentage of those folks were older — almost half were over the age of 50 — and had become homeless after a hardship such as an illness or a job loss.

“It’s also families who are fleeing intimate partner and domestic violence,” Porter said. “It’s people who are double and tripled up. It’s people who are living in their cars on our college campuses. Homelessness comes in a lot of different forms.”

Most of the Democratic candidates seemed to understand this and embraced the increasingly popular idea of putting more money into helping people stay housed after a hardship, instead of trying to get them housed after they lose their place.

“How can I help you keep your home?” Becerra said. “Because it costs me so much more money to pick you off the streets, provide you with the assistance in the shelter, than it does to keep you in the home.”

But the issue of homelessness is also where daylight emerged between the candidates. Steyer said he and his wife had helped finance low-barrier homes, not just shelter spaces, where people do not need to be addiction-free and where they can bring pets — two issues that are common hindrances for moving folks off sidewalks voluntarily.

Mahan, the mayor of San José, who often touts his city’s success at moving people indoors, agreed that emergency and interim housing was critical, but also voiced support for forcing folks to accept help. Last year, San José passed an ordinance he backed that some say criminalizes homelessness — a person can be cited twice for refusing shelter, and a third refusal within 18 months can lead to an arrest.

“When shelter was available, we required that people come indoors,” Mahan said, adding, “We have to be able to mandate treatment.”

It’s a controversial position, but also one that is increasingly popular. Gov. Gavin Newsom has backed mandated treatment, in a lighter form, with his CARE Court (which is technically voluntarily). And the movement to require people to accept a shelter space or face arrest is growing on the right and even the Democratic-middle.

But there is a fine and dangerous line with mandated treatment and shelter requirements that is often pushed further and further to the side in favor of the clean, safe streets argument. Whenever we start locking folks up — whether it’s in mental wards or immigration detention centers or jails — we should be careful that expediency isn’t trumping ethics.

Of course, the debate would not be complete without the Democratic candidates’ position on our president, speaking of ethics.

Steyer was gleeful that Trump has come after him on social media, a point of pride that he is a relevant figure in the fight against MAGA. He also said he would abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement if he could, which he can’t.

Becerra highlighted his many lawsuits as California’s attorney general during Trump’s first term, and pledged to keep fighting. Porter leaned into her time in Congress and her efforts to help Democrats in other races win.

Mahan took a different route, pledging to fight when necessary, but adding, “We need a partnership, and we need to find common ground with this administration on certain issues.”

Newsom learned the hard way that common ground is what Trump says it is, and shifts without warning or reason.

So what’s the takeaway from all this?

Boring dad; feisty mom; rich do-gooder; striving newcomer; MAGA one; MAGA two.

None of them hit it out of the park, but no one struck out. Maybe next time.

Jorge “Toti” Vilalta is a political spokesperson for the Otro Beta social movement, and also a member of the ALBA Movimientos platform. He works for La Ceiba, a Latin American and Caribbean outlet focused on stories from the territories. A longtime Bolivarian and Chavista activist, he specializes in cultural, communications, and productive processes, as well as international solidarity initiatives. In this interview, Vilalta offers his views on the present challenges for Venezuelan popular movements and international solidarity initiatives, and argues that there is a need to articulate a clear narrative for the Chavista grassroots.

In the wake of the US attacks on January 3, which followed years of the blockade, what are the challenges to sustaining morale and keeping hope alive?

It is an important question. Maintaining high morale is essential for everything we need to do in the country. Venezuela needs to increase oil production to boost the economy. With the possibility that US sanctions and the oil blockade will be lifted, there is some hope. Additionally, the market upheaval due to the war against Iran has raised hydrocarbon prices, so that could improve our conditions to negotiate with our “kidnapper,” which is the US government.

The United States, despite being the world’s largest oil producer, still needs our crude. Its refineries in the South are geared to receive Venezuelan crude. Therefore, the US-Israeli war against Iran could help us negotiate sanctions relief, and that will help improve living conditions in the country.

Venezuelans need better jobs, healthcare, education, and access to culture. I believe this is also the priority for Acting President Delcy Rodríguez.

Politically, to sustain the revolution, our goal as grassroots movements is to advance the communal state as a Bolivarian socialist model. The regular national consultations make democracy stronger by creating direct connections between the government and the people, bypassing bureaucracy. We must keep working in the communities.

Another objective is maintaining peace. The multiple dialogue processes, under President Maduro and now with Acting President Rodríguez, have exposed and isolated neo-fascism and the far-right.

What is your take on the multiple and often competing narratives that have emerged since January 3?

There is a lot of work to be done in terms of communication and culture. There is no unified narrative on our side. The only Chavista version comes from the government. We need to explain what we’re doing and where we’re going. On January 3, we had a big chance to tell all the people of Venezuela: “Here is the enemy, clearer than ever; let’s unite.”

That work wasn’t finished. Many people today are confused and see no clear goals. People are still dealing with the trauma of the bombings, they fear not knowing what will happen. There is a lot of speculation on issues like early elections, not to mention the generalized perception that Trump is calling the shots. and the country’s commitment to following the US president’s dictates.

The Bolivarian Revolution has always had a weakness in communication. We do a lot, but we explain little about everything we do. It is hard to counter all the mainstream media propaganda. So in the end we feel trapped under bombings and blockades without being able to provide convincing explanations to the people. We need to create new communications channels, not just copy influencers from other countries.

What role does international solidarity play in the present circumstances? In particular, what are grassroots movements doing to press for the release of kidnapped President Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores?

International solidarity is going strong. We have cultivated internationalist practices in Venezuela for over a decade. 

Concerning the kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro and Congresswoman Cilia Flores, here in Venezuela we had near-daily demonstrations all over the country in the first two or three weeks after the kidnapping. El Otro Beta and ALBA Movimientos were present in many of them. We have also been working with solidarity brigades that have arrived since the bombing and kidnapping.

Around the world, every third of the month there are concrete actions to push the “Bring Them Back” (“Los queremos de vuelta”) campaign. We have coordinated activities, rallies, webinars, and more with grassroots movements from other countries. ALBA Movimientos, the International People’s Assembly and the Simón Bolívar Institute have been at the forefront of this campaign.

In the US, solidarity collectives have been protesting at the New York prison where the president is being held. They’ve been marching, chanting, and holding signs with information, challenging the false narratives of drug trafficking and “narcoterrorism.” We also saw street actions outside the court, and in many cities around the world, on March 26 to coincide with the latest court hearing.

In Latin America, we are witnessing the rise of the far right, with deeply reactionary agendas. What, in your opinion, is the strategy for resisting and fighting back?

That’s a million-dollar question. I wish we had a definite answer. We missed our chance to unite Latin America and the Caribbean in the first ten years of this century.

Now, there are more reactionary and far-right governments, it feels like we are surrounded. We are seeing the launch of the “Shield of the Americas,” a new version of the Plan Condor from the 1970s. 

With this worrying scenario, one priority would be for leftist and progressive governments to stop fighting among themselves. Beyond governments, the people of Latin America and the Caribbean must also set aside their differences, including ideological ones. If there’s one thing we all have in common, it’s our opposition to fascism. We are facing an advance of neocolonialism, fascism, and US imperialism.

If we do not put our differences aside to work together towards a common goal, which is to protect the 99% against the 1% of billionaire pedophiles and genocidal Zionists, who are leading us towards a totalitarian dictatorship of AI surveillance and robot police, we are doomed.

Comandante Chávez and the other revolutionary leaders said it: we must unite and fight together. The people of Latin America and the Caribbean are starting to understand this. It is also great to see US citizens standing up against war and the neo-fascism seen in ICE and immigration enforcement practices. And the demonstrations in support of Cuba and Palestine have been inspiring. More and more people are realizing that they live under a racist and war-mongering state.

We know that the masses bring about change. The Bolivarian Revolution had its genesis in the 1989 Caracazo uprising. The Vietnam War ended because people refused to fight, and a massive anti-war movement emerged. We are in a similar situation in history: the US faced serious setbacks in Iran, wasting taxpayers’ money, and losing soldiers in a war driven by Zionism. The imperialist defeat in this war can create new possibilities for left-wing governments, and for the global struggle for sovereignty. We must provide tools to popular power organizations and for mass mobilizations.

On February 28, the Venezuelan government issued and then deleted a statement regarding the US and Israeli airstrikes on Iran, which sparked controversy. How did you interpret this incident? And beyond the government’s stance, what position should Latin American movements take regarding the war that is spreading in the Middle East?

I do not believe that this was the government’s position. That is exactly why the statement was removed, even before people started criticizing it. It was the position of someone who was not politically affiliated, not of the government or the Venezuelan people.

The most important thing to know about the war in West Asia is that Iran is currently the world’s most significant anti-imperialist beacon. Its people are on the frontlines resisting against sanctions, global criminalization, and constant attacks by the genocidal state of Israel.

Iran has responded with full force, politically and militarily. It has well-trained leaders and a very clear narrative. Furthermore, Iran is taking advantage of its strategic ability to influence the global economy. With its control over the Strait of Hormuz, it aims to break the petrodollar dictatorship and the US’ ability to impose its will.

The dictatorial Gulf monarchies, which violate human rights but get a free pass on Western media, are paying the price. And we have seen the immediate impacts on energy markets. If the war continues, the balance of power between countries will change quickly and there are prospects of things improving for people in the Global South.

We must thank Iran and mourn its thousands of dead because they have stood up not only for their Islamic revolution and their nation-state, but also opened a window for the rest of the Global South’s peoples to fight against imperialism.

In Cuba, food and fuel shortages are worsening due to the US’ escalating blockade and sanctions. What are ALBA Movimientos and grassroots organizations across the continent doing to get concrete aid to the island?

ALBA Movimientos has been collecting supplies and goods for Cuba. The same people who were part of the flotilla for Cuba are the ones organizing this effort. We are sending aid from Venezuela, Mexico, and Colombia.

Several Latin American countries are supporting this movement through their local communities. Brazil works with the MST, in Argentina it is via several social organizations. The Nuestra América Flotilla was the first of its kind, and it will happen again. There is an open humanitarian channel from Mexico to continue sending humanitarian supplies.

In Venezuela, we started the campaign “Love is Repaid with Love” (“Amor con amor se paga”). It has three phases. The first one, which was for donating medicines, was organized regionally, with collection centers in each state and in Caracas. The second phase, now underway, involves raising funds through various events (street fairs, a concert, and more) because what’s coming next is more expensive.

The third phase is purchasing supplies, primarily solar panels, which are very expensive, along with wiring and batteries, and other essential items. The information is available on our social media channels, and the shipments will happen at some point. They are not scheduled yet.

Against the backdrop of ongoing US sanctions against Cuba and Venezuela, how can solidarity organizations navigate the tension between the need to accommodate pressure from Washington and the defense of sovereignty and anti-imperialism?

Let me focus on the Venezuelan case because I believe the situation in Cuba is different right now. 

In my view, the historic, Bolivarian project continues. Communes continue their work toward a communal state even if this is not evident in other territories or at the institutional level. Social movements are working hard, staying true to anti-imperialism, and the acting government is following President Maduro’s line.

Acting President Delcy Rodríguez has made it clear that Venezuela should be able to make its own decisions and that the US should recognize Venezuela as an independent nation.

But it is necessary to explain this to the entire country, not just to the hardcore chavista base. The US government ultimately wants Chavismo to disappear. The best way to achieve this right now is not to bomb it, but to destroy it from within.

We understand that the government must keep negotiating with the US, and that Delcy Rodríguez has a gun pointed to her head. We have to be honest: we are negotiating with a kidnapper, and the conditions are not equal.

Still, internally, we need a narrative that explains to the country what happened, where we are, and where we are headed. Chavismo needs answers. In communities, people are asking questions that the media, including state outlets, are not answering, and this is a problem. To continue with our program, we need to have a shared understanding, a common narrative with which to influence national public opinion.

Beyond what the government does, we in the popular power organizations must battle for common sense. We need to explain that we are living through an extraordinary situation and that only a united country can overcome it. We cannot just wait for the right time to act; we need to keep moving forward, even though the circumstances are much more difficult.

A Canadian woman who moved to the UK with her partner and three children recently paid a visit to a charity shop where she noticed several differences between the stores here and in her home country

A Canadian woman currently living in the UK has shared the key differences she noticed when perusing charity shops here as opposed to the “thrift stores” in her home country.

Many people from the United States and Canada relocate to the UK and quickly come to realise that despite sharing the same language, there’s plenty of cultural quirks and differences. This seems to be the case for Jaclyn Walton, who swapped life in North America for England with her partner and their three children.

The mum has praised many aspects of life in the UK, from the school curriculum involving swimming lessons to the “beauty and history” that’s rife, as well as the football opportunities for her son.

She also spotted the different terms used commonly over here, like “sweets” instead of her native “candy” and “holiday” instead of the Canadian term, “vacation”.

Recently, Jaclyn took to Instagram to share a video of herself exploring a small charity shop here in the UK. Over the top of the footage, she narrated her thoughts: “Come with me to a British charity shop – it’s like a thrift store in Canada but here they call them charity shops as the sales help raise funds for charity.

“The differences I notice in Canada and the UK is the culture around charity shops. In the UK, it’s common, easy to pop in, take a look, and pretty normal.

“In Canada, you’re either a thrifter or you’re not. In the UK, like almost everything else, it’s smaller; these little shops with this type of selection.”

She went on: “In Canada, they have small ones like this but you also immediately think of big ones like Value Village where you have aisles and aisles upon selection.”

Back to her thoughts on UK charity shops, Jaclyn concluded: “These shops often have volunteers working here as well.”

In the comments section, Jaclyn added: “I didn’t love thrift stores in Canada but I do enjoy looking around here… maybe I just wasn’t in my thrifting era yet.

“I feel like with all the history in England, I am looking for a beautiful find.”

Fellow Instagram users were keen to share their thoughts. One said: “I think the difference in the UK is that people donate old stuff and the charity sells it for money.

“A thrift store is a kind of recycling centre where you can sell old stuff like books, which the operator cleans up and resells for a profit.”

Another said: “I never went in charity shops until I developed a book habit! I can now never resist popping int. My hometown is blessed with eight charity shops.

“One in particular is so nicely set out that you would think it is new items only. I look at clothes now and have bought some really lovely items. I’m definitely a thrifter now!”

A third commented: “You can find some really good stuff a charity shops in affluent areas. Try places like in the Cotswolds like Chipping Norton.” And a fourth added: “Love it.”

MEXICO CITY — Cuba has begun direct talks with the United States in an effort to solve “bilateral differences” between the two countries, Cuban President Miguel Díaz Canel said Friday.

The comments, broadcast nationwide in Cuba, are the first confirmation of bilateral talks between two governments that have been fierce adversaries for almost 70 years, since Fidel Castro’s revolution toppled the U.S.-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista.

What exactly the talks are about remains unclear, but the Trump administration—which has choked off oil supplies to the island, triggering a severe energy crisis—has been insisting that Cuba’s communist government must change.

In a statement released on social media, Díaz Canel said, “The primary purpose of this conversation is, firstly, to identify the bilateral problems that require a solution—based on their severity and impact—and, secondly, to find solutions for these identified problems.”

Rumors of direct talks between the two nations have been circulating for months, but neither Washington or Havana had confirmed the talks until now.

On Tuesday, the Cuban ambassador to the United States, Lianys Torres Rivera, told The Times that the Cuban government was “ready to engage with the U.S. on the issues that are important for the bilateral relations, and to talk about those in which we have differences.”

Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, have been insistent that the current government must change.

“It may be a friendly takeover, it may not be a friendly takeover,” Trump told Latin American leaders gathered in Florida on Saturday.

“It wouldn’t matter because they’re down to, as they say, fumes. They have no energy. They have no money. They’re in deep trouble,” Trump said.

Trump responded to the Cuban leader’s willingness to negotiate on Friday morning by amplifying a news article with the headline:”Cuba confirms talks with Trump officials, raising hopes for US deal.” He posted that on his Truth Social account.

Rolling blackouts, shortages of food and medicine, a lack of gasoline and other shortfalls have become everyday occurrences on the island, home to 10 million. Images of uncollected garbage rotting on Havana’s streets have been broadcast across the globe. A lack of jet fuel has bludgeoned the critical tourism sector.

“The status quo is unsustainable,” Rubio said last month. “Cuba needs to change…And it doesn’t have to be change all at once. It doesn’t have to change from one day to the next.”

The Cuban announcement comes 13 days after the U.S. attacked Iran and two months after U.S. forces, deployed by Trump, deposed Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, a longtime Cuban ally, and brought him to New York to face drug trafficking charges.