front

Oil shipments passing through the Strait of Hormuz have quietly increased in recent weeks, but traders say the movement reflects a fragmented and opaque energy market rather than a full recovery in global supply flows.

More than four months into the ongoing conflict involving Iran, tanker traffic remains heavily disrupted, with shipping patterns increasingly shaped by risk, secrecy and shifting political arrangements.

Tanker Traffic Shows Limited but Rising Movement

Shipping data suggests that only a small number of tankers are currently crossing the Strait of Hormuz compared with pre conflict levels.

Monitoring firms including LSEG and Kpler estimate that an average of just a few vessels per day are now passing through the strait, far below normal volumes.

Despite this, analysis of oil stored on tankers in the Gulf indicates that outflows have gradually increased, suggesting more crude is leaving the region than official shipping visibility shows.

Hidden Shipping Patterns and “Dark” Tankers

A growing share of tankers are reportedly turning off tracking systems during transit through the strait, a practice known as going dark.

This involves disabling Automatic Identification System signals, making it harder to track vessel movements in real time.

According to shipping analytics firms such as Vortexa, a large majority of outbound tankers recently used this method, reflecting rising caution among operators.

This has made it significantly harder for markets to accurately assess global supply flows and has increased uncertainty in oil pricing.

Oil Stored on Tankers Shows Gradual Decline

One key indicator of market movement is the volume of oil stored on ships inside the Gulf, often referred to as oil on water.

Estimates from Kpler suggest that volumes have fallen from a peak of around 184 million barrels in March to roughly 148 million barrels more recently.

This decline indicates that more oil is gradually leaving the region, even if it is not fully visible through standard tracking systems.

Analysts estimate that outflows have increased over recent weeks, suggesting a slow and uneven recovery in shipping activity.

Security Risks Continue to Disrupt Shipping

The ongoing conflict involving Iran has significantly disrupted maritime trade through the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important oil transit routes.

Limited access to the strait has forced producers to reduce output in some cases, while storage constraints have added pressure to supply chains across the Gulf.

Some shipping routes are reportedly being managed through informal arrangements or alternative corridors, while others rely on higher risk transit strategies to avoid detection or confrontation.

Recovery Remains Uncertain

Despite signs of increased movement, analysts warn that the situation is far from a return to normal.

A sustained recovery in oil flows would require consistent shipping access, stable security conditions and sufficient tanker availability to support exports.

Many shipowners remain reluctant to operate in the region due to elevated insurance costs and the risk of vessels being stranded or targeted.

Long Term Structural Change Possible

Industry observers warn that even if diplomatic progress leads to a formal reopening of the strait, the global oil market may not return to previous conditions.

There is growing discussion that Iran could attempt to impose tolls or control systems on shipping through the waterway, which would fundamentally alter global energy logistics.

Such a scenario could force Gulf producers to seek alternative export routes or invest in new infrastructure to reduce dependence on the strait.

Analysis: Market Stability Replaced by Managed Uncertainty

The situation in the Strait of Hormuz highlights a shift from predictable global energy flows to a more fragmented and opaque system.

While oil continues to move out of the Gulf, the lack of transparency in shipping routes is creating uncertainty for traders and pricing benchmarks.

The increased use of stealth navigation and alternative transit arrangements reflects a market adapting to geopolitical risk rather than resolving it.

As long as tensions persist, energy markets are likely to remain volatile, with supply visibility as important as supply itself in determining global prices.

Conclusion

Oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz are slowly increasing, but hidden tanker movements and ongoing conflict mean the global energy market remains deeply uncertain. Without stable political conditions and transparent shipping routes, a full recovery in oil flows is unlikely in the near term, keeping traders cautious and markets volatile.

With information from Reuters.

NEWARK, N.J. — Protesters clashed with armed federal immigration officers in front of a New Jersey detention center where advocates have demonstrated for days while asserting that people detained there are staging a hunger strike over poor living conditions.

Groups of demonstrators, many wearing gas masks and other face coverings, linked arms in a human chain in front of Delaney Hall in Newark on Wednesday night, videos and photos posted on social media show.

Some used trash cans, old mattresses, umbrellas and other materials as makeshift shields and barricades as they confronted U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. Others attempted to block people and vehicles from entering and exiting the building or threw orange traffic cones and other objects in the direction of the ICE officers lined at the entry gate.

The group chanted, “You will hang!” and, “Every cop, every fed, shoot yourself in the head,” and other taunts at the officers, many of whom wore helmets and tactical vests.

The ICE officers used pepper spray to try to disperse the protesters, according to videos posted to social media. Some used their batons to beat and push back protesters as the officers attempted to clear the roadway for vehicles.

At least one truck driver got out of his vehicle to vent his frustration when some protesters tried to block vehicles driving on the road in front of the detention center. People detained inside could at times be seen waving to protesters from Delaney Hall’s windows.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, said about six demonstrators were arrested for assaulting law enforcement officers.

“Assaulting and obstructing ICE law enforcement is a crime and felony,” the agency said in a statement. “Anyone who assaults law enforcement will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

On Thursday, demonstrators again returned to Delaney Hall.

New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill also said state health department officials were “denied full access” to the facility for a health inspection. The Democrat said the officials were only allowed to inspect a limited part of the facility as she called on ICE to “de-escalate” the situation.

“As I’ve said repeatedly, refusing to provide full access raises serious questions about what ICE is trying to hide from public view,” Sherrill said in a statement that also repeated her calls to shut down the facility outright.

Earlier Wednesday, Democratic members of Congress from New York City toured the facility as part of an oversight visit. A private prison company runs the detention center, which sits along an industrial stretch of Newark Bay.

Reps. Jerry Nadler, Daniel Goldman and Adriano Espaillat, who all represent Manhattan, described dire conditions where people held in the facility are fed small portions of often spoiled food and their varied medical needs are ignored.

Homeland Security spokespersons have denied any hunger strike, abuse or poor conditions inside the center and dismissed criticism from opponents as political posturing.

The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) and the move toward a green transition built on renewable energy are fundamentally restructuring the global economy. While unleashing unprecedented opportunities, these developments also provide new geopolitical weapons due to the unequal distribution of critical minerals, in particular rare earths, the advanced technology and expertise involved in manufacturing, and the omniscient and inexorable role of the resulting products like semiconductors and batteries for the operation of today’s technologised societies. Thus, countries like China and the United States (US) increasingly seek to safeguard national access to these crucial components and products. This weaponization has implications for global business interests, supply chains, technological development and existing geopolitical tensions in the Middle East and between the US and China.

Semiconductors—the new oil?

Semiconductors, or advanced chips, have been likened to the oil of the 21st century. Just as in the 20th century, oil formed the basis for global economic activity, semiconductors form crucial parts of everything from critical infrastructure like 5G data networks, military technology like missiles and AI data centers, to smartphones, fridges and electric vehicles. Indeed, the semiconductor market, growing rapidly since the launch of large language AI models in 2022, is projected to hold a value of $1 trillion by 2030. Hence, whoever controls the supply of semiconductors holds the power to bring rivaling economies to a standstill. This capability is reinforced by the fact that advanced microchips, and the rare earths contained in them, lack ready substitutes.

Assuredly, oil still offers geopolitical leverage—brought to the fore by the current energy crisis resulting from the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Yet, semiconductors offer a more potent geopolitical weapon. For example, European sanctions on Russian oil and natural gas following the invasion of Ukraine in 2022 has been largely ineffective in crippling the oil-reliant Russian economy, as Russia has been able to find alternative supply routes like the Caspian Sea and alternative buyers such as India, Türkiye and China. By contrast, semiconductor supply chains are more concentrated due to differential geography, and economic, technological and intellectual capital. For example, Taiwan produces over 90% of the world’s advanced chips, while China controls 60% of global rare-earth production, and 90% of mineral refinement. Similarly, the US enjoys supremacy in semiconductor manufacturing equipment (SME) and expertise, while the Netherlands is the world’s sole producer of extreme ultraviolet lithography required to imprint circuits on semiconductors. Hence, the highly concentrated supply chains of semiconductors gives a handful of countries significant strategic leverage as countries are willing to go far to secure access to these crucial components.

Capitalising on critical mineral supply

This power is reinforced by the fact that the majority of the planet’s critical minerals—such as copper, cobalt and lithium—used in semiconductors and batteries are concentrated in developing countries in Africa and Latin America like Brazil, Chile and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Thus, the capital-intensity of mineral extraction has allowed major powers like the US and China to expand their influence over supply chains through massive investment in the mining industries of these regions. Hence, supply chains are further concentrated in the hands of a few states, enhancing the weaponisability of these resources. This is bolstered by the rarity and geographic disparity of these elements, meaning that countries cannot easily find substitutes or alternative suppliers for these critical resources, should the aforementioned mineral ‘gatekeepers’ choose to wield their strategic leverage and restrict supply.

Global business caught in the crossfire

This development subjects international business activity, especially within emerging technologies like AI, to geopolitical tensions. For example, the US introduced export controls in 2022, banning US semiconductor company Nvidia from exporting its advanced H2000 chips to China to protect US technological dominance. And Nvidia is not an isolated case—in the last few years, the amount of US companies on the Commerce Department’s Entity List restricting exports has quadrupled. In effect, US companies are losing global competitiveness and access to China—one of the biggest markets in the world. This effect might be hard to reverse. Although the Trump administration relaxed export restrictions in early 2026, no Nvidia chips had arrived in China by mid-May. Part of the reason is that China in response to US restrictions has built up its domestic production, and legally favored domestic chips producers like Huawei to reduce its strategic vulnerability to foreign powers. For similar reasons, China prevented US-based Meta in 2025 from buying up Manus, a Chinese-founded AI company. Thus, business interests are highly susceptible to the weaponisation of concentrated critical supply chains in the geopolitical rivalry between US and China.

Semiconductors—beyond oil

Hence, semiconductors and related products may not simply be the economic and strategic, 21st-century equivalent of 20th-century oil, but may indeed hold greater geopolitical leverage than oil ever did. While the US dominates global oil production, China does not have to import oil from its geopolitical rival at the expense of Chinese strategic power—despite China relying on imports for over 70% of its oil—as diversified global energy markets allow for alternative energy sources like coal and natural gas, and alternative suppliers like the UAE, Iran and Qatar. By contrast, China’s ability to manufacture the most advanced semiconductors without the currently unique US SME is highly limited, with Chinese semiconductor development 3 years behind the US. Consequently, China accounts for over half of the semiconductor exports of US-allied Taiwan.

Taiwan in the crossfire

This in turn increases the strategic importance of the Taiwan dispute. While China has long claimed Taiwan to be part of China, the US endorses Taiwanese independence. The importance of semiconductors has cemented this conflict, with China desiring reunification to gain control over global semiconductor manufacturing, while the US for the same reason favors Taiwanese independence from China to maintain US access to its semiconductor supply, in extension of current efforts to induce TSCM to offshore its production to the US, and reduce semiconductor exports to China. Similarly, China has leveraged its global dominance of refined rare earths and battery production by introducing export restrictions on batteries, refined critical minerals, and rare earths in response to US SME restrictions, exploiting the fact that the US has limited ability to employ its SME to manufacture semiconductors without these Chinese inputs. In response, the US and its allies are scrambling for alternative access to critical minerals by expanding trade partnerships with mining countries like the DRC, investment in battery-production, and by launching Project Vault, a $12-billion investment to create a national critical minerals reserve.

The weaponisation capacity of semiconductors has only begun. As countries are approaching the deadlines of net-zero emissions goals outlined in the Paris Agreement, increased dependency on renewable energy will increase susceptibility to global supply chains for batteries, rare earths and semiconductors for products like EVs, solar panels and energy storage.

There are moments in history when civilizations continue to advance materially while progressively losing confidence in the values  and structures that once gave direction and coherence to collective life. Institutions continue to function, markets continue to expand, and technological progress accelerates uninterruptedly, yet beneath this movement emerges a quieter uncertainty.

As Simone Weil observed, “to be rooted is perhaps the most important and least recognized

need of the human soul.”[1] Yet contemporary societies often struggle to sustain those forms of

belonging and shared meaning that once anchored human communities. The crisis is

therefore not simply political or economic. It concerns meaning itself.

Artificial intelligence has appeared precisely within such a historical juncture. Most contemporary discussions approach AI primarily as a technological revolution, or as an element of economic and geopolitical competition between great powers. Governments now frame it as a strategic race, corporations present it as the next engine of productivity, and Silicon Valley often speaks of AI in the language of inevitability and destiny, recalling Aldous Huxley’s fear that technological progress might ultimately weaken rather than deepen human civilization.[2]

 But such interpretations may ignore something deeper still. AI may be less the cause of a civilizational transformation than one of its clearest symptoms. It reflects a broader historical transition in which inherited moral and symbolic frameworks are dissolving faster than new forms of collective meaning can emerge.

Slouching Towards Bethlehem[3]

This condition closely resembles what Antonio Gramsci described as an interregnum: a period in which the old world is dying while the new world struggles to be born. [4] Such periods produce not only political instability, but also moral exhaustion, the erosion of shared narratives, and declining confidence in beliefs once considered self-evident. Civilizations have passed through similar moments before.

The enduring fascination of Edward Gibbon’s monumental The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire lies not merely in its account of imperial decline, but in its portrayal of the slow weakening of the moral and symbolic foundations that once sustained an entire civilization.[5] Rome did not collapse overnight. Its institutions remained impressive long after few still believed in the civilization they were meant to serve. Administrative power survived even as collective meaning and aspirations deteriorated.

That pattern feels strangely familiar.

Never before have technological capacities appeared so extensive while social distrust, political fragmentation, and loneliness have become so pervasive. Hyperconnectivity was supposed to bring societies closer together. In many cases, it has done the reverse.

AI in the Anthropocene

AI emerges from within this historical condition . It appears perfectly suited to societies organized around abstraction, speed, quantification, and technological mediation. In this sense, AI is profoundly historical. It results from a long civilizational development in which rationalization, efficiency, and technical calculation have come to replace older moral, religious, and symbolic frameworks as primary sources of legitimacy and meaning. What distinguishes AI from previous technologies is that it extends these same principles into domains traditionally considered irreducibly human. Activities once understood as distinctly human, such as reasoning, creativity, interpretation, and even emotional interaction, are now becoming technologically mediated.

The deeper unease therefore concerns anthropology as much as technology. What remains distinctively human when machines become capable of imitating reasoning, generating art, and mediating human relationships?

Such moments of civilizational disorientation are not entirely unprecedented.

The Renaissance confronted a similar rupture. Medieval Europe had long possessed a relatively coherent worldview capable of organizing religion, politics, morality, and human identity within a common order. By the late fifteenth century, however, this equilibrium was beginning to fracture under the pressure of new scientific discoveries, religious wars, and the weakening of older political and spiritual authorities. Thinkers such as Niccolò Machiavelli and Giovanni Pico della Mirandola sought, in radically different ways, to redefine humanity’s place within a rapidly changing world.[6] Pico celebrated human beings as creatures capable of shaping themselves through freedom and intellect, while Machiavelli recognized more soberly that periods of transition dissolve inherited certainties and force societies to confront instability and power directly.

Both understood that historical transformation is ultimately existential before being institutional. Our own transition may prove even more radical because technology no longer transforms only economic or political life, but cognition itself.

AI now mediates everyday experience itself: how people search for information, communicate, work, and make sense of the world around them.

Algorithms no longer merely distribute information. They shape attention, influence perception, and affect how individuals relate emotionally to public life and to one another. Under such conditions, the distinction between human judgment and technological mediation becomes far less clear.

The Price of Nostalgia

One striking feature of the contemporary digital environment is the degree to which individuals now participate voluntarily in their own data extraction. Recent Instagram trends such as the viral “What Were You Like in the ’90s?” challenge encourage users and celebrities alike to upload curated archives of personal photographs spanning decades of their lives. Presented as nostalgia and entertainment, these trends also generate immense quantities of highly valuable visual and behavioural data: faces across time, emotional reactions, aesthetic preferences, social interactions, and patterns of self-presentation. Whether or not such material is directly incorporated into future AI systems, the broader objective remains significant. Human memory, identity, and even nostalgia itself increasingly becomes raw material for computational analysis and commercial platforms.

Reactions to AI therefore oscillate easily between fascination and anxiety. Beneath both lies a deeper uncertainty about whether modern societies still possess a coherent understanding of what human beings are for, beyond economic productivity and consumption.

Friedrich Nietzsche anticipated aspects of this crisis more than a century ago. His declaration that “God is dead” did not merely constitute a theological provocation but signalled the emergence of a civilization in which traditional moral structures would lose authority long before new ones could replace them.[7] Nietzsche feared not nihilism alone, but the possibility that societies might become incapable of generating new forms of transcendence once older ones had collapsed. We saw how his worldview provided an intellectual base for Fascism.

I Read, therefore I Am

In increasingly mediated environments, the act of sustained reading itself begins to take on a countercultural character. To read is, in some sense, to resist. We have access to more information than any previous generation, yet physical books can still provide a sense of orientation. The books people return to, annotate, or simply keep close over time often reveal something enduring about the way they think and who they are.

The central issue, therefore, is not simply whether artificial intelligence will become more powerful. The deeper question is whether societies organized around AI can still sustain stable forms of responsibility and belonging strong enough to preserve coherent collective life. This is ultimately a political and civilizational problem before it is a purely technical one.

Much contemporary discourse still assumes that technological advancement naturally produces historical progress. History offers little evidence for such confidence.

Civilizations do not endure simply because they innovate technologically. They endure because they preserve, or reinvent, systems of meaning capable of holding societies together over time.

The Roman Empire mastered engineering yet gradually lost the moral cohesion that had once sustained it. Renaissance Europe produced extraordinary creativity precisely because it confronted existential instability directly rather than attempting to ignore it.

Contemporary Western societies appear caught between immense technological sophistication and growing uncertainty about their own civilizational narrative.

AI therefore represents more than innovation. It reflects a transformation in how human beings understand themselves, authority, knowledge, and reality itself. The danger is not simply that machines become too powerful. It is that societies now outsource judgment, imagination, and responsibility while slowly losing the cultural and moral resources required to govern these technologies wisely. Yet periods of interregnum are not necessarily periods of decline alone. They are also moments in which civilizations redefine themselves.

AI For Good ?

Historical transitions create possibilities as well as dangers. The Renaissance emerged from the crisis of medieval Europe. Modern democracy emerged from the upheavals of industrial society. Today’s uncertainty may likewise force Western societies to confront questions long obscured by economic growth and technological optimism:

What constitutes a good society? What forms of belonging remain possible in a hyper-mediated world? What aspects of human life should never be reduced to data, prediction, or optimization?

AI cannot answer these questions. But its emergence makes avoiding them increasingly difficult.

[1] Simone Weil, The Need for Roots: Prelude to a Declaration of Duties Towards Mankind (1949/1952).

[2] See Aldous Huxley, Brave New World (1932) and his later essays such as Brave New World Revisited (1958), where he warns that technological efficiency and social conditioning could erode authentic human experience.

[3] The phrase alludes to the final lines of W.B. Yeats’ poem “The Second Coming” (1919): “And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, / Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?”

[4] Antonio Gramsci, Prison Notebooks (written 1929–1935, published posthumously). The “interregnum” concept appears in Notebook 3: “The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.”

[5] Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (6 volumes, 1776–1789). Gibbon famously attributed part of the decline to the rise of Christianity and the erosion of civic virtue.

[6] Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Oration on the Dignity of Man (1486) — often called the “Manifesto of the Renaissance”; Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince (1532) and Discourses on Livy.

[7] Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science (1882, §125 – “The Madman”) and Thus Spoke Zarathustra. The full phrase is usually rendered “God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.”

When the ancient Greek historian Thucydides chronicled the Peloponnesian War, he did not write only about the clash between Athens and Sparta. He documented the fate of the small city-states caught between them in 431BC. Corcyra and Potidaea, neutral territories with no grand strategy of their own, were crushed, annexed, or forced into allegiance as the two great powers dragged the entire Greek world into conflict.

Thucydides famously wrote that it was the rise of Athens and the fear that this instilled in Sparta that made war inevitable. Yet for the smaller states, there was no trap to escape. There was only destruction when great powers fought. This forgotten truth frames the most dangerous bilateral relationship on earth today.

When President Xi Jinping invoked the Thucydides Trap during his May 2026 summit with President Donald Trump in Beijing, he framed it as a question between two great powers asking whether China and the US can rise above the so-called Thucydides Trap and create a new framework for major-power relations. The concept was popularized by Harvard political scientist Graham Allison, who identified sixteen historical cases over the past five hundred years where a rising power challenged an established one, with twelve ending in war. Allison’s framework casts China as the rising Athens and the US as the established Sparta. It centers on whether these two great powers can avoid destroying each other, while leaving less examined what happens to the smaller states caught in between. At the summit, President Xi warned that if mishandled the two countries could clash or even enter into conflict, leading the entire China-US relationship into a highly dangerous scenario. He emphasized that the Taiwan issue is the most critical matter in their bilateral relation, implicitly acknowledging that miscalculation could materialize the very trap he warned against.

The competition between the US and China has grown far beyond trade into something that locks other countries into its orbit. What started as a tariff dispute has become overlapping conflicts across technology, finance, energy, and data governance, each one reinforcing the others and closing off neutral ground. This creates a situation close to a legal Catch-22 where China’s Ministry of Commerce used its blocking statute for the first time in May 2026 against US sanctions and put multinational companies in a position where following Washington’s extraterritorial rules meant breaking Beijing’s laws and following Beijing’s rules meant breaking Washington’s. This is not a byproduct of the competition but is becoming the competition itself.

US bans on advanced semiconductors and AI chips combined with Chinese limits on gallium, germanium, and rare earths along with rival payment systems like China’s Cross-Border Interbank Payment System (CIPS), which provides cross-border payment services to more than 5,000 banking institutions across 190 countries and regions as an alternative to Western banking rails and clashing visions of internet sovereignty have built up into a tightly connected system where doing business globally increasingly means either choosing a side or paying escalating costs for staying neutral, with the heaviest pressure in tech and finance while other domains retain more space for hedging. These costs hit hardest not the US or China but the countries and firms that have no power over either. China-US trade, technology, and regulatory pressures have repeatedly spilled over into third countries, and Southeast Asia has often been caught in the middle. Vietnam has faced US scrutiny over goods assembled with Chinese-linked inputs, Cambodia experienced significant trade diversion during the 2018 US-China trade war, Malaysia came under pressure to tighten controls on semiconductor shipments, and Singapore has had to navigate the compliance burdens created by competing US and Chinese rules.

More broadly, small states across the globe must navigate between two major powers, leaning toward China for economic reasons and toward the US for security reasons. ASEAN has long relied on non-alignment and hedging to preserve, and of course expand, room to maneuver if possible, but intensifying US-China competition is narrowing that room. Some states have turned rivalry into opportunity. Vietnam has attracted manufacturing shifts and foreign investment as companies diversify supply chains away from China. India, Gulf states, and others actively play both sides or carve strategic niches, extracting economic benefits while maintaining security partnerships. Yet these adaptive strategies have limits, and the space for maneuvering narrows as competition intensifies, leaving smaller states with growing pressure, higher compliance costs, and reduced autonomy.

The relationship between China and the US remains the world’s most dangerous bilateral relationship not because President Xi and President Trump might make war on each other but because small countries worldwide will be the first casualties when that war comes or even when competition intensifies. The real Thucydides Trap is not whether America and China can avoid war with each other but whether small states can survive the rivalry even if both of them somehow manage peaceful coexistence. As fence sitting becomes tense and the legal arms race traps countries in impossible dilemmas, more countries face choices that progressively erode the strategic autonomy they have long relied on. Thucydides wrote about the Peloponnesian War with eyes on all participants including the allies of Athens and Sparta who became victims of the trap. The lesson from ancient Greece is very clear that when great powers fight the weak do not survive, and the stories of Corcyra and Potidaea matter just as much as the struggle between Athens and Sparta.

When Athens and Sparta finally went to war, the first thing that died was the freedom of everyone caught between them. The US and China may or may not escape their trap but regional powers, developing nations, and many other small countries already know themselves to be inside it.

SAN DIEGO — Sitting in the Petco Park visiting dugout Monday afternoon, Dodgers general manager Brandon Gomes would have preferred to be answering a different set of questions about the team’s rotation depth.

In spring training, it was all about how many difficult decisions the Dodgers had in front of them because of the quality depth they’d built. In the first couple months of the season, a spike of injuries had completely flipped the conversation.

“It’s the reason why you try to go in with as much depth as you can knowing that things can happen,” Gomes said. “You hope that they don’t pile up all at the same time, which has happened as of late. But we’ll keep navigating it. We’ll work through it like we have in the past.

“The biggest thing is we’ve got a big series these three games. Go out and play good baseball here and then keep balancing the short-term, long-term.”

Gomes provided updates on the Dodgers’ mounting pitching injuries, and how the team is combating the absences:

—The Dodgers expect left-hander Blake Snell will undergo the less invasive NanoNeedle scope procedure to remove loose bodies from his elbow Tuesday. The procedure could shorten Snell’s recovery time by a month, compared to a more traditional arthroscopic procedure.

—Right-hander Tyler Glasnow had another back flare-up. He’ll be shut down from throwing for a few days. “No concern long-term,” Gomes said. “But a little slower on the front end than we expected.”

—The Dodgers are leaning toward using Eric Lauer as a starter. They have not yet decided where to slot him in, but it probably won’t be this weekend in Milwaukee.

—Right-handed reliever Brusdar Graterol (right shoulder surgery recovery) sustained a back injury while on rehab assignment with triple-A Oklahoma City. The team is still working to determine next steps and has not ruled out surgery.

During his first year, U. S. President Donald Trump’s aggressive negotiating style led to some gains with other countries, but when it comes to Iran, this approach seems to be failing. Instead of softening his stance, Trump has shown increasing frustration over the ongoing crisis, which has lasted for 11 weeks, and his tough tactics might hinder efforts to end the conflict that is impacting the global economy.

Analysts believe that one key issue is the Iranian leaders’ need to maintain their image at home, complicating any negotiations. Despite the U. S. and Israeli strikes weakening Iran’s military, Iran still controls the important Strait of Hormuz, allowing it to exert significant influence. Trump’s strategy has been marked by extreme demands and mixed messages, which may not lead to a quick resolution. His desire to frame any outcome as a U. S. victory, while expecting total defeat for Iran, poses further challenges, as no government, including Iran’s, can afford to be seen as surrendering.

The deadlock with Iran happens as Trump faces domestic pressures, including rising gasoline prices and low approval ratings due to an unpopular war ahead of the midterm elections. White House spokesperson Olivia Wales defended Trump’s tactics, claiming that he is a skilled negotiator and suggesting that Iran is becoming more desperate for a resolution.

In a notable threat, Trump warned on social media of destroying Iran’s civilization if a deal is not reached. He later backed down but has repeated his threats to damaging Iranian infrastructure. Trump’s harsh language towards Iranian leaders has continued, and while he claims Iran is on the verge of collapse, the Iranian response has been to portray their endurance as a victory.

Inside the White House, there has been no effort to moderate Trump’s messaging. Polls show his core supporters remain behind him, but some former allies now criticize his extreme threats and the ongoing conflict.

Some of Trump’s strongest statements on his Truth Social platform have come at crucial moments, like when he announced a blockade of Iran’s ports, which led to Iranian retaliation and threatened a fragile ceasefire. He recently rejected a peace proposal from Iran, calling it a “piece of garbage. ” Analysts like Dennis Ross said Trump’s lack of consistency in messaging undermines his intentions. During a visit to Beijing, Trump avoided harsh comments on Iran, focusing instead on relations with China, an ally of Iran.

Some experts believe it would be beneficial for Trump to lower his rhetoric if he truly wants to resolve the conflict. Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister, Saeed Khatibzadeh, criticized Trump for talking too much. Trump claims that his unpredictability is a negotiation tactic, which has sometimes worked in trade discussions. However, in situations like the military actions in Venezuela and the Gaza ceasefire talks, his pressure tactics had positive outcomes.

Despite his desire to seem dangerous in negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, analysts say this strategy is unlikely to succeed, given the entrenched nature of Iran’s leadership and their pride. Trump’s threats may have strengthened Iran’s current hardline rulers, who trust him even less after U. S. attacks during negotiations. Nate Swanson, a former State Department official, noted that the expectation of Iran capitulating under pressure is a misconception.

Barbara Leaf pointed out that Trump’s approach has been based on a misunderstanding of Iran’s resilience. Some experts warn that his tactics could backfire, making Iran more determined to develop nuclear capabilities for self-protection. There is a mismatch in timelines, as Trump prefers quick deals while Iran often prolongs negotiations. Academic Abdulkhaleq Abdullah suggested that Iran’s inflexibility is a bigger issue than Trump’s statements. Trita Parsi argued that Iranian leaders might see Trump’s unpredictable behavior as a sign of desperation, leading them to wait him out.

With information from Reuters