window

Islamabad, Pakistan – More than 12 hours of face-to-face negotiations between the United States and Iran ended without agreement in Islamabad on Sunday, leaving a fragile two-week ceasefire as the only barrier between diplomacy and a return to war.

Pakistan, which spent weeks positioning itself as a mediator and succeeded in bringing both sides into the same room, emerged with its role intact. But officials acknowledge the harder phase now begins — getting American and Iranian negotiators back into talks before their differences explode into full-fledged war again.

“Pakistan has been and will continue to play its role to facilitate engagements and dialogue between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America in the days to come,” Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar said in a statement after the conclusion of the talks.

The talks, the highest-level direct engagement between Washington and Tehran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, faltered over differences surrounding Iran’s nuclear programme.

“The simple fact is that we need to see an affirmative commitment that they will not seek a nuclear weapon, and they will not seek the tools that would enable them to quickly achieve a nuclear weapon,” said US Vice President JD Vance, who led the American delegation alongside special envoy Steve Witkoff and US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner.

However, Vance left a narrow opening for the resumption of talks.

“We leave here with a very simple proposal, a method of understanding that is our final and best offer. We’ll see if the Iranians accept it,” Vance said, tapping the podium for emphasis, before ending his brief remarks, which lasted for less than five minutes.

Pakistani and Iranian sources confirmed that the Iranian delegation met senior Pakistani officials later on Sunday before departing for Tehran, though details of those discussions remain unclear.

What is clear is that Pakistan isn’t giving up yet.

Washington’s red lines

US officials said that Iran had entered negotiations misreading its leverage, believing it held advantages that, in Washington’s assessment, it did not.

According to these officials, Vance spent much of his time during the talks correcting what they described as Iranian misperceptions about the US position — asserting that no deal would be possible without a full commitment on the nuclear issue.

Officials also suggested that Trump’s subsequent announcement of a blockade in the Strait of Hormuz was not an impulsive reaction, but a pre-planned step aimed at removing the waterway as an Iranian bargaining tool and forcing the nuclear issue back to the centre of any future talks.

But the US officials, speaking on background, also acknowledged that the gulf in the positions between Washington and Tehran that they failed to bridge extended to issues beyond Iran’s nuclear programme.

In essence, they said, the two sides failed to agree on six key points: ending all uranium enrichment; dismantling major enrichment facilities; removing Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium; accepting a broader regional security framework involving US allies; ending funding for groups Washington designates as “terrorist” organisations, including Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis; and fully reopening the Strait of Hormuz without tolls.

Hours after the talks ended, Trump acknowledged partial progress, but underscored the central impasse.

“The meeting went well, most points were agreed to, but the only point that really mattered, NUCLEAR, was not,” he wrote on Truth Social.

“Effective immediately, the United States Navy, the Finest in the World, will begin the process of BLOCKADING any and all Ships trying to enter, or leave, the Strait of Hormuz,” Trump said. “Iran will not be allowed to profit off this Illegal Act of EXTORTION.”

Iran has effectively controlled access to the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly 20 percent of global oil supplies pass, since the US-Israeli attacks began on February 28.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has imposed what analysts describe as a de facto toll system, requiring vessels to secure clearance codes and transit under escort through a controlled corridor.

The disruption has pushed oil prices above $100 per barrel at times, unsettling global markets and placing sustained pressure on energy-importing countries across Asia and Europe.

Tehran has framed its control of the strait as both a security measure and a key negotiating lever, one it has shown little willingness to relinquish without a broader settlement.

Tehran’s point of view

Iran’s account of the breakdown differed sharply.

In a post on X early on April 13, after returning to Tehran, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said his country had engaged in “good faith”, only to face shifting demands.

“When just inches away from an Islamabad MoU, we encountered maximalism, shifting goalposts, and blockade,” he wrote. “Zero lessons learned. Good will begets good will. Enmity begets enmity.”

The reference to an “Islamabad MoU”, a memorandum of understanding, was the clearest public signal yet that the two sides had come closer to a formal agreement than either government had previously acknowledged.

Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who led the country’s delegation, said his team had proposed “forward-looking initiatives”, but failed to secure trust.

“Due to the experiences of the two previous wars, we have no trust in the opposing side,” he wrote on Sunday.

Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei also pointed to partial progress but unresolved differences.

“On some issues we actually reached mutual understanding, but there was a gap over two or three important issues and ultimately the talks didn’t result in an agreement,” he said.

Tehran’s key demands, including an end to Israeli strikes on Lebanon, the release of $6bn in frozen assets, guarantees on its nuclear programme and the right to charge vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz, remained unmet.

Iran’s ambassador to Pakistan, Reza Amiri Moghadam, however, offered a more measured view — suggesting that Tehran was not closing the window on talks.

“The Islamabad Talks is not an event but a process,” he wrote in his message on X on Sunday. “The Islamabad Talks laid the foundation for a diplomatic process that, if trust and will are strengthened, can create a sustainable framework for the interests of all parties.”

Pakistan’s balancing act

For Pakistan, analysts say, the outcome represents a setback but not a failure.

Officials were careful to describe the talks as “an important opening step in a continuing diplomatic process”, stressing that issues of such complexity cannot be resolved in a single round.

The emphasis, they said, was on keeping the channel open.

Muhammad Obaidullah, a former Pakistan Navy commodore who has served in Iran as a diplomat, said expectations of a breakthrough were always unrealistic.

“The mere fact of bringing both parties face to face is a significant diplomatic achievement in itself,” he told Al Jazeera. “The diplomacy is not dead.”

Ishtiaq Ahmad, professor emeritus of international relations at Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad, went further.

“The talks did not collapse; they concluded without agreement but with a defined US offer on the table and the channel still intact,” he said.

“Pakistan’s role was to move the crisis from escalation to structured engagement, which it achieved. The absence of convergence reflects structural differences between the US and Iran, not a failure of mediation.”

Both Trump and Iranian officials have praised Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Chief of Army Staff Field Marshal Asim Munir for their efforts to secure the ceasefire, and for hosting the talks in Islamabad. That, say analysts, suggests that they remain open to further Pakistan-brokered negotiations.

Sahar Baloch, a Germany-based scholar of Iran, said that trust remains Pakistan’s most valuable asset.

“The real test of credibility is not preventing breakdowns, but remaining relevant after them,” she said.

Fragile ceasefire

The immediate threat to Pakistan’s role comes from the evolving situation in the Strait of Hormuz and in Lebanon.

Iran has already warned that continued Israeli strikes on Lebanon could render negotiations meaningless. Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian has framed such attacks as a direct challenge to the ceasefire.

Trump’s blockade announcement now adds pressure from a second front.

Ahmad, a former Pakistan chair at Oxford University, warned that a collapse of the truce would sharply narrow diplomatic options.

“If the ceasefire collapses, the immediate consequence is the loss of the diplomatic window,” he said. “A second round becomes far more difficult because both sides would return to negotiating under active escalation, where positions tend to harden rather than converge.”

Obaidullah drew a historical parallel with the US naval quarantine of Cuba during the 1962 missile crisis. What if China were to use its own ships to import Iranian oil? Would the US attack them?

“The world will again be watching who blinks first,” Obaidullah said. “However, it may turn into a far greater conflict if neither side does.”

The Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962 brought the US and the Soviet Union to the brink of nuclear war, after Washington discovered Moscow had installed nuclear missiles on Cuban soil, within striking distance of the American mainland.

The US blocked the Soviets from providing more equipment to Cuba, and eventually, a diplomatic settlement was reached, with the Soviets agreeing to withdraw the missiles in exchange for a US pledge not to invade Cuba.

Baloch, the Berlin-based scholar, agreed that the situation remains volatile.

“The ceasefire risks becoming more symbolic than substantive,” she said. “But paradoxically, escalation can sometimes force a return to talks, even if under more urgent and less favourable conditions.”

What is the road ahead?

Pakistan’s room for manoeuvring is also shaped by its economic fragility.

The disruption in the Strait of Hormuz has driven up energy prices, compounding pressures on an economy already under strain before the conflict.

Ahmad said this creates both urgency and limits.

“Economic exposure, especially to energy shocks and external financing, creates urgency for Pakistan to prevent a prolonged conflict,” he said.

“But it also reinforces a constraint: Pakistan cannot afford escalation with either side. Its leverage is not coercive; it is positional. It comes from being the only channel acceptable to both sides, not from the ability to impose outcomes,” Ahmad said.

Eight days remain until the end of the initial two-week truce, a window Pakistani officials said privately represents a genuine opportunity for further technical and political alignment, if both sides choose to use it.

Ahmad suggested that any breakthrough would depend on creating a sequence of steps acceptable to both sides.

“The US is asking for early nuclear commitments; Iran is asking for guarantees and relief first,” he said.

Pakistan’s role, he added, would be to help “structure this sequencing, keep both sides engaged, and prevent breakdown at each stage”.

Islamabad won’t be the one drafting a deal itself, he emphasised, noting, “At this point, maintaining the channel is as important as the substance of the deal itself.”

One of the most painstaking architectural renewals in recent Los Angeles memory has finally pulled a world-class jewel of modern architecture from obscurity.

Designed by pioneering Modernist architect Richard Neutra in 1928, with limited collaboration from another Modernist icon, Rudolph Schindler, the Jardinette Apartments had been hiding in plain sight on an unassuming Hollywood street for nearly a century. The complex was a technical and spatial breakthrough, and quickly gained international renown as one of the earliest International Style structures in the United States, not to mention Neutra’s first L.A. commission.

But the building’s original owner, Joseph H. Miller, went bankrupt during construction and skipped town to avoid his creditors, and the Jardinette slipped from view. “After that early burst, it just disappeared,” said Barbara Lamprecht, historical consultant for the Jardinette’s rehabilitation, which is just now wrapping up.

For decades the building stood quietly along West Marathon Street: an austere, four-story complex that most people passed without a second glance. Wedged between Western Avenue and Manhattan Place, amid stucco apartment blocks and scrappy bungalows, the edifice had, until recently, grown increasingly shabby as time and neglect took their unforgiving toll.

That changed with the intervention of a newcomer to historic preservation named Cameron Hassid. For years the tireless local developer and his tenacious team have willed the Herculean restoration project to the finish line. Hassid plans to bring the apartments to market before the end of the month.

Property owner Cameron Hassid, left, and Neema Ahadian, commercial real estate agent for Hassid, on the scenic rooftop of the Richard Neutra-designed Jardinette Apartments in Los Angeles. Neutra imagined the Jardinette Apartments as a prototype for future garden apartment buildings. Nearly 100 years later, the Jardinette is set to reopen after a lengthy redevelopment.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

A Radical Design

When the Jardinette first opened it was featured prominently in a seminal survey of early avant-garde apartment housing called “The Modern Flat,” while European architectural publications from Paris to Moscow showcased it as an exemplar of functionalist design, noted Nicholas Olsberg, an architectural historian and curator who has written extensively about Neutra. “It was seen worldwide as one of the signal examples of the new architecture,” Olsberg added.

The Northeast corner of the Jardinette Apartments, circa 1930. When the building first opened in 1928 it was a technical and spatial breakthrough—but it suffered from years of neglect after falling from view.

(Richard and Dion Papers, Collection 1179, UCLA Special Collections)

Built inside and out with reinforced concrete — a modern industrial material that had rarely been employed for housing— the sculpted, U-shaped building, whose jogging corners, projecting sills and swaths of dark and light paint gave it a powerful visual rhythm, used its structural heft to liberate its facade.

Long horizontal bands of easy-to-open steel casement windows, some complemented with concrete balconies, drew daylight and air deep into its 43 efficiently organized units — studios and one bedrooms, ranging from about 400 to 700 square feet — and opened them to wide views of the street and, on higher floors, the Hollywood Hills. Hallways and stairs were saturated with natural light thanks to skylights and strategically placed windows. At the forecourt a modest garden, then dominated by a huge cedar tree, softened the building’s mass, giving the project its name: Jardinette, the little garden.

A roof covered the original skylights in the Jardinette Apartments, but they are now fully exposed.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

“Arguably my father had more influence on apartment design than he did on house design,” said Neutra’s son Raymond, pointing to several Neutra designs offering indoor/outdoor lifestyles via “garden apartments.” Raymond, who was on site a few weeks ago, has toured the rehabilitation multiple times.

The Jardinette was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1986 and designated a Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument two years later. Yet despite its formal protections, the building continued its long drift into disrepair.

In 2016 Jardinette’s previous owner, Robert Clippinger, began reviving it, hiring Lamprecht’s firm, Modern Resources, as well as June Street Architecture and land use consultants Cali Planners. The team filed a comprehensive Historic Structure Report that helped secure much-needed tax relief via the Mills Act, a state preservation program. But Clippinger soon faltered under the weight of the many developmental requirements to bring the historic building back. Lawsuits followed. Financing collapsed.

A carpeted hallway beneath an original skylight at the Richard Neutra-designed Jardinette Apartments in Los Angeles. The Jardinette was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1986 and designated a Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument two years later.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

Hassid bought the building in December 2020, in the thick of the COVID-19 pandemic, keeping Clippinger’s core designers and consultants in place.

Decades of negligence and neglect had proved both a curse and a blessing. Many original steel windows had been swapped out for cheap vinyl replacements. Larger units had been subdivided. At one point the building had been repainted an unfortunate pastel peach and green. Electrical systems dated back nearly a century. Gas water heaters punched vents through the concrete walls.

Yet because the building never attracted a well-funded modernization campaign, much of its essential fabric remained intact.

“Had it been owned by people with more resources,” noted Lamprecht, “there might have been upgrades that blurred the sense of history.”

Corey Miller, a principal at June Street Architecture, described his first encounter with the almost empty property: “There had been 43 units with 43 different people who had been left to their own devices,” Miller said. “Every time we peeled back a layer, there was something worse.”

Unit 302, inhabited for four decades by a single tenant, retained the most original fabric, including an early icebox cabinet. But it also contained endless layers of grime and clutter. It was “disgusting,” Miller said bluntly, but invaluable as forensic evidence. Much of it — like tiles, windows and millwork — were reproduced around the building.

The 128 Jardinette Apartments were painstakingly restored with an eye toward preserving original details including kitchen cabinets, sinks and iceboxes.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

The perils of rehabilitating a historic treasure

When Hassid called Miller to ask about buying the building, Miller remembers his response clearly. “You probably have no idea what you’re getting yourself into,” he told him.

Hassid’s love of early modern architecture began as a child. His grandparents lived at 848 N. Kings Road in West Hollywood, with a balcony overlooking Schindler’s famed house. So Hassid was familiar with Jardinette’s geometric forms and clean lines. His mother reacted with angry skepticism when he first raised the idea of acquiring the building, but encouraged him to buy it after she learned about the connection.

Nostalgia did not make the rehabilitation any easier. Technical plans required approval, and fixes weren’t straightforward within a protected treasure. “You can’t just go into a historic building with a sledgehammer,” Hassid said. Every move had to align with federal preservation standards and the commitments embedded in the Mills Act contract. Lambert Giessinger, Los Angeles’ historic architect and Mills Act administrator, acted as liaison. Inspections were frequent. Conditions were exacting.

“It’s stressful to have people looking at everything,” Miller admitted. But he credits both Giessinger and Lamprecht with pragmatism. “They were under no illusion that this was going to be done 100% perfect,” he added.

“There’s a lot of wonky stuff in this building that will remain wonky forever,” noted Lamprecht, pointing to settling areas and imperfect details.

Michael Norberg, a land use consultant for the Jardinette Apartments preservation project, stands on the balcony of a unit at the Richard Neutra-designed complex, which will soon reopen after prolonged development issues.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

The astonishingly complex rehabilitation revealed a simple-looking building that was anything but. The board-formed concrete carried a subtle wood-grain texture, which had to be left intact, even as seismic reinforcements were added beneath the surface. The finish on white stucco shifted from smooth to pebbled on the walls’ higher reaches, and this had to be carefully re-created.

Original trim had to be salvaged and repaired wherever possible. Kitchens were rebuilt based on archival drawings and surviving fragments. Bathrooms, originally designed around tubs, required discrete tile extensions to accommodate modern showers. The paint scheme, which has been returned to a warm, off-white concrete field with blackish-green bands emphasizing the window walls, had to be reconstructed from historic photographs. Wine red concrete lobby floors were revealed under ungainly tile. Large stairwell skylights were uncovered, while unique, cube-shaped stair post lights were rehabilitated.

Plenty of white tiles replicate the original look in this bathroom in the historic Richard Neutra-designed Jardinette Apartments. One floor of the newly preserved 1928 complex features original doors and kitchen cabinets.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

Support infrastructure, threaded through the thick concrete frame, was perhaps the messiest challenge. Fire sprinklers, mandated by code, had to remain visible because they could not run through joists without compromising historic fabric. New electrical, plumbing and ventilation had to snake around (or burrow through) beams that original plans didn’t note.

Hassid chose to add air conditioning, and the resulting electrical loads required a 13-foot-deep vault beneath the courtyard. That addition will limit what can be planted in the central garden.

The view from the large windows in a newly restored unit of the Richard Neutra-designed Jardinette Apartments. Original skylights were also preserved during a remarkably complex historic preservation effort.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

The team preserved as many original steel casement windows as possible on the primary north-facing facade. These are interspersed with custom reproductions throughout.

The rehabilitation costs climbed past $5 million — accounting for structural analysis, waterproofing, electrical overhaul, plumbing, mechanical, windows, flooring, sprinklers, cabinetry, landscaping — an ever expanding list.

“If I knew then what I know now,” Hassid said with a weary laugh, “I’m not sure I would have done it.” He paused. “But listen, I’m happy I did.”

Today, the building’s value is clear. The courtyard, with vegetation still waiting to grow, is again a communal garden framed by cantilevered balconies. The flat facades have regained their subtle play of depth and shadow. New systems hum quietly, concealed as carefully as possible.

But the building’s renewal has not made it immune to its surroundings. Portions of the exterior were tagged during construction, and some windows have even been shot out by BB guns. As it reemerges, Jardinette could become a lightning rod for those who fear gentrification.

Modernist architect Richard Neutra imagined his first Los Angeles project, the Jardinette Apartments, as a prototype for future garden apartment buildings, but the building fell into disrepair and obscurity for decades. A newly completed historic preservation project will allow it to reopen soon.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

Hassid, who initially planned to keep the building, is now testing the waters for a sale with the help of local broker Neema Ahadian of Marcus & Millichap. He said he’s already gotten calls from potential buyers in both the affordable and market-rate sectors. Affordable housing, he added, would be fitting because the smaller units were originally used that way — often for people working in nearby Hollywood studios. The building’s lack of parking could be another factor pushing the sale in that direction.

“I want to leave my options open,” said Hassid. “It’s bittersweet, because we put so much into it.”

Despite swearing off the project more than once, he is hooked by the process.

“I’m looking for my next historic building. After doing it, I know the mistakes I made and how to minimize the lag,” he said.

“This is such a good niche. Others run away from it. I love it because I love the challenge.”

A group of 24 passengers watched in disbelief as their plane took off after spending over an hour navigating airport security delays at Tours Airport in France

Ryanair passengers were left stunned when they glanced out the window after enduring 90 minutes queuing through security. A group of 24 travellers watched in complete disbelief as the aircraft they were supposed to be boarding departed without them whilst they remained stranded in the terminal.

The service, departing from Tours Airport in France, was scheduled to fly to Marrakech in Morocco at 12.15pm on Wednesday, 11 March. With just 15 minutes remaining before departure, the pilot took the decision to shut the doors and proceed as planned, leaving a quarter of his passengers behind.

According to Ici, the pilot instructed that the passengers’ luggage be offloaded from the aircraft in order to keep to his timetable. And whilst he acknowledges the carrier is perfectly entitled to take such action, French holidaymaker Maxime says he was left absolutely astonished when he discovered what had occurred.

The 37-yea-old maintains he turned up at the airport nearly two hours ahead of his scheduled take-off time. He said: “It’s a completely crazy situation.

“Going through customs and security took ages. We spent over an hour and a half there. At one point, we realised the pilot had decided to take off without us, knowing that our suitcases were already on the Ryanair plane.”

Maxime claims his baggage stayed on the tarmac as the aircraft departed at 12.57pm, 42 minutes beyond its scheduled take-off. He branded it a “completely absurd situation”.

Louis Chaumont, director of Tours Airport, described the circumstances as “regrettable”. He clarified that pilots are permitted to depart during their allocated take-off slot to prevent having to wait for another to become available.

He indicated this was one of three key factors that resulted in the passengers missing their flight. He stated: “The first was an unannounced inspection by the gendarmerie brigade across the entire airport. The second is the introduction of a new measure, the ESS (Entry/Exit System).

“This is a measure introduced by the EU which requires customs checks on all passengers entering and leaving the Schengen area, so passengers travelling to Marrakech are affected.

“Previously, the screening rate was 10%, and it takes time to implement this measure, which takes three to four minutes per passenger. Added to this is the third factor: the pilot of this flight had a designated take-off slot. If he doesn’t comply, he has no idea when he’ll be able to get another one to fly. So he’s perfectly within his rights to close the doors of his plane and take his slot.”

Whilst the director stopped short of promising full refunds for passengers, he confirmed compensation claims will be evaluated individually. He indicated the airport “will investigate what happened and determine who is responsible.”

In a statement to French media outlets, Ryanair maintained its policy is to guarantee a “punctual departure”. The airline asserted the delays within the airport were “entirely beyond our control”.

A spokesman informed ICI: “Had these passengers arrived on time, they would have boarded this Tours–Marrakech flight alongside the 155 other passengers who arrived at the gate on time. We regret that these delays, caused by security checks at Tours Val de Loire Airport-which are entirely beyond our control-resulted in some passengers missing this flight.”

If you’re looking for the most elegant way to wrap up our “little excursion” in Iran, it’s this: President Trump should follow what might politely be called the “declare victory and head for the airport” strategy.

You know the drill: Announce that we’ve set back Iran’s nuclear programs a decade, pounded their navy into submission, and turned the ayatollah into a fine mist. Mission accomplished! Thank you for flying the friendly skies, and please return your seat backs to their full upright and locked position.

Don’t get me wrong. This “cut and run” routine is less than ideal. Trump will have signaled to the world he (we) can’t endure any insurgent resistance, empowered the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to run the country and likely angered Israel in the process.

But his domestic political base will believe he won, and fan service has always been his top political priority.

Besides, once you’ve entered a war without a coherent justification, clearly defined goals or a credible exit strategy, you’re lucky to get out at all. A salutary outcome no longer exists; that ship has already sailed.

Speaking of which, as I write this, we are drifting toward what feels like a point of no return. Mining the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran is now attempting to do, is the ultimate trump card.

Using mines to shut down this narrow shipping lane — which contributes about 20% of the world’s oil supply, not to mention natural gas and fertilizer — could result in a crippled global economy, mass casualties and a situation in which the president can no longer save face while cutting and running.

As retired U.S. Navy Adm. James Stavridis writes, “Iran has been planning a Strait of Hormuz closure operation for decades and probably has more than 5,000 mines; just one hit can severely damage a thin-skinned tanker.”

Yes, once laid, minefields can be cleared. But Stavridis predicts it would take “weeks, if not a month or two” to clear thousands of mines. He warns: “The global economy needs to be prepared for a month or two shutdown.” (Complicating matters is the fact that our dedicated minesweepers were recently decommissioned.)

The Iranians are not idiots. They watch American politics. They understand that Trump’s pressure point isn’t Tehran — it’s the S&P 500. A bad week on Wall Street makes him jumpier than a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs.

Trump, whatever else you say about him, is a transactional materialist who approaches geopolitics the way a real estate developer approaches zoning disputes: What’s the angle, where’s the leverage, and can everybody just settle already?

Unfortunately, the fellows running Iran are religious zealots who believe — deeply, sincerely and somewhat alarmingly — in something larger than quarterly economic indicators. Their strategic plan appears to consist of two options: survive (which they see as tantamount to victory), or die gloriously while insisting they meant to do that all along.

Which makes their current behavior grimly logical.

The Iranian regime, such as it is, doesn’t have much to lose. But they know exactly what Trump has to lose: His popularity and political legacy are now tied to the price of oil.

Releasing U.S. strategic oil reserves will help to some extent, but this is not a long-term solution. And Iran is betting that when the price at the pump for U.S. consumers starts looking like a luxury car payment, Trump will do what critics like to summarize as TACO — “Trump Always Chickens Out.”

Lots of American political observers agree. And it’s not just moderates or RINOs who are teasing this.

Referring to the U.S. military, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich told Larry Kudlow on Fox Business: “They have to keep the Strait of Hormuz open. I don’t care what it costs.”

“If they can’t keep it open,” Gingrich continued, “this war will, in fact, be an American defeat before very long, because the entire world, including the American people, will react to the price of oil if the strait stays closed very long.”

Perhaps the U.S. military can pull off a delicate trick: keep our “armada” in the region, keep the Strait of Hormuz open, clear any mines that are laid and prevent some unlucky tanker from being hit by a mine — or, for that matter, by a drone or missile fired from the Iranian coast. That final risk is why some military analysts believe reopening the strait would require a ground operation.

Imagine that the U.S. manages to thread these needles. Then what?

Total and complete surrender? Regime change? Boots on the ground?

Absent a swift exit (like, tomorrow), we’re left with the two classic options of power politics: a delayed and more ignominious retreat or increased escalation.

And, historically speaking, American presidents are more likely to double down — with tragic results.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

Universal Pictures will now keep its new films in theaters for at least five weekends, a reversal from the studio’s previous policy of at least 17 days that was set during the pandemic.

The change takes place immediately, the studio said Thursday. That means it will apply to its newest film, the Colleen Hoover romance “Reminders of Him,” which is out in theaters this weekend. Other upcoming films include Christopher Nolan’s “The Odyssey,” which will be released in July.

“Our windowing strategy has always been designed to evolve with the marketplace, but we firmly believe in the primacy of theatrical exclusivity and working closely with our exhibition partners to support a healthy, sustainable theatrical ecosystem,” Donna Langley, chair of NBCUniversal Entertainment, said in an email to the New York Times, which first reported the news.

Focus Features, Universal Pictures’ specialty film arm, will keep its existing theatrical exclusivity policies, which vary on a case-by-case basis. Chloé Zhao’s “Hamnet,” for instance, was in theaters for 99 days, while 2024’s “Nosferatu” played for 58 days. The minimum is 17 days.

The amount of time films are available exclusively in theaters — known as “windowing” in industry jargon — has become a contentious topic of conversation in Hollywood.

That debate ramped up during the pandemic, when some studios shortened theatrical exclusivity periods in order to move films to release for video on demand or streaming.

Prior to the pandemic, those windows could be as long as 90 days. Now, the average is around 30 days.

Theater owners have argued that shorter windows cut into box office profits and train audiences to wait to watch a movie at home. Distributors have countered that a one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t necessarily work for smaller or mid-budget films, which may find a bigger audience via at-home viewing.

At last year’s CinemaCon trade conference, top theater lobbyist Michael O’Leary called on distributors to establish a minimum 45-day window, arguing there needed to be a “clear, consistent starting point” to set moviegoers’ expectations and affirm commitment to theatrical exclusivity.

The debate has become even more fierce as box office profits still have not recovered from the pandemic. Last year, theatrical revenue in the U.S. and Canada totaled about $8.87 billion, just 1.5% above 2024’s disappointing $8.74-billion tally.