Over the past 48 hours, the U.S. president issued a two-day ultimatum to Iran regarding the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, only to ultimately back down. This decision followed Tehran’s firm response, reaffirming its refusal to yield to any external pressure. Washington announced negotiations expected to last five days, suggesting a possible dialogue, but Iran denied any discussions, direct or indirect, indicating that the American statement was largely intended to “save face.” It should be recalled that this confrontation, involving Israel and the United States, targets a sovereign state. The Israeli government, particularly its Prime Minister, played a major role in drawing Washington into the confrontation, which goes beyond U.S. interests and is part of a complex regional dynamic where Iran’s sovereignty faces multiple strategic pressures. Iran responded with determination, defending its territory and sovereignty. It is clear that this aggression primarily serves Israeli objective...

 Significant divisions exist today between U.S. President Trump and several European leaders. Tensions arose when he expressed his intention to annex Greenland, an autonomous territory under Denmark. The Israeli-American aggression against Iran has deepened these divisions. Washington sought the support of European countries, but many refused. During an exchange with Irish Prime Minister Micheál Martin, Trump even raised the possibility of the United States withdrawing from NATO. Founded in 1949 to face the Soviet Union, NATO should have disappeared with the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact (a military alliance of Soviet bloc countries). Instead of that, it expanded, growing from 12 members at its creation to 32 today. A U.S. withdrawal would mark the end of NATO and allow a return to a more normal situation, opening the way to a new European space based on economic cooperation and cultural exchange, “from the Urals to the Atlantic.” Paradoxically, the agg...

 White House exchange was a masterclass in leadership. During the March 17 meeting, when President Donald Trump dismissed UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer as “no Winston Churchill,” the Irish Taoiseach, Micheál Martin, corrected President Trump twice with calm clarity. He acknowledged Churchill’s role as a great wartime leader but noted that, given Ireland’s history and struggle for independence from the United Kingdom, Churchill’s legacy is viewed through a more complex lens. Mr Martin also defended Starmer, calling him “a very earnest, sound person” and praising his efforts to improve Irish–British relations. In a similar spirit, Zohran Mamdani, mayor of New York City, showed the same composure when he met President Trump despite previous criticism. Moments like these show that leadership is often revealed in how people respond to powerful and controversial figures. One can only hope that other European heads of state and governments will show the same clarity and courage when face...

 Whenever powerful countries, like the U.S., talk about regime change, they should think twice about the consequences. Iraq shows how foreign intervention can backfire. Iraq was once a secular, unified country. After the U.S. invasions and regime change — especially in 2003 — its institutions collapsed, and sectarian politics became dominant. Instead of restoring a secular state, the new system became organized around religious identity and divided factions, making politics unstable and fragmented. Today, 35 years after the first U.S. attack in 1991, Iraq still cannot form a stable government because competing blocs cannot agree, and the country hosts several foreign military presences — the U.S., Turkey, NATO, and armed groups backed by regional powers. The U.S. embassy has come under repeated attacks, and the U.S. government is urging its citizens to leave Iraq for their safety. As the old Arabic saying goes: “The winds do not always blow in the direction of the ships” — a stark ...

 The aggression led by Israel and the United States against Iran, initially expected to last a few days, has now entered its third week. How is this war unfolding? And who will win it? Military stakes are high, and censorship is strong, particularly in Israel. Yet, it is possible to attempt an answer based on available evidence. The material cost is enormous, nearly one billion dollars per day. Rising oil and gas prices weigh heavily on Europe. Growing opposition may emerge in the U.S., especially among business sectors sensitive to costs and risks of instability. Public opinion remains wary of a new Middle East war. Destruction in Iran is significant, but Israel also suffers heavy damage. Iran shows unexpected resilience and energy. Recent history offers lessons: the U.S. failed in long and costly wars like Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, not only for military or political reasons but also because they were unjust. Today, Iran is a country victim of external aggression, which stre...

 Sometimes I read a book that touches me deeply, not only because of its content and message, but also because of the living presence of the person who wrote it. Jeanne Baillaut, the author of this third collection of free poetry entitled Tears and Flowers, is a young woman at heart, aged 91. A Frenchwoman, she was born in Spain where she lived for three years before moving to France, where she grew up and lived until 1956. That year she traveled to Morocco, and two years later she emigrated to Canada, where she still lives today. Her life has been rich in experiences and commitments, and she has contributed to the francophone community with sensitivity and cultural generosity. The texts gathered in this collection are not poems in the strict sense. They are closer to poetic prose, a form of writing that resembles speech, meant to be spoken, heard, and felt. Jeanne herself expresses it this way: “I write as I speak… What I find beautiful rises within me like the sea upon the shore ...