Trita Parsi has a rational, pro-American view of the Iran war, so naturally Bari Weiss tried to get him deported. Trita Parsi is an award-winning foreign policy expert and author specializing in U.S.–Iran relations and Middle East diplomacy. He is the 2010 recipient of the Grawemeyer Award and has written several acclaimed books, including Treacherous Alliance and Losing an Enemy, on U.S. foreign policy and Iran. He co-founded and serves as Executive Vice President of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and teaches at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service.

Find Parsi here: https://tritaparsi.substack.com/

On 11 June 2026, I was on the “Deep Dive” with Lt. Col. (ret.) Danny Davis talking about Ukraine and Iran. Danny and I laid out the case that although neither the Iran war nor the Ukraine war is over, it is clear that Iran and Russia are going to be the winners and the US and its allies are going to suffer a pair of humiliating defeats. Save for the 1991 Gulf War, the US has been on a serious losing streak since at least the Vietnam war. Think Afghanistan and Iraq. There seems to be little doubt that the Iran and Ukraine wars are going to scramble the international landscape in significant ways, which is a subject for another day.

Andrew Korybko

Iran is poised to gradually return to the US-led Western order within certain limits exactly as Iran’s moderate faction has long wanted, its hardline faction has successfully preserved the armed forces and their missile stockpile, while Israel achieved none of its goals in its most epic defeat ever.

Iran and the US plan to sign a Zarif-inspired memorandum of understanding (MoU) on ending the Third Gulf War this Friday in Switzerland. The exact details aren’t yet known, and Fortune reported that there were at least three competing texts, but all of them “include similar elements around reopening the vital Strait of Hormuz waterway, giving Iran sanctions relief and opening the door to longer-term negotiations around its nuclear program.” That’s already enough to arrive at several very important conclusions.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

“Kar nisi uspel doseči z orožjem, težko dosežeš s pogajanji”

So what is in “The Deal with Islamic Republic of Iran”?

If you’re confused, it’s normal: the US and Iran already publicly disagree on what they agreed to, and it’s not even a “deal”: just a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that sets the terms for negotiating the actual deal within the next 60 days.

We do, however, know a few things:

1) Israel is actively trying to undermine the deal – for instance by striking Beirut yesterday Sunday.

Israeli media say that the deal is causing “profound concern among Israeli officials,” that “Israel, despite having started the war alongside the US, was not involved in the negotiations,” and that “the deal do[es] not achieve the goals of the war that were set out by the US and Israel” (https://timesofisrael.com/us-iran-reach-deal-to-end-war-reportedly-including-lebanon-conflict-trump-hormuz-to-open/).

That last part is clear: the very existence of this MOU proves the objectives of the war were not met, as they certainly didn’t include the US negotiating an exit with an undefeated Iran while Israel is freaking out about it on the sidelines.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Jakob Marcel Del Piero

Evropa se danes sooča s paradoksom svoje gospodarske prihodnosti. Po eni strani države članice Evropske unije potrebujejo največji investicijski val po drugi svetovni vojni – od zelenega prehoda in energetske neodvisnosti do digitalizacije, tehnološke konkurenčnosti ter krepitve obrambnih zmogljivosti. Na drugi strani pa pa jih pri tem omejujejo fiskalna pravila, katerih primarni cilj je omejevanje javnega dolga in zagotavljanje stabilnosti javnih financ.

Toda kaj se zgodi, če pravila, ustvarjena za zaščito prihodnosti, začnejo omejevati investicije, brez katerih prihodnosti sploh ne bo mogoče zgraditi?

To vprašanje predstavlja eno osrednjih ekonomskih dilem Evropske unije. Fiskalna disciplina je nedvomno temelj zaupanja v javne finance in stabilnost skupne valute. Vendar pa lahko pretirano osredotočanje na kratkoročne fiskalne cilje povzroči dolgoročne ekonomske stroške, če države zaradi omejitev zmanjšujejo ravno tiste investicije, ki povečujejo produktivnost, inovacijsko sposobnost in konkurenčnost gospodarstev.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Mnogi pišejo debele knjige o planetarnih mejah, nekatere so dolge celo po 2000 strani. Toda prav ti isti avtorji – v svoji ideološki slepoti? – spregledajo preprosto dejstvo, ki je temelj razvoja na svetu skozi zgodovino človeške vrste. Zmota o končnosti planeta temelji na napačni predpostavki, da je gospodarska rast omejena s končno količino materialnih virov na Zemlji. Čeprav je količina atomov na planetu res omejena, gospodarska rast ne izhaja iz povečevanja količine snovi, temveč iz izbojšane učinkovitosti njihove uporabe – torej iz človeškega znanja, inovacij in vedno boljšega načina organizacije ter uporabe obstoječih virov. Nova vrednost ne nastaja iz dodatne mase, ampak iz idej – isti kilogram silicija je lahko brezvredna mivka ali pa visokotehnološki mikročip. Zgodovina gospodarskega razvoja kaže, da so človeška ustvarjalnost, tehnološki napredek, substitucija redkih virov in večja učinkovitost vedno znova premaknili navidezne meje rasti. Pravo bogastvo človeštva zato ni zaloga omejenih naravnih virov, temveč neomejena sposobnost ustvarjanja novega znanja o tem, kako te vire uporabiti za ustvarjanje večje blaginje.

A critique I often get, whenever I defend economic growth, runs like this: “The truth is that the pie is fixed. The Earth is a closed system. You cannot sustain exponential growth on a finite planet.” It is delivered with the confidence of a physical law — as if invoking the conservation of mass settles the matter and only an economist too compromised to see it could disagree. It is the founding intuition of degrowth, of much of the environmental movement, and of the Club of Rome before them. It is also wrong, and wrong in an instructive way, because the error is not in the physics. It is in the economics smuggled inside the physics.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Spodnje vprašanje Maxa Roserja je res malce pod pasom. Vendar pa zadeva nevralgično točko Pikettyjevega predloga. So se predlagatelji višje obdavčitve višjih dohodkov in premoženja v zahodnih državah pripravljeni odpovedati večjemu delu svojih dohodkov in zmanjšanju lastnega premoženja? In kako bi višja obdavčitev vplivala na njihovo pripravljenost, da dodatno oziroma več delajo?

(Mimogrede, Max Roser je urednik in glavni analitik spletnega portala Our World in Data, ki je v zadnjem desetletju postal eden glavnih ponudnikov – for free – statističnih podatkov. Toda Roser prav zaradi tega razume spodbude za delo in posledičen vpliv na gospodarsko rast)

Thank you for answering questions Mr Piketty.

I also have one.

Like you, I also don’t want to live in a world where some are vastly richer than others and thereby have vast control over others. I’m with you on that.

But I’m wondering how you are thinking about yourself in relation to your proposal. Given your work, I’d imagine you earn perhaps 500,000? Or given just how large your sales figures are, probably more?

How do you square this with your proposal? Will you stop working as much so your salary goes down to 60,000? Or are you perhaps already giving away almost all your income?