Five months into the war, the United States and Iran are confronting the limits of military power. Both sides have demonstrated their ability to inflict damage, but neither has converted force or resilience into a decisive political outcome.

President Donald Trump is threatening to expand the bombing campaign, calculating that greater pressure will eventually compel Tehran to retreat. Iran, however, continues to retaliate directly and through its allies, widening the battlefield instead of accepting Washington’s terms.

The war has consequently entered a familiar cycle. The United States strikes Iranian targets to weaken Tehran’s capacity to attack American forces and commercial shipping. Iran responds with fresh attacks, prompting Washington to escalate again. Each round is presented as necessary to deter the next, but instead provides its justification.

America retains overwhelming military superiority. Yet that advantage has neither secured reliable passage through the Strait of Hormuz nor ended Iranian attacks. It has also failed to force Tehran into a settlement on Washington’s terms.

Iran cannot defeat the United States in a conventional war. It can, however, prolong the conflict, threaten shipping, drive up energy prices and intensify pressure on Gulf states. That imbalance is turning the war into a test of endurance rather than a contest likely to produce a clear victory.

Washington is betting that strikes and economic pressure will exhaust the Iranian regime. Tehran is wagering that American casualties, rising costs and political divisions will eventually force Trump to lower his demands.

The danger is growing as Iran’s allies become more deeply involved. Expanded Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping have opened another front and placed an alternative route for Saudi oil exports at risk while passage through Hormuz remains disrupted.

The central problem is not that either side lacks power. It is that neither has established a viable path for converting force into a settlement. Every unsuccessful round of attacks increases the temptation to try a more severe level of escalation.

Without an achievable political objective or a credible negotiating channel, America and Iran may continue expanding the war without bringing its end any closer. The decisive question will then be not which side can deliver the harder blow, but which can endure the longer and more costly conflict.

Source: The Wall Street Journal

The post America and Iran Are Locked in a Cycle of Escalation appeared first on Ontime+.

President Donald Trump faces a choice that can no longer be postponed: keep the war with Iran confined to limited, proportional retaliation, or use American power decisively against the regime driving the escalation.

So far, U.S. policy has remained caught between those approaches. Trump warns Iran of unprecedented consequences, yet links every Iranian attack on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz to a corresponding U.S. strike on a bridge or power plant. That formula may project resolve, but it effectively allows Tehran to determine the war’s tempo and limits.

Operation Epic Fury began as an expansive military campaign before an April truce suspended major combat on the condition that Iran reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Tehran did not fulfill that commitment, while Washington continued extending pauses and signaling its willingness to negotiate.

The United States offered to ease its blockade and permit renewed Iranian oil exports in exchange for reopening the strait and beginning nuclear talks. Yet, as the author argues, Tehran responded by continuing to threaten shipping and Gulf states, advancing work at fortified nuclear sites and ultimately striking a U.S. base in Jordan, killing American troops.

The problem is not a lack of diplomatic opportunities. It is that Iran’s leadership interprets restraint as weakness. The regime does not need to defeat the United States militarily. It needs only to survive, preserve its ability to disrupt shipping, drive up energy prices and impose casualties on American forces and their allies.

For that reason, the author contends that isolated strikes cannot achieve Trump’s stated objectives. If Washington intends to eliminate the Iranian threat, it must target the machinery that enables the regime to sustain the war: the Revolutionary Guard’s leadership, command-and-control centers, missile and drone factories, logistics networks and state propaganda apparatus.

Such a strategy would not be cost-free. American troops have been killed, critical Gulf infrastructure has been damaged, oil prices have risen and the danger of a broader regional conflict has intensified. But continuing the war in its current form compounds those costs without moving Washington closer to a decisive political outcome.

The past several months have exposed the limits of diplomacy unsupported by credible military pressure. If Trump wants to end the war rather than merely manage it, he must recognize that the central problem is not a single bridge, power plant or missile launcher. It is the Iranian regime itself.

Source: The Wall Street Journal

The post Iran’s Regime Is the Problem appeared first on Ontime+.

Source: The Wall Street Journal

I am not a sports fan. I have never watched an entire soccer match, let alone followed a tournament. But indifference is not contempt. Sport displays extraordinary physical achievement, sustains a major industry and brings genuine pleasure to people who play and watch it.

That enthusiasm appears more common among men. Progressives often explain the gap by pointing to a sporting culture that historically offered women fewer opportunities and made them feel less welcome. There is truth in that argument. Since the passage of Title IX in 1972, participation by American girls in school and college sports has risen dramatically, showing that access and resources matter.

Yet the gap persists. Women are more likely to leave sport after completing their education, while men are more likely to follow professional competition and describe themselves as avid fans. Cross-cultural studies report similar differences in very different societies, suggesting that social conditioning is not the entire explanation.

Evolutionary psychologists argue that sport gave men and boys a safe arena in which to practice skills associated with hunting and warfare: running, tackling, throwing, dodging and tactical cooperation. It also allowed communities to assess potential allies and rivals. On this reading, sport is not merely entertainment. It is a controlled simulation of conflict.

The connection between the playing field and the battlefield also helps explain why sport exposes national loyalties. In 1990, British politician Norman Tebbit proposed what became known as the “cricket test”: Which team does an immigrant support when the country of origin plays the adopted homeland? The question was never only about sport. It was about identity—and which side someone might choose if symbolic competition became real conflict.

Divided loyalties can seem amusing when they involve Britain, Australia and New Zealand, countries unlikely to fight one another. They become more sensitive when the country of origin is a political or military adversary of the adopted state. Support for a team can then be interpreted, however unfairly, as a signal of deeper allegiance.

Even in its highly regulated modern form, sport continues to channel primal emotions and reveal powerful loyalties. That is why people who dismiss it as “sportsball” miss something important. You may not enjoy watching it—I certainly do not—but it remains a revealing window into competition, identity and the human need to turn conflict into a ritual governed by rules.

Source: The Wall Street Journal

The post Sports Are War by Other Means appeared first on Ontime+.

For years, global financial institutions treated the Gulf as a single investment market: deep pools of capital, a long-term appetite for assets, and a willingness to fund major international projects. That assumption is no longer sustainable—if it ever was.

The growing divergence between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates is no longer only a geopolitical matter. It is increasingly shaping the movement of money, talent, and assets across the region. Banks and fund managers must now reconsider their long-held belief that the Gulf can be approached as one large, uniform wallet.

The issue is not that the Gulf has suddenly become more complex. Rather, Western institutions have spent too long treating it as though it were simple. Similar levels of capital do not mean identical priorities, national strategies, or expectations of return.

Saudi Arabia is directing investment toward economic diversification, domestic capabilities, and job creation for its growing working-age population. The UAE, meanwhile, is looking for global platforms that reinforce its position as an indispensable hub in the post-oil economy. Qatar continues to use investment to hedge energy-market exposure, diversify its influence, and strengthen its geopolitical reach.

As a result, the same transaction may hold very different appeal for different Gulf investors. A data-center project, for example, may be evaluated in Saudi Arabia for its ability to build domestic capacity; in the UAE for the supply-chain leverage it creates; and in Qatar for its resilience in the face of long-term political and economic disruption.

The era of generic pitches, brief visits, and broad assumptions is over. Gulf investors—whether sovereign wealth funds or private capital linked to influential families and institutions—do not invest simply because a project is large or prestigious. Patient capital is not undiscerning capital.

Global financial firms will need to offer more precise, transparent, and strategically aligned deals. They should test their assumptions early: Does a proposal rely on continued regional integration? Does it fit each country’s industrial and economic-transition plans? Who ultimately controls the movement of data, people, and assets if geopolitical tensions escalate?

The Gulf should be treated for what it is: a mature, competitive, and demanding market. Earning the confidence of its investors will require deeper local knowledge, stronger partnerships, and proposals built around the priorities of each individual market.

Source: Bloomberg Opinion

The post What Wall Street Never Understood About Gulf Investors appeared first on Ontime+.

Beth Kowitt argues that companies rarely suffer most from the positions they take. They suffer when employees and customers conclude those positions were never genuine in the first place.

Corporate America has become adept at making carefully worded statements that leave room for flexibility. But when a company draws a clear ethical line and later crosses it, the damage often comes not from the decision itself but from the inconsistency, Bloomberg Opinion columnist Beth Kowitt writes.

She points to law firm Sullivan & Cromwell, which is reportedly helping President Donald Trump’s legal team seek Supreme Court review of a jury verdict in favor of E. Jean Carroll. The firm’s involvement drew scrutiny because partners had previously been told it would not participate in work related to the Carroll cases.

For Kowitt, the episode illustrates what corporate governance experts describe as the “say-do gap” — the disconnect between public commitments and corporate actions. Employees and customers may disagree with a company’s values, she argues, but they are less likely to tolerate values that appear negotiable.

The same pattern has emerged elsewhere. Google faced employee backlash when actions appeared to conflict with its long-promoted ethical identity. Target encountered consumer criticism after scaling back diversity initiatives that had become central to its public brand. In both cases, Kowitt argues, the strongest reaction stemmed from perceived inconsistency rather than the underlying policy decisions.

Research increasingly supports that view. Companies viewed as authentic and consistent tend to earn stronger customer loyalty, command higher pricing power, receive better reviews and benefit from higher employee engagement, according to studies cited in the column.

Kowitt argues that companies have every right to evolve as business conditions change. What they cannot afford, she writes, is leaving employees and customers wondering whether their stated principles were ever sincerely held.

Bottom line

Corporate values do not have to remain static. But when companies change course, transparency and consistency matter as much as the decision itself.

Source

Bloomberg Opinion

The post The Biggest Corporate Risk Is Abandoning Your Own Principles appeared first on Ontime+.

The post Why Iran Is Returning to War appeared first on Ontime+.

 Rowan Ricardo Phillips

As England’s players pressed, chased and collided in the World Cup semifinal, Lionel Messi walked.

At 39, he no longer covers the same ground or produces the bursts of speed that shaped his early legend. But he was not leaving the match. He was finding his way into it.

Every game contains two clocks. One is official and unforgiving. The other measures the moment a defender tires, a midfielder loses half a step or a passing lane remains open one second too long. Messi watches that second clock.

Speed was never the whole secret. Even as a teenager, his deeper gift was seeing the game before everyone else. At Barcelona, that vision lived inside a structure: teammates recovered the ball, created passing angles and pulled defenders away. Every pass arrived with several possible futures attached, and Messi appeared to see them all.

Argentina spent years treating his genius as a substitute for a system. After losing three finals between 2014 and 2016, the country turned its finest player into the explanation for every failure. Messi was expected to solve everything the team could not—and to express his suffering as visibly as Diego Maradona once had.

He wore Maradona’s No. 10 but never shared his public fury. Messi had left Argentina for Spain at 13. When his country finally encountered him as a complete player, it recognized the familiar talent but not the quiet figure carrying it. What Barcelona understood as concentration, Argentina often judged as indifference.

Lionel Scaloni changed that relationship. He stopped asking Messi to be the beginning and end of every attack. He built a team that could recover possession, move the ball forward and run beyond defenses. Younger players who had grown up watching Messi did not ask him to prove his love for Argentina. They ran for him as if it were already understood.

The 2021 Copa América and the 2022 World Cup settled the old argument. Messi had not become Maradona. He had become himself, and Argentina had learned to recognize both his silence and his anger as ways of carrying the same burden.

Against England, Argentina trailed with its final journey apparently nearing its end. Scaloni added attackers; England added defenders. Argentina chose possibility. England chose time.

In the 85th minute, Messi found Enzo Fernández in a space others had missed. Fernández equalized. Seven minutes later, Messi crossed with his right foot to Lautaro Martínez, who scored the winner.

Messi did not outrun England. Argentina organized the night so he could outsee and outlast it.

In the final, the official clock will keep moving. Messi will be watching the other one.

He will walk. Argentina will run.

This may be the last time we see them this way.

Source: The New York Times

The post Messi Is Walking Into History appeared first on Ontime+.

Leo Lewis

Japan has abruptly entered an ideological contest between two economic visions: Abenomics and Takanomics. The confrontation is especially striking because it does not involve traditional political rivals. Instead, Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi is challenging the economic legacy of her former mentor, Shinzo Abe.

Takaichi built her political career through a close association with Abe, learning from him and adopting much of his political language. Many therefore assumed she would revive his mix of massive stimulus, a weaker currency and policies designed to pull Japan out of deflation. Her recent decisions suggest the resemblance was more political than economic.

Takaichi has unveiled a strategy to direct $2.3tn in public and private investment into 17 strategic sectors by 2040. The list includes artificial intelligence, data centres and video games, but notably excludes the car industry despite its central role in Japan’s economy.

The government has not explained how the investment will be divided between public and private funding. That uncertainty has unsettled markets. Investors are asking whether Takaichi intends to loosen fiscal policy too aggressively, how far government bond yields might rise and what could reverse the yen’s decline to multidecade lows.

The clearest response came from Finance Minister Satsuki Katayama, who suggested that Japan’s major pension funds should increase their exposure to domestic assets. That includes the $1.81tn Government Pension Investment Fund. Markets understood the implication: buy more Japanese government bonds.

The proposal goes beyond routine portfolio rebalancing. It resembles verbal intervention in the bond market by a government anxious to prevent the 10-year yield from moving above 3 per cent. Katayama also raised the possibility of allowing individuals to hold government bonds in tax-free Nippon individual savings accounts.

Abe introduced those accounts to encourage Japanese households to move cash savings into riskier assets. They were not designed to become repositories for government debt. This is where the fundamental divide between the two economic systems becomes clear.

Abenomics placed corporate governance at the centre of its programme. It raised standards for companies and investors, empowered shareholders and tolerated activism. Despite his ideological convictions, Abe did not believe the state should direct every economic decision. His approach assumed that stronger governance and market forces could allocate capital in Japan’s interests.

Takanomics restores the government to the centre of that process. It assumes companies should invest according to a national plan. Shareholders who regard markets as better capital allocators than governments could increasingly be treated as obstacles rather than partners. Political pressure on pension-fund decisions also recalls an era when institutional independence was fragile.

The same concern applies to efforts to steer household savings toward the bond market. Such a policy risks treating citizens as instruments of economic management rather than investors entitled to pursue their own interests.

Both Abenomics and Takanomics have an internal logic, despite their contradictions. Takaichi’s approach may ultimately prove suitable for Japan, but it has yet to demonstrate that. What is already clear is that this is not a revival of Abe’s programme. It is a break from it—and the tensions seen so far may be only the beginning.

Source: Financial Times

The post Takanomics vs Abenomics: the $2.3tn prizefight appeared first on Ontime+.

Some World Cup semi-finals feel bigger than the stage itself. Spain against France is one of them.

The two European heavyweights arrive in the last four unbeaten, but they have taken very different routes. France have powered through the tournament with its most productive attack. Spain have built their campaign around possession, patience and the strongest defensive record among the remaining teams.

France want space. Spain want to remove it.

Only one approach will earn a place in the World Cup final.

Two Different Roads to Arlington

Spain’s campaign began with an early warning.

World Cup debutants Cape Verde held the European champions to a goalless draw, raising questions about whether Luis de la Fuente’s team could break down a compact and disciplined defence.

Spain responded emphatically.

They defeated Saudi Arabia 4-0 before beating Uruguay 1-0 to finish top of their group. Austria were dispatched 3-0 in the Round of 32, followed by narrow but hard-earned victories over Portugal and Belgium.

France’s journey has been more forceful.

Didier Deschamps’ side have won all six of their matches and scored 16 goals, the highest total among the four semi-finalists. They swept past Senegal, Iraq and Norway in the group stage before eliminating Sweden, Paraguay and Morocco in the knockout rounds.

France have also conceded only twice. Their defence has grown more secure as the tournament has progressed, giving Deschamps a team that is dangerous in transition without being fragile out of possession.

The Numbers Tell Two Stories

France have been the tournament’s most dangerous attacking side.

They average close to three goals per match and have consistently created high-quality chances. Kylian Mbappé has led the charge with eight goals in six appearances, while Michael Olise has emerged as one of the competition’s leading creators.

Ousmane Dembélé and Désiré Doué provide further speed, movement and depth in attacking areas. Few teams can match France’s ability to turn a loose ball or a defensive mistake into an immediate scoring chance.

Spain dominate in a different way.

They have averaged almost 66 percent possession, completed close to 600 passes per match and conceded just once in six games. Five of those matches ended with clean sheets.

Rather than overwhelming opponents through constant attacks, Spain gradually wear them down. They control territory, dictate the tempo and use relentless pressing to recover the ball before their opponents can escape.

The contrast is clear.

France are direct. Spain are deliberate.

France attack open space. Spain try to make sure it never appears.

Why Rodri Could Decide the Match

Mbappé will attract most of the attention, but Spain’s most influential player may be Rodri.

The Ballon d’Or winner is the centre of De la Fuente’s system. He dictates the rhythm, protects the back line and gives Spain the structure required to maintain control for long periods.

Ahead of the semi-final, Rodri described France as one of the strongest teams in the tournament but insisted Spain were equally capable of reaching the final.

His biggest challenge will be stopping France from exploiting the spaces that appear when Spain lose possession.

Unlike many of Spain’s previous opponents, France do not need long spells on the ball to create danger. One turnover can quickly release Mbappé, Olise or Dembélé into open space.

That battle between Spain’s control and France’s counter-attacking speed could decide everything.

Recent History Favors Spain

France won the only previous World Cup meeting between the two countries, beating Spain 3-1 in the Round of 16 in 2006.

Recent history, however, points in the opposite direction.

Spain defeated France 2-1 in the Euro 2024 semi-final before winning a dramatic 5-4 encounter in the 2025 UEFA Nations League semi-final.

Across 38 meetings, Spain hold the overall advantage with 18 victories compared with France’s 13.

History guarantees nothing, but the stakes are significant for both sides.

France are attempting to reach a third consecutive World Cup final under Deschamps. Spain are chasing their first appearance in the final since lifting the trophy in 2010.

One Last Test

Few matches offer such a clear clash of footballing philosophies.

Spain will try to dominate possession, slow the game down and gradually pull France out of shape.

France will be comfortable absorbing pressure before attacking at speed whenever the opportunity appears.

The margins are likely to be extremely small.

If Spain deny Mbappé space to run into, their control may become decisive. If France force turnovers in dangerous areas, their attacking quality may be impossible to contain.

This semi-final has all the ingredients of a modern World Cup classic: two elite teams, contrasting systems, world-class talent and a place in the final at stake.

Sources: FIFA, The Athletic, Opta Analyst, BBC Sport, Reuters and UEFA.

The post Control vs Firepower: Spain’s Possession Meets France’s Attack appeared first on Ontime+.

John Thornhill

Financial Times

What makes generative AI unsettling is no longer just its tendency to hallucinate facts. By now, that risk is familiar: phantom books recommended by chatbots, refund policies that do not exist, legal filings built on invented cases. AI labs have spent years trying to improve factual accuracy, yet the basic rule still holds: readers must stay cautious, verify sources and resist the temptation to treat polished outputs as truth.

But the more serious concern may be less visible. The issue is no longer only whether AI gets facts wrong, but whether it quietly shapes the way people speak, think and judge. When a model is asked to polish a LinkedIn post, summarise a YouTube video or explain a post on X, it is not simply relaying information. It may also be nudging opinion, framing a disputed issue in one direction rather than another, while presenting that shift as neutral assistance.

That is the warning emerging from new research by scholars at the Hasso Plattner Institute, the Oxford Internet Institute and the Weizenbaum Institute. Their study found that large language models from several major families systematically introduced directional bias when drafting or improving texts on contested issues. The researchers tested models from Meta, Mistral, Google and Alibaba across 13 politically and socially charged topics, including abortion, gun control, climate change, atheism and the death penalty. Their conclusion was not that AI occasionally slips into bias, but that bias can be embedded in the output as a patterned feature.

One example stood out. The researchers found a pro-life directional bias in outputs generated through X’s “Explain this post” feature, powered by Elon Musk’s Grok model. What makes this especially significant is that it does not resemble the classic form of disinformation. There is no fake image, no fabricated document, no obviously false headline. Instead, the influence works through tone, emphasis, sequencing and subtle rhetorical choices. It is persuasion disguised as assistance.

That is why the risk may prove harder to regulate than deepfakes or outright falsehoods. Policymakers understandably focus on visible harms because they are easier to identify. But a model that invisibly steers interpretation can be more consequential in the long run, precisely because users may never notice the intervention. Nudges can, of course, be beneficial. They can discourage extremist or self-harming content. But they can also intensify division, reward outrage or push users toward positions that serve the interests of the companies building the systems.

The commercial and political incentives matter here. As AI companies become more entangled in politics or more dependent on advertising revenue, the temptation to shape public sentiment is likely to rise. That is what gives this debate its real urgency. The question is not whether bias exists in a general philosophical sense. It is whether private technology companies can quietly build preferred political or emotional orientations into tools that mediate everyday communication for millions of people.

The problem is compounded by opacity. The study could examine only open-weight models, where researchers have at least some access to internal parameters. The most widely used proprietary systems, including ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini, remain largely closed to outside scrutiny. In practice, that means the public is being asked to trust the judgment of model designers without having the tools to independently verify what is happening inside the systems.

Recent safety rankings make that dependence harder to accept comfortably. In an index compiled by the Future of Life Institute, Anthropic, OpenAI and Google DeepMind scored highest among leading AI labs, while xAI, DeepSeek and Mistral ranked last. Yet even the strongest performers received no better than a C+, while the bottom tier received failing grades. The implication is blunt: even the industry’s best-regarded players are operating well short of full confidence.

If the central danger of social media was attention hacking, the next phase may be emotion hacking. That phrase captures the deeper fear around persuasive AI: not simply that it can hold our gaze, but that it can alter how we feel, what we trust and where we lean. And because these systems increasingly mediate communication itself, the line between helping users express themselves and reshaping their worldview may become dangerously thin.

Regulation is only beginning to catch up. Illinois has become the first US state to pass an AI safety law requiring independent third-party audits, and others may follow. But the broader question remains unresolved: can democratic oversight move quickly enough to confront technologies that are becoming highly skilled, and highly invisible, instruments of influence?

The post Title: How Much Is AI Hacking Your Emotions? appeared first on Ontime+.