Advertisement A ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hezbollah this is excellent news for a region torn apart by over a yr of war. Once implemented, the ceasefire will hopefully provide some respite for each Lebanese and Israeli civilians.

Agreement got here into force on Wednesday at 4:00 a.m. local time. However, the previous 24-48 hours had been dramatic increase in violence on either side. This is a part of a long-established pattern of warfare by which the intensity of fighting increases just before a ceasefire comes into force.

My tests showed that while a ceasefire may be the least worst option we are able to pursue to reduce violence in war, it is actually not a panacea.

In particular, I examine the timing and dynamics of ceasefires to higher understand a few of their less obvious consequences. Here are 4 questions and concerns I actually have about the current ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah.

1. What will occur after 60 days?

The ceasefire agreement reportedly does 13 points whose aim is to stop hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah for 60 days.

This would theoretically allow over a million people displaced from southern Lebanon and over 60,000 people displaced from northern Israel to return to their homes.

The return of Israelis to their homes in the north is considered one of the goals of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu clear war purposes. Thousands of northern Israelis have been housed in hotels across the country for over a yr at great cost to the government, so there is also a large economic incentive to enter into this deal.

However, given the relatively short time-frame and the fragile nature of the ceasefire, it stays to be seen whether civilians on either side will take the opportunity to return home.

In addition, there is destruction in southern Lebanon extensivemaking it difficult for people to return inside the relatively short duration of the truce.

Although US President Joe Biden and his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron have said a ceasefire would ensure base for “lasting peace,” the terms of the ceasefire provide no details on what is going to occur after the 60-day period.

2. The conflict may spread to Syria

Many of the terms refer to limiting Hezbollah’s ability to rearm during the ceasefire. This includes dismantling all illegal infrastructure and weapons production facilities in southern Lebanon.

Hezbollah’s principal patron, Iran, supplies weapons to Hezbollah through Syria. The terms of the ceasefire raise the possibility that Israel will conduct more airstrikes in Syria to ensure weapons from Iran do not reach Hezbollah.

While not expressly permitted under the ceasefire or international law, the agreement provides Israel with some justification for taking such motion. It may argue that it is enforcing the terms of the ceasefire by stopping Hezbollah from rearming with arms supplies from Iran.

After Israel announced the ceasefire targeted for the first time, places on Lebanon’s northern border with Syria, probably to limit Iran’s influence.

3. No details regarding troop withdrawal

In many respects, the ceasefire is based on UN Security Council Resolution 1701that ended the war between Hezbollah and Israel in 2006.

It is ironic that the terms of the ceasefire recognize the importance of this resolution when Israel largely did not ignored several other UN resolutions calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.

And probably Resolution 1701 was never complete implemented by Israel or Hezbollah.

Another condition of the agreement is that Israel will progressively withdraw its troops from southern Lebanon over 60 days.

At that point, the Lebanese army and state security forces will turn out to be “the only entities authorized to bear arms or deploy troops” in the area south of the Litani River. Al Jazeera has reported that Israel insists that Hezbollah disband and leave southern Lebanon before any Israeli soldiers withdraw.

Given that the ceasefire does not include any details regarding logistics, it stays to be seen whether and the way the IDF will withdraw its troops. In addition, it is generally the Lebanese army and security forces seen as vastly underfunded and unable and/or unwilling to challenge Hezbollah’s primacy in Lebanon.

Next, one other one deadline The ceasefire agreement states that the United States will support indirect negotiations between Israel and Lebanon to achieve an internationally recognized delimitation of their border.

The explicit mention of negotiations at the border suggests that it might change as a results of the ceasefire. This may mean that, as a result, Israel will try to retain and maintain the latest territory.

4. What about Gaza?

Netanyahu does he said the ceasefire will enable Israel to focus its efforts on Hamas fighters in Gaza and its principal security threat, Iran.

Other officials called the ceasefire a “gamechanger” that might show Hamas that the conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon have been resolved.

Hezbollah has had this before he insisted did not agree to a ceasefire until the war in Gaza ended. The latest agreement assumes that this condition has been dropped.

Some people do suggested a ceasefire with Hezbollah could put additional pressure on Hamas to agree to an agreement with Israel to release the remaining Israeli hostages it holds.

However, this ignores the undeniable fact that Hamas was like this willing to reach a ceasefire agreement in the past, while the Israeli government did so difficult negotiations by adding latest terms at the last minute.

Moreover, Qatar has turn out to be so frustrated by the “reluctance to engage” and “lack of good faith” on either side that it recently he withdrew as a mediator between the parties.

The ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah should not distract attention from the fighting in Gaza or the horrific and tragic humanitarian situation there.

Time will tell how the war in Gaza will unfold. Will Israel undertake a more formal occupation of parts of the enclave, as some have suggested? Or will a ceasefire with Hezbollah serve to isolate Hamas to the point where it feels it has even less to lose than it – and the Palestinians – have already got?

Donald Trump’s return to the White House in January 2025, combined with the presence of the Republican-led US Senate, was was widely feared amongst international allies and shall be cheered by some of America’s enemies. While the former placed on a brave face, the latter can barely hide their joy.

ON war in UkraineTrump will likely attempt to force Kiev and Moscow to at the least conform to a ceasefire on their current front lines. This could possibly include a everlasting agreement recognizing Russia’s territorial gains, including the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and occupied territories since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

It can also be likely that Trump will accept Russian President Vladimir Putin’s demands stopping Ukraine’s future membership in NATO. Given Trump’s well-known distaste for NATO, it might also put significant pressure on Kiev’s European allies. Trump could once more threaten to desert the alliance to influence Europeans to sign an agreement with Putin on Ukraine.

When it involves Middle EastTrump has been a staunch supporter of Israel and Saudi Arabia in the past. He will likely double down on this, including taking an excellent tougher stance on Iran. This is in step with the current priorities of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Netanyahu appears determined to destroy Iran’s proxies, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis in Yemen and seriously degrade Iran’s capabilities. By rejection his Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, by criticizing his conduct of the offensive in Gaza, Netanyahu laid the foundations for the continuation of the conflict in that country.

It can also be preparing for an expanded offensive in Lebanon and a potentially devastating attack on Iran in response to further actions Iranian attack on Israel.

Trump’s election will embolden Netanyahu to act. And this, in turn, would also strengthen Trump’s position towards Putin, who relies on Iran’s support in his war in Ukraine. Trump could offer to limit Netanyahu in the future as a bargaining chip against Putin in his game to secure an agreement on Ukraine.

Move to China

Although Ukraine and the Middle East are two areas where changes are looming, relations with China will almost certainly be characterised by continuity relatively than change. With relations with China perhaps the key strategic challenge in U.S. foreign policy, the Biden administration has continued many of the policies adopted by Trump during his first term, and Trump will likely double down on them in his second term.

The Trump White House is more likely to raise import tariffs, and it has done so he talked loads about using them to attack China. But Trump is equally more likely to be open to pragmatic transaction deals with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

As in relations with European allies in NATO, a serious query mark hangs over Trump’s involvement in the so-called defense of Taiwan and other treaty allies in Asia, including the Philippines, South Korea and potentially Japan. Trump is at best indifferent to American security guarantees.

But as his on-and-off relationship with North Korea during his first term showed, Trump is typically willing to accomplish that push the envelope dangerously near war. This happened in 2017 in response to North Korea’s intercontinental ballistic missile test.

The unpredictability of the Pyongyang regime makes one other such close encounter just as likely as Trump’s unpredictability makes it conceivable that he would accept a nuclear-armed North Korea as part of a broader agreement with Russia, which has forged increasingly closer relations with Kim Jong-un’s regime.

This would give Trump additional influence over China, which was the case anxious on account of growing relations between Russia and North Korea.

Preparations for the Trump White House

Friends and foes alike plan to make use of the remaining months before Trump returns to the White House to try to enhance their standing and tackle issues that will be harder once he takes office.

Anticipating Trump’s push to finish wars in Ukraine and the Middle East will likely result in intensified fighting there to create a establishment that various sides say shall be more acceptable to them. This doesn’t bode well for the humanitarian crises which are already mounting in each regions.

An increase in tension on and around the Korean Peninsula cannot even be ruled out. Pyongyang will likely want this increase its credibility with much more missile – and potentially nuclear – tests.

Intensifying fighting in Europe and the Middle East and tensions in Asia are also more likely to strain relations between the United States and its allies in all three regions. There is fear in Europe that Trump may strike deals with Russia over the heads of its EU and NATO allies and threaten to desert them.

This would undermine the durability of any Ukrainian (or, more broadly, European) agreement with Moscow. Relative dismal condition European defense capabilities and the declining credibility of the US nuclear umbrella wouldn’t only help encourage Putin to further his imperial ambitions after securing an agreement with Trump.

In the Middle East, Netanyahu can be completely unrestrained. And yet, while some Arab regimes may cheer on Israel striking Iran and Iranian proxies, they’ll accomplish that worry about the response on the difficult situation of the Palestinians. Without solving this age-old problem, stability in the region, let alone peace, shall be almost unimaginable.

In Asia, the challenges are different. In this case, the problem is less about US withdrawal and more about unpredictable and potentially unmanageable escalation. Under Trump’s rule, it’s rather more likely that the US and China will find it difficult to flee the so-called Thucydides trap – the inevitability of war between a dominant but declining power and its emerging rival.

This raises the query of whether U.S. alliances in the region are secure in the long run, or whether some of its partners, reminiscent of Indonesia and India, will consider realigning with China.

All of this means, at best, more uncertainty and instability – not only after Trump’s inauguration, but additionally in the months leading as much as that date.

At worst, this may prove to be the undoing of Trump’s self-proclaimed infallibility. But before he and his team realized that geopolitics was more complicated than real estate, they might have began the same chaos they accused Biden and Harris of.

I stand within the basement kitchen and poke on the sheep’s liver, in search of marks on its smooth surface. People are flocking to film the proceedings because I’m here to ask the query everyone wants answered: Will Donald Trump win the US election?

I follow instructions that were first written down by the ancient Babylonians 4,000 years ago and which have survived to this present day. Every wrinkle within the liver has a meaning, and cuneiform tablets discovered in modern-day Iraq explain how to interpret them.

Armed with this information, it is feasible to calculate the reply to any query, provided it’s yes or no, by adding up the variety of positive or negative signs and seeing which one comes out on top.

Since this liver contained an amazing variety of bad omens, I he stated that this time she said “no” to Trump. Although in 2016 this method he predicted victory long before he won the Republican nomination, and in 2020 he predicted that he wouldn’t be re-elected this yr.

What began as a fun conversation at a university open day has since turn out to be a serious part my research – not because I sincerely imagine in it, but since it gives us a few of the earliest evidence in history of how humans reason and think.

Looking at livers also allows us to draw serious conclusions about how people have handled uncertainty throughout history and proceed to struggle with it today. People have developed techniques as diverse as astrology, tarot cards, and even gut-searching in response to the agony of not knowing or the strain of creating a difficult decision.

Given the extent of feeling invested on this election, this can be a unique moment by which perhaps we are able to appreciate that on this respect we aren’t that different from those that lived 1000’s of years ago, even when our methods of looking into the long run are different .

I’m asking in regards to the insides

Developed in its classical form in Babylon, visceral divination was practiced throughout ancient Mesopotamia, with recorded history dating from the third millennium BC to the first century AD

This had enormous significance across all levels of society – it was a typical a part of the political decision-making process on the royal court, but was open to all. Budget options were even available for many who couldn’t afford a sheep.

People addressed their questions directly to the gods and believed that the moment they asked the reply could be written on their insides. This can then be “read” by a diviner trained on this esoteric language.

The British Museum has an archive of real questions asked by the king of Assyria (a kingdom in northern Mesopotamia) within the seventh century BC. All sorts of matters of state were placed before the gods. Will the Egyptians attack? Has the enemy taken over the besieged city? Will the governors return home safely?

Reading the archive, one gets the sensation that one’s nerves are on a knife’s edge because the king waits for news from afar, wanting to know what has happened to his soldiers and trying to resolve what to do next.

He not only asked them about what would occur in the long run, but in addition consulted with them about possible courses of motion. Should the Assyrian army enter the war? Should the king send a messenger to make peace? Asking the gods for his or her opinion would help him feel more confident in his next steps.

The Babylonians had no selections. However, this did not mean that the king could do whatever he wanted. It was vital to his public image that the gods were on his side, in addition to to his own self-confidence.

Each time a robust official was appointed, the entrails were read to make sure the gods’ acceptance. The army commander, high priests, and other vital positions were subject to this requirement. On one occasion, even the selection of the crown prince – and subsequently the long run king of Assyria – was put to the test.

The interpretation of the viscera was done with almost scientific standards of accuracy. Diviners worked in pairs or groups of up to 11 people, checking one another’s work to ensure they did it right. This was not a vague or murky process, but an actual attempt to ensure “accuracy” that might not be manipulated to get the reply the king wanted to hear.

Modern forecasting

We all want to know what the long run holds, and we have provide you with ingenious ways to discover, from opinion polls and data modeling to Paul the octopuswho became famous for selecting the winners of soccer matches throughout the 2010 World Cup. But are our methods really higher than looking contained in the sheep?

As all investors caution, past performance isn’t any guarantee of future performance. However, the one data we have now for our predictions is from the past, and most of our models don’t account for “unknown unknowns.”

As many experts have learned, predicting the long run is a difficult business: Polls can lie and other people can change their minds, while economists were often blindsided by sudden crashes.

Since liver reading only answers “yes” or “no”, it would be correct 50% of the time, according to the law of averages. Despite its randomness, the success rate can have seemed convincing on the time.

And once we trust the authority of the source, it is simple to discover a way to explain a mistaken result – the prediction got to the halfway point, answered a unique query, or would have been right if x hadn’t happened.

We shouldn’t be blind to the weaknesses of our own methods. We are sometimes mistaken, and the Babylonians may sometimes be right.