Former U.S. President Donald Trump recently blocked – or “vetoed” – an Israeli proposal to assassinate Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. According to two anonymous U.S. officials speaking to Reuters, Israel had alerted the U.S. to an operational opportunity during its recent offensive against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Trump, they said, intervened, asking rhetorically, “Have the Iranians killed an American yet? No. Until they do, we’re not even talking about going after the political leadership”. By framing the decision around direct American casualties, Trump signaled his intent to avoid widening the conflict.

Complicity and Constraints: Rethinking U.S. Strategy

The narrative of Trump as a restrained strategist falters under closer scrutiny. Prior to Israel’s offensive against Iran in April 2025, U.S. officials not only greenlit but were reportedly briefed in detail about Israeli plans, including airspace coordination and intelligence sharing. This pre-approval underscores a more active American role in escalating tensions—not merely reacting defensively or moderating extremes.

This complicity blurs the distinction between deterrence and provocation. While Trump did block the specific targeting of Ayatollah Khamenei, this restraint came after enabling a broad strike campaign that devastated Iranian infrastructure and reportedly led to mass civilian casualties. U.S. military logistics and diplomatic cover were indispensable to Israel’s military operation. By stopping short of the most incendiary act—the assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader—Trump preserved plausible deniability without fundamentally de-escalating the conflict.

Thus, the veto does not represent a paradigm of cautious statecraft but rather a boundary-setting maneuver within a shared escalation framework. The U.S. role was less about opposing aggression and more about shaping its contours to avoid immediate retaliation while maximizing pressure on Tehran.

Implications for Middle Eastern Geopolitics

Trump’s refusal to green-light the assassination carries immediate regional consequences. A decapitation strike on Iran’s leadership could have triggered swift and sweeping retaliation, putting U.S. forces and allies across the region at risk. By preventing that escalation, Trump effectively restrained a potentially transformative action that might have forced regional powers to choose sides under acute pressure.

This restraint may also echo in global diplomatic circles. Europe and other U.S. partners—already calling for calm following Israeli strikes that reportedly killed hundreds, including civilians—will view Washington’s veto as a move toward stabilizing future crisis management and preserving strategic leverage for diplomacy.

The Precedent of Targeted Leadership Strikes

This episode recalls past high-stakes interventions, notably the 2020 U.S. drone strike that killed IRGC commander Qasem Soleimani. That attack, justified by claims of imminent threat, triggered swift Iranian missile retaliation and drew scrutiny over its legality and strategic wisdom. Unlike that case, the proposed assassination of Khamenei lacked a similar domestic or international legal mandate, nor had Iran attacked American personnel. Trump’s veto thus reasserts a deliberate threshold: neutralizing foreign leaders demands a different calculus than eliminating military commanders.

Impact on U.S.–Israel Relations and Future Diplomacy

Netanyahu reacted to the reports by describing them as “false” and declining to confirm their accuracy on Fox News. That measured response suggests careful diplomatic signaling—neither challenging U.S. authority nor undermining Israeli autonomy. Moving forward, this could encourage Israel to further coordinate covert operations with Washington, recognizing the constraints of U.S. red lines.

In parallel, Trump has expressed public optimism about reviving nuclear negotiations with Iran. Talks scheduled in Oman were scrapped amid the military flare-up. While competing pressures advocate for hardline tactics, Trump’s veto leaves open a path to diplomacy, reinforcing an oscillation between deterrence and negotiation in U.S. policy.

On June 10, 2025, users around the world faced a major disruption when OpenAI’s widely used AI chatbot, ChatGPT, experienced a sudden and widespread outage. The platform, which millions rely on for work, studies, and daily tasks, began showing elevated error rates and login failures around midday IST. Reports of issues quickly flooded DownDetector and other tracking services, with users in India, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Europe experiencing either total service failure or unresponsive prompts. Both free and premium users, including developers using the API, were affected. The outage, which lasted several hours, highlighted the extent to which generative AI has become a foundational tool for modern productivity.

As the glitch unfolded, online forums and social media platforms became hotspots for frustrated and bewildered reactions. On X (formerly Twitter), many users joked about having to “use their own brains” again, while others openly admitted they were unable to work without ChatGPT. Some users expressed genuine concern, saying they relied on the tool not just for technical or creative tasks, but also for emotional support and decision-making. One user shared that they stayed up until 4:30 a.m. to complete a project, only to find ChatGPT was down when they needed it to review their work. Memes soon flooded the internet, with one widely shared post reading, “Millions forced to use brain as ChatGPT takes the day off.”

At the height of the outage, over 80% of reports from India were related to core functionality issues, while users in the U.S. and UK also reported that up to 93% of their complaints involved complete loss of access to ChatGPT. Students, remote workers, content creators, developers, and even corporate teams faced difficulties continuing their assignments. Market analysts noted that the disruption prompted over half a million related searches in the United States alone, with many users frantically looking for alternatives such as Gemini, Microsoft’s Copilot, or Anthropic’s Claude.

OpenAI acknowledged the outage on its official status page and confirmed that all services—ChatGPT, API, and its Sora video-generation tool—were experiencing elevated error rates and latency. By late evening Eastern Time, the company had identified the root cause and began rolling out a fix. Full functionality for API users was restored by around 6:30 p.m. ET, while ChatGPT’s voice mode and other features took a little longer to stabilize. Although no specific reason was publicly disclosed for the failure, the quick recovery was met with relief by users who had grown dependent on the AI assistant.

The outage served as a sharp reminder of the digital age’s growing reliance on artificial intelligence. What was once a helpful tool has now become, for many, a necessity. This global incident emphasized the importance of having alternative tools and backup plans in place. It also raised questions about infrastructure stability and whether depending so heavily on a single service provider is sustainable. While OpenAI was able to restore its systems in a matter of hours, the temporary loss still caused widespread disruption, anxiety, and even a bit of soul-searching for those who had come to see ChatGPT as their digital partner in everything from emails to therapy.

In the aftermath, discussions emerged about the need for diversified AI access, stronger system resilience, and contingency workflows that don’t solely rely on any one platform. While the memes and jokes brought some levity to the situation, the underlying concern remained: what happens when the tool we’ve come to depend on simply disappears for hours? The June 10 outage wasn’t just a technical glitch, it was a wake-up call about the real-world consequences of our growing dependence on AI.

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has revised down its global economic growth forecast, now anticipating a modest 2.9% expansion for both 2025 and 2026. This downgrade, revealed in the OECD’s latest Economic Outlook, marks one of the slowest projected growth rates since the pandemic recovery. At the heart of this recalibration is a resurgence in trade conflicts, most notably driven by U.S. President Donald Trump’s latest tariff initiatives. The average effective U.S. tariff rate has surged past 15%, a level not seen in decades, sending ripples through global commerce.

Trade Tensions and the Investment Freeze

The OECD attributes much of the global cooling to rising trade barriers and the policy unpredictability they foster. Businesses, uncertain about future supply chain dynamics and tariff burdens, are retreating from long-term investments. Instead of deploying capital toward equipment, infrastructure, or innovation, many firms are redirecting funds into short-term financial instruments, exacerbating the stagnation in productivity growth. This pattern, the OECD warns, can have durable consequences: not only does it choke off immediate economic momentum, but it also hinders the technological and productivity gains needed for future resilience.

Inflation Pressures Meet Tight Monetary Policy

Tariffs have not only dampened demand—they’ve also triggered inflationary pressures. By raising the cost of imported goods, the new trade barriers have contributed to a projected inflation rate of nearly 4% in the U.S. by the end of 2025. Central banks, particularly the Federal Reserve, are thus being forced to maintain a tighter policy stance for longer. The potential delay in interest rate cuts constrains monetary policy just as economies worldwide are entering a vulnerable phase. In effect, central banks are stuck managing two opposing threats: overheating prices on one side and stagnating growth on the other.

Regional Repercussions: A Widespread Squeeze

While the U.S. is among the hardest hit, with GDP growth expected to drop to 1.6% in 2025 and decline slightly to 1.5% in 2026, the economic malaise is not confined to North America. China’s growth projection has been trimmed to 4.7%, driven in part by weaker exports and continued property market distress. Europe, already contending with structural challenges, is now forecast to grow by just around 1%. Even Japan, often buffered by its domestic consumer market, is projected to expand by less than 1%. According to OECD Chief Economist Álvaro Pereira, virtually no major economy is escaping this downturn unscathed—a clear indication of how interconnected global supply chains and capital flows remain.

A Fork in the Road: Risks and What Comes Next

The OECD emphasizes that its forecast assumes current tariffs remain steady. But with political rhetoric heating up and additional duties under consideration—including on critical materials like steel and semiconductors—the possibility of a deeper downturn remains real. Conversely, if diplomatic efforts succeed in de-escalating trade frictions, the global economy could regain some lost ground. However, the current path points toward prolonged ambiguity, with multinational firms hesitant to commit to new investments and governments juggling inflation management with the need for growth stimulus.

Strategic Implications: Policy Crossroads

The consequences of this slowdown stretch beyond near-term GDP figures. If left unaddressed, the combination of subdued investment, persistent inflation, and stalling productivity could entrench a lower growth paradigm. The OECD urges countries to prioritize open trade frameworks, stabilize fiscal and regulatory policy, and ensure monetary policy is responsive but not overly reactive. Without coordinated efforts, short-term political decisions could have long-term structural consequences—dampening living standards, slowing job creation, and fueling economic inequality.

A Final Note: A Fragile Recovery in Peril

What the OECD’s revised outlook underscores is not simply a cyclical downturn—it’s a systemic warning. The reimposition of trade barriers, particularly among major economic blocs, threatens to unwind years of gradual global integration. At stake is not only growth in 2025 and 2026, but the credibility of an open, rules-based economic order. Whether governments can reverse course in time may define not just the next few quarters, but the trajectory of the global economy for years to come.