Podcasts about Isfahan

This weekend, the United States executed Operation Midnight Hammer—a breathtakingly precise assault on Iran's most guarded nuclear facilities: Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. The real question now: what happens next? Iran has been retaliating against Israel and earlier today fired missiles at US bases in Qatar and Iraq. Join us as we unpack the prophetic implications of these pivotal events—right here on the Endtime Show. --------------- 📚: Check out Jerusalem Prophecy College Online for less than $60 per course: https://jerusalemprophecycollege.com 📱: It's never been easier to understand. Stream Only Source and access exclusive content: https://watch.osn.tv/browse   ⭐️: Ready Pantry:  ☕️: First Cup Coffee: use code ENDTIME to get 10% off: https://www.firstcup.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On Saturday, President Donald Trump announced that the United States had carried out airstrikes on three nuclear sites in Iran: Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. Trump called the mission a “very successful attack” and said the aircraft involved in the strikes were all “safely on their way home.” The extent of the damage to the sites is currently unknown, though the Pentagon says its initial assessment found “extremely severe damage and destruction” at each facility. Ad-free podcasts are here!Many listeners have been asking for an ad-free version of this podcast that they could subscribe to — and we finally launched it. You can go to ReadTangle.com to sign up!You can read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠, our “Under the Radar” story ⁠here and today's “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.Take the survey: Do you think the U.S. will be involved in an ongoing conflict with Iran? Let us know!Disagree? That's okay. My opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast was written by: Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Hunter Casperson, Kendall White, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The US has bombed nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Isfahan, and Natanz. While in Washington, political parties are divided about President Donald Trump’s decision to strike. What could be next in what many fear to be a regional war? In this episode: Akbar Shahid Ahmed, (@AkbarSAhmed), HuffPost Senior Diplomatic Correspondent Episode credits: This episode was produced by Ashish Malhotra, Khaled Soltan, Chloe K. Li, with Remas AlHawari and our guest host, Natasha Del Toro. It was edited by Ney Alvarez. The Take production team is Marcos Bartolomé, Sonia Bhagat, Spencer Cline, Sarí el-Khalili, Tamara Khandaker, Phillip Lanos, Chloe K. Li, Ashish Malhotra, Haleema Shah, Khaled Soltan, Amy Walters, and Noor Wazwaz. Our editorial interns are Remas Alhawari, Mariana Navarrete, and Kisaa Zehra. I’m your guest host, Natasha Del Toro Our engagement producers are Adam Abou-Gad and Vienna Maglio. Aya Elmileik is lead of audience engagement. Our sound designer is Alex Roldan. Our video editors are Hisham Abu Salah and Mohannad Al-Melhem. Alexandra Locke is The Take’s executive producer. Ney Alvarez is Al Jazeera’s head of audio. Connect with us: @AJEPodcasts on Instagram, X, Facebook, Threads and YouTube

The United States has carried out massive precision strikes on three nuclear facilities in Iran. The bombings early on Sunday at Isfahan, Natanz and Fordo took place after more than a week of Israeli air strikes on Iran. Republicans are divided on Trump's actions and Iranian foreign minister has accused Donald Trump of betraying the American people as well as Iran.(Photo: U.S. President Donald Trump delivers an address to the nation alongside U.S. Vice President JD Vance, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. U.S. June 21, 2025. REUTERS/Carlos Barria/Pool)

The Trump administration said “Operation Midnight Hammer” severely damaged or destroyed Iran’s Fordo, Isfahan and Natanz nuclear sites. For more analysis of the strikes, John Yang speaks with retired Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, a Hoover Institution senior fellow who served as national security adviser during Trump’s first term. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Welcome to The Times of Israel's Daily Briefing, your 20-minute audio update on what's happening in Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world. Diplomatic reporter Lazar Berman and US bureau chief Jacob Magid join host Amanda Borschel-Dan for today's episode. US President Donald Trump announced early Sunday that the US had carried out a “successful attack” on the Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan nuclear sites in Iran. We learn what was hit and Trump's warnings to Iran about either returning to the negotiating table, or else. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised American strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities early Sunday morning, thanking Trump for bringing “peace through strength.” We discuss the options that are now on the table for Iran as well as the wider implications for the region as the Israel-Iran war continues. Berman speaks about the potential realignment of regional axes with a severely weakened Iran. And finally, Magid weighs in on whether the broader US population is on board with these attacks on Iran -- and why some may hesitate. Check out The Times of Israel's ongoing liveblog for more updates. For further reading: US joins Israel’s war in Iran, bombs fortified Fordo site and other nuclear facilities Full text of Trump’s speech following US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities Netanyahu hails US strikes on Iran: ‘First comes strength, then comes peace’ What to know about the Iranian nuclear sites that were hit by US strikes Subscribe to The Times of Israel Daily Briefing on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts. This episode was produced by the Pod-Waves. Check out yesterday’s episode here: https://omny.fm/shows/the-daily-briefing/day-624-idf-head-cautions-no-quick-win-in-ongoing-israel-iran-warSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

//The Wire//1215Z June 22, 2025////IMMEDIATE////BLUF: UNITED STATES CONDUCTS AIRSTRIKES IN IRAN.// -----BEGIN TEARLINE-----Middle East: A few moments ago, President Trump posted a statement on social media, confirming that a series of airstrikes has been carried out at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. In the post, President Trump stated that all of the aircraft involved are out of Iranian airspace, and has insinuated that this is a one-and-done series of attacks.-----END TEARLINE-----Analyst Comments: As this is a developing situation, no additional details have been provided. President Trump has not yet held a press conference, nor has the White House, so every American is discovering that the United States has struck Iran from a single social media post. A few moments after this announcement, President Trump's account on Truth Social went offline, leading many to wonder if this was some sort of cybersecurity event.Further details are expected to emerge in due time, however right now we have nothing but the post from President Trump's Truth Social account. At this time, Congress has NOT declared war on Iran, however, if the hundreds of aircraft that have been moved into the CENTCOM theater over the past few days are any indication, this is probably not a one-and-done series of attacks. There are simply too many resources spread throughout the Middle East for this to be over just yet.Strategic Indications and Warnings: HFGCS traffic has been elevated over the past few days/weeks, however no extremely concerning EAMs have been detected over the past few hours. Radio chatter on the Russian BearNet is also quiet at this time.This strike lines up with the timing of the B2 Spirit stealth bombers which took off from Whiteman AFB this morning with what was assessed at the time to be a full payload of munitions.Analyst: S2A1Research: https://publish.obsidian.md/s2underground//END REPORT//

Welcome to The Times of Israel's Daily Briefing, your 20-minute audio update on what's happening in Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world. Military reporter Emanuel Fabian joins host Amanda Borschel-Dan for today's episode. Overnight, an Israeli airstrike in Iran killed Saeed Izadi, the head of the Palestine Corps in the IRGC Quds Force, who funded and armed Hamas ahead of the terror group’s October 7 onslaught as part of a multi-front plan to destroy Israel. Fabian describes who he was and how central he was in drafting Iran's ultimate strategy to eliminate Israel. Also hit last night was Iran’s Isfahan nuclear site for the second time since the start of the conflict, as Iran fired an overnight volley of five ballistic missiles at central Israel. The strike on the first day of the conflict destroyed several critical sections, including uranium conversion infrastructure and labs. Last night's strikes were intended to cause further damage to Iran’s nuclear program. IDF Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir told Israelis yesterday that they must prepare for a “prolonged campaign” against Iran to “eliminate a threat of this magnitude,” indicating that a quick end to the campaign was unlikely. We ask Fabian to decipher this cryptic message from the head of the IDF even as US President Donald Trump told reports that Israel appears to be "winning." Also yesterday, reporters were told that Israel is not running low on air defense interceptors amid its conflict with Iran, denying reporting that the IDF’s stockpile of interceptor missiles is being depleted. Fabian explains why this may still be the case. Iran is not only firing traditional ballistic missiles at Israel: At least one ballistic missile launched by Iran at Israel in a barrage on Thursday morning was carrying a cluster bomb warhead, marking a dangerous new development. We speak about this type of missile, as well as Iran's drips-and-drabs retaliation to the continued Israeli strikes. To close out, we review the stunning operation to eliminate Iran’s top military commanders early June 13 was code-named “Red Wedding” after the infamous scene in the “A Song of Ice and Fire” book series and “Game of Thrones” TV show, due to the almost fantastical way it was carried out. Fabian explains why. Check out The Times of Israel's ongoing liveblog for more updates. For further reading: IRGC Palestinian division chief, an architect of Oct. 7, killed in overnight strike in Iran IDF hits Isfahan nuclear site for 2nd time; Iran fires 5 missiles in overnight barrage IDF chief warns Israelis must brace for ‘prolonged campaign’ against Iran Denying reports, IDF indicates that it’s not running low on missile interceptors Iranian missile with cluster warhead scattered bombs in central Israel, IDF says Inspired by brutal TV scene, first strikes on Iran said code-named ‘Red Wedding’ Subscribe to The Times of Israel Daily Briefing on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts. This episode was produced by the Pod-Waves. IMAGE: Israeli soldiers and first responders check the damage caused to a building from an Iranian strike in Beit She'an on June 21, 2025. (Jalaa MAREY / AFP)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

David Waldman is back on the air again, LIVE! Greg Dworkin returns, with mega polls! No, not Trump's high poles, but Trump's low polls, along with the latest takeaways from the KITM World Headquarters Primaries… well, Virginia primaries, same difference. Will TikTok TACO Trump chicken out with Iran? We're talking about millions of actual lives here... so maybe not. MAGA thought they opposed such things as “forever wars”, but they'll get over it, like their opposition to Russia. It's easy to do when you think about it, and even easier when you don't. You'd think that making conspiracy theorists put up or shut up would put them in some sort of bind, but these are a spunky and resilient group of whackadoodles. Confronted with a tragically factual Christian nationalist assassin, they expeditiously took reality lemons and turned them into MAGA lemonade. Chinese license plates and thousands of cards stole the 2020 election for Bernie Sanders. Not many people know that. Donald K. Trump is objectively bad for America. Journalists are hesitant to point that out, lest their network soapboxes be turned into real ones. Still, with protests, it pays to not give MAGA a seed of truth to roll their dung around. Nonviolence is the way. Then later, we'll impeach the bastard, maybe this term, maybe his third or fourth. Four execs from the top tech companies in Silicon Valley have joined the Army Reserve but probably won't be putting boots down in Isfahan soon or even in the next two weeks. They were of course invited because of their special technological genius. NYC tycoons are saying “There goes the neighborhood” if Zohran Mamdani moves in.

Since Israel launched Operation Rising Lion—a precise and defensive military campaign aimed at preventing the Iranian regime from acquiring nuclear weapons—Iran has responded with a barrage of ballistic missiles and drones, indiscriminately targeting Israeli civilians. Dr. Matthew Levitt, director of the Reinhard Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and a leading expert on Iran's global terror network, explains what's at stake—and what could come next. Take Action: We must stop a regime that vows to murder millions of Israelis from gaining the weapons to do it. Urge your elected leaders to assure that Israel has all the necessary support to end Iran's nuclear threat. Resources and Analysis: Iranian Regime vs. Israel War Explained: What You Should Know AJC Advocacy Anywhere: Israel and Iran: Latest Updates, Global Responses, and the Path Ahead 5 Key Reasons Behind Israel's Defensive Strike on Iran's Imminent Nuclear Threat Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: Untold stories of Jews who left or were driven from Arab nations and Iran People of the Pod: Latest Episodes: Why Israel Had No Choice: Inside the Defensive Strike That Shook Iran's Nuclear Program What Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks' State of the Jewish World Teaches Us Today Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript of the Interview: Israel's shadow war with the Iranian regime, the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, erupted into open conflict last week following a stunning report from the International Atomic Energy Agency that confirmed Iran was much closer to obtaining nuclear weapons than previously known. Since Israel launched a wave of attacks on nuclear sites and facilities, Iran has fired missiles toward Israel's most populated cities. Joining us to discuss what this all means is one of the foremost experts on Iran and its global threats, and a regular guest when trouble arises with Iran. Dr. Matthew Levitt, director of the Reinhard Counterterrorism Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.  Matt, welcome back to People of the Pod. Matthew Levitt:   It's a pleasure to be back, but I need to come sometime when the world's okay.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   That would be nice. That'd be nice. But what will we talk about? Matthew Levitt:   Yeah, just call me one of the Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Well, you are one of the foremost experts on the dangers posed by Iran, especially its terror proxies. And you've written the definitive book on Hezbollah, titled Hezbollah: the Global Footprint of Lebanon's Party of God. And I say that whole title, I want to get in there, because we are talking about global threats here.  Can you explain the scale of Iran's global threat and the critical role that its terror proxies, like Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, play in advancing that strategy? Matthew Levitt:   So I really appreciate the question, because it's really important to remind listeners that the Israel Iran war did not start Thursday night US time, Friday morning, Israel time. In fact, it's just the latest salvo where the Israelis, after years and years and years of Iranian we call it malign activity, but that's too soft a term. We're talking about Iran sending weapons and funds to proxies like Hamas to carry out October 7, like Hezbollah to fire rockets at Israel almost daily for almost a year. Like the Houthis, who were much more than a thorn in the Saudi backside until the Iranians came and gave them more sophisticated capabilities.  We're talking about an Iran that a few years ago decided that instead of making sure that every gun that it sent to the West Bank had to go to Hamas or Islamic Jihad. They decided to just flood the West Bank with guns. Who cares who's shooting at the Israelis so long as somebody is. And an Iran that not only carries out human rights abuses of all kinds at home, but that threatens Israel and its neighbors with drones, low altitude cruise missiles, short range ballistic missiles, and medium and long range ballistic missiles.  And so the totality of this, much like the totality of Hezbollah's striking Israel for almost a year, ultimately led Israel to do what most people thought couldn't be done, and just tear Hezbollah apart, that the Israel war on Hezbollah is the prequel to what we've been seeing over the past few days in Iran. Similarly, for the Israelis, it got to be too much. It wasn't even really that President Trump's 60 days expired and Israel attacked on day 61. It wasn't only that the IAEA came out with a report saying that the Iranians have refused to explain certain activities that can only be explained as nuclear weaponization activities.  It was that the Israelis had information that two things were happening. One, that Iran was working very, very hard to rebuild its capability to manufacture medium, long range ballistic missiles that can hit Israel. After the Israeli reprisal attack last October took out a key component of that program, the mixers that are important for the solid propellant, without which you can't make ballistic missiles. And Iran is believed to have, at least the beginning of this recent round of the conflict –Thursday, Friday–about 2000 such missiles. Far fewer now, the Israelis say they've taken out about a third of them, plus launchers, plus radars, et cetera. But that Iran had a plan within just a few years to develop as many as 8000 of these. And that simply was not tolerable for the Israelis.  And the second is that the Israelis say that they compiled evidence that Iran had a secret, secret nuclear weapons program that had been going on predating October 7, but was fast tracked after October 7, that they were planning to maintain this program, even as they were negotiating over the more overt program with the Trump administration. President Trump has even taken issue with his own Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who testified in March that the US intelligence committee does not assess that Iran is weaponizing. And President says, I don't care what she says, I think they were very close to weaponizing.  The Israelis say they have shared this information at least recently with their US counterparts and that was not tolerable. So the primary goals that Israel has set out for itself with this campaign is beyond the critically important shattering the glass ceiling. Think where people in particular, in Iran thought this would never happen, was two things, one, addressing and significantly degrading and setting back the Iranian ballistic missile production program, and second, doing the same to the nuclear program. They've already carried out strikes at Isfahan, Natanz, even at the upper parts of Fordow. And there is an expectation that the Israelis are going to do something more. The Israeli national security advisor said on Israeli television today, We are not going to stop without addressing the nuclear activities at Fordow. Manya Brachear Pashman:   You know, you called it a prequel, Israel's operations against Hezbollah last year. Did you know that it was a prequel at the time and to what extent did it weaken Iran and leave it more vulnerable in this particular war? Matthew Levitt:   I'm going to be the last person in Washington, D.C. who tells you when he doesn't know. And anybody who tells you they did know is lying to you. None of us saw what Israel did to Hezbollah coming. None of us saw that and said, Oh, they did it to a non-state actor right across their border. So they'll definitely be able to do it to Iran, 1000+ kilometers away, big nation state with massive arsenals and a nuclear program and lots of proxies. One plus one does not equal three in this.  In other words, the fact that Israel developed mind boggling capabilities and incredible intelligence, dominance and then special tools, pagers and walkie talkies, in the case of Hezbollah, did not mean that they were going to be able to do the same vis a vis Iran. And they did. The same type of intelligence dominance, the same type of intelligence, knowing where somebody was at a certain time, that the protocols would be that certain leaders would get in a certain secret bunker once hostilities started, and they'd be able to take them out in that bunker. As they did to a bunch of senior Hezbollah commanders just months ago. Drone operations from within Iran, Iran being hit with missiles that were fired at Iran from within Iran, all of it. One case did not necessarily translate into the other. It is exponentially impressive. And Israel's enemies have to be saying, you know, that the Israelis are just all capable. Now you're absolutely right. You hit the nail on the head on one critical issue. For a very long time, Israel was at least somewhat deterred, I would say very deterred, from targeting Iran. Because Iran had made very, very clear if Israel or the United States or anybody else targeted Iran or its nuclear program, one of the first things that would happen would be that Hezbollah in Lebanon, Israel, Iran's first, most important proxy would rain hellfire in Israel in the form of 1000s upon 1000s of rockets. Until Israel addressed the problem, Hezbollah is believed to have had 150 to 200,000 different types of projectiles, up to and including precision guided munitions.  Not only have the overwhelming majority of those been destroyed, Hezbollah still has 1000s of rockets, but Hezbollah leadership has been decimated. There's a new sheriff in town in Lebanon. There's a new government that immediately, when hostility started with Iran's, went to Hezbollah and said, You're not doing this, not dragging Lebanon back into a war that nobody wanted again. We are finally coming out of this economic crisis. And so Iran was faced with a situation where it didn't have Hezbollah to deter Israel.  Israel, you know, paved the way for a highway in the air to Iran, taking out air defense systems. It was able to fly over and through Syria. The Syrians are not shedding any tears as they see the Quds Force and the IRGC getting beaten down after what Iran did in Syria. And the Israelis have air dominance now. President Trump said, We, using the we term, air dominance now, earlier today. And they're able to slowly and methodically continue to target the ballistic missile program. Primarily, the medium and long range missiles that target Israel, but sometimes it's the same production lines that produce the short range missiles that Iran uses to target U.S. Forces in the region, and our allies in the Gulf. So Israel is not just protecting itself, it's protecting the region. And then also taking out key military security intelligence personnel, sometimes taking out one person, then a couple days later, taking out the person who succeeded that person, and then also taking out key scientists who had the know-how to potentially rebuild all the things that Israel is now destroying. Manya Brachear Pashman:   But Israel is also not hearing from the Houthis, is not hearing from Hamas. It's not hearing from other terror proxies either. Very few attacks from Iran's terror proxies in the aftermath of this wave. Why? Why do you think that is? Matthew Levitt:   The crickets are loud. The crickets are loud. Look, we've discussed Hezbollah. Hezbollah understands that if it were to do something, the Israelis will come in even harder and destroy what's left. Hamas is still holding hostages. This is still an open wound, but it doesn't have the capabilities that it once had, and so there have been a couple of short range things that they tried to shoot, but it's not anything that's going to do huge damage, and the Israeli systems can deal with those.  The Houthis did fire something, and it hurt some Palestinians near Hebron. You know, the Houthis and the Iranians in particular, in this conflict have killed Palestinians, and in one case, Syrians. They're continuing to hurt people that are not Israelis. One of the things that I think people are hopeful for is that as Iran tries to sue for peace, and it already is, it's been reaching out to Cyprus to pass messages, etcetera. The hope is that Iran will recognize that it's in a position whereby A) there has to be zero enrichment and the facilities have to be destroyed, whatever's left of them. And B) there's a hope that Israel and the United States together will be able to use this diplomatic moment to truly end the conflict in Gaza and get the hostages home. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Well, that was what I was going to ask. I mean, if Israel achieves its objectives in this war, primarily eliminating Iran's nuclear threat, how significant a setback would that be for Hamas and Iran's other terror proxies, and could it indeed pave the way for an end of the war in Gaza and the return of the hostages? Matthew Levitt:   Like everybody else, I'm so scarred, I don't want to get my hopes up, but I do see this as a distinct possibility, and here's why. Not Hezbollah, not the Houthis, not Hamas, none of them, and plenty of other proxies that don't start in the letter H, none of them could have been anywhere as capable as they've proven to be, were it not for Iranian money and weapons. Also some training, some intelligence, but primarily money and weapons.  And so Hamas is already on its back foot in this regard. It can still get some money in. It's still being able to make money off of humanitarian aid. Iran is still sending money in through money exchange houses and hawaladars, but not weapons. Their ability to manufacture weapons, their military industrial complex within Gaza, this is destroyed. Hezbollah, we've discussed, discussed, and a lot of their capabilities have been destroyed. And those that remain are largely deterred. The Houthis did shoot up some rockets, and the Israelis did carry out one significant retaliatory attack. But I think people are beginning to see the writing on the wall. The Israelis are kicking the stuffing out of Iran with pinprick attacks that are targeting the worst of the bad guys, including people who have carried out some of the worst human rights transgressions against Iranians. Let's not pretend that this is not affecting the average Iranian. It is. The president says, Everybody get out of Tehran. That's just not possible. People, average Iranians, good people. It must be just an absolute terror.  But Israel's not bombing, you know, apartment buildings, as Iran is doing in Israel, or as Russia is doing in Ukraine. And so it really is a different type of thing. And when the Houthis, when Hamas, when Hezbollah, look at this, you don't you don't poke the tiger when it's angry. I think they also understand now's the time to get into survival mode. What you want is for the regime in Iran not to be destroyed. This is no longer a moment, as it's been since long before October 7, but certainly since then, of how Iran as proxies, export Iran's revolution. This is now a question of how they maintain and preserve the revolution at home. And it's extremely important to the proxies that Iran remain, so that even if it's knocked down over time, hopefully, theoretically, from their perspective, it can regain its footing. It will still have, they hope, its oil and gas, etcetera, and they will get back to a point where they can continue to fund and arm the proxies in. Maybe even prioritize them as it takes them longer to rebuild their ballistic missile, drone, and nuclear programs. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Which is a scary prospect as well to know that terror proxies could be spread throughout the world and empowered even a little bit more. President Trump left the G7 summit a day early to meet with security advisors, and just a few hours ago, prior to this interview, President Trump called for Iran's, quote, unconditional surrender, saying that the US knows where the Supreme Leader is, and some other threatening language. But I mean, this appears to be a kind of a clear commitment to Israel. So I'm curious how you assess his administration's actions before and during the war thus far, and do you see the United States edging toward direct involvement? Matthew Levitt:   All politics is local, and there is a tug of war within the MAGA movement over whether or not the US should be getting involved. Not only in supporting an important ally, but in removing a critical threat. The President is clearly frustrated that Iran was not being more forthcoming in the negotiations. He said many times, we'd offered you a great deal, you should have taken the deal. He's very aware that his deadline ended, and they didn't particularly seem to care. There's also the background that once upon a time, they tried to assassinate him, I think, after the Israelis did what they did, the President appreciates capabilities. He appreciates success. He likes backing the winning horse. And so the New York Times is reporting that after getting off the phone with Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Trump reportedly turned to some aides and said, maybe we need to help him. Now it's not clear that's what's going to happen, and my understanding is that the Israelis have plans of their own for things like the heavily fortified facility at Fordow, which is the most important and highly fortified, protected of the nuclear installations. The Israeli National Security Advisor spoke today and said, you know, we're not going to be done until we do something with Fordow.  The United States can do multiple things only the United States has the MOP: the Massive Ordinance Penetrator, and the airplanes to deliver it, and they could end Fordow if they wanted. Short of that, they could do other things to support Israel. There's been defensive support for the State of Israel already, but there's other things they could do, refueling and other things if they wanted to. And at a minimum, I don't see the president restraining Israel at all. Now, I've heard some people say that so far, the President has fired nothing more than some social media postings, some of them even in all caps.  But the truth is, those do have an effect, and so long as Israel is not restrained. I think the Israelis went into this with a plan. That plan is not necessarily to entirely destroy the entire nuclear program, but if the ballistic missile program and the nuclear program are sufficiently degraded so that it will take them years and a tremendous amount of time and money to rebuild, knowing that Israel has broken the glass ceiling on this idea of targeting Iran, that if the Israelis feel they need to, they will come back. If the Iranians rebuild their air defense systems, the Israelis will address them and create a new highway going if they need to. I think the Israelis are making that clear. Knowing that it's going to be a little bit of a road for Iran, especially when it will have to deal with some domestic issues coming out of this.  Finally, the Israelis have started signaling there's other things they could do. The Israelis have not yet fully targeted oil and gas fields and facilities. For example, they had one set of attacks where they basically knocked at the front door of some of these facilities without walking in the house. That's signaling, and I think it's one of the reasons you're seeing Iran quietly trying to reach out for some type of a ceasefire. Other signaling, for example, is the Israelis deciding to fly all the way to Mashhad, which is in far eastern Iran, to take out an airplane. That airplane was not particularly important. It was the message. There is nowhere in Iran we can't go. It's not a question of distance, it's not a question of refueling, it's not a question of air defense systems. We can do what we need to do. And I think the Iranians understand that now. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So we talked about the commitment to Israel, and how clear, how important it is to clarify that commitment to Israel. How important is it to clarify the United States commitment to Arab partners in the Middle East to help defend them in other words, if this conflict escalates? Matthew Levitt:   This is critically important. You know, one of the individuals who was taken out, for example, was the person who was in charge of the drone attack on the Abqaiq oil facility in Saudi Arabia. If you look, for example, at the Saudi statement condemning the Israeli actions, it was issued by the Foreign Ministry without a single name attached to it. Wasn't issued by the Crown Prince, wasn't issued by the foreign minister. So I think you should expect a whole lot of public criticism. I imagine there's a different conversation going on behind closed doors. It's not necessarily, you know, pom-poming. This makes the Gulf states very, very nervous, in part because they understand that one way Iran could try and get out of this is to expand the conflict.  And that the reason they haven't is because, short of trying to prevent Iranians from taking to the streets and potentially doing something to maybe overthrow the regime, short of that, the number one thing that the Iranian regime is most desperate to avoid is getting the United States involved militarily. And I think the Iranians really understand and the messaging's been clear. If you target US Forces in the region, if you target our allies in the region, we'll get involved. If you don't, then we might not.  Now the President now is talking about potentially doing that, and as a lot of maybe this, maybe that, nothing very clear. I think what is clear is that the Israelis are going to continue doing what they need to do for another one to two weeks. Even going so far as doing something, though they haven't made clear what to address the really complicated problem of the fortified facility at Fordow. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So how important is it for global security if Israel is successful in eliminating the nuclear threat in Iran? Matthew Levitt:   Look, Iran has been the single most destabilizing factor in the region for a long time now. Imagine a region without a destabilizing revolutionary regime in Iran without a regime that is supporting Shia militants in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries.  Imagine the Shia militias in Iraq suddenly without a funder and a patron, enabling the Shia government in Iraq to actually be able to take control of the country and establish a monopoly over the use of force. At a time when the Shia militias, because of Iran's backing, are becoming more dangerous and more powerful in Iraq.  Imagine the Lebanese government being able to be more forward leaning in their effort to establish a monopoly over the use of force in that country, reclaim bases that Hezbollah has used for all this time, and establish a new Lebanon that is not beholden to Iran and Hezbollah.  And imagine an Israeli-Palestinian situation where you didn't have Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad as spoilers. Recall that October 7 happened in large part because Hamas and Hezbollah and Iran could not tolerate the prospect of Israeli-Saudi normalization. For most Palestinians, this was great news. The Saudis were demanding real dividends for the Palestinians from the Netanyahu government, which was likely going to do them. This was great for Palestinians, bad for Hamas.  Imagine Hamas no longer getting that support from Iran. Imagine Iran no longer able to send or being interested in sending millions upon millions of dollars to its proxies, and instead spending what money it has on helping its population, instead of cracking down on it with human rights violations. You could have a very, very different region, let alone imagine Iran no longer carrying out acts of terrorism, kidnapping plots, abduction plots of dissidents and Jews and Israelis and others around the world of the type that we've seen throughout Europe and throughout the Middle East and even in the United States over the past few years. Manya Brachear Pashman:   That's quite an imagination you have. But I take your point. Let me ask you this then. Did you ever imagine that Israel would take this dramatic step?  Matthew Levitt:   What the Israelis have achieved, when you are so against the wall and you're forced to come up with solutions, because it's a matter of life or death – you make the impossible possible. And I think that perhaps the Iranians assumed that the Israeli post-October 7 doctrine applied to non-state actors only. And that doctrine is very simple. Israel will no longer allow adversaries who are openly committed to its destruction to build up weapons, arsenals that they can then use at some point to actually try and destroy Israel. They will not allow that to happen.  They allowed it to happen with Hamas. It was a mistake. They allowed it to happen with Hezbollah. It was a mistake that they corrected. And Iran is the biggest, arguably, really, the only existential threat as huge, as a tasking as that was, clearly they invested in doing it. And the question became, not, why can't it be done? What is it that has to be overcome? And I don't think sitting here with you right now, you know, what is it, 3:30 on Tuesday, the 17th, that we've seen the last of the tricks up Israel's sleeve.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   I only have one last question for you, and that is about the United States. The importance of the United States getting directly involved. I mean, we've talked about previously undisclosed nuclear sites, and who knows how many there could be. We're talking about more than what, 600,000 square miles of Iran. If the goal is a non nuclear Iran, can Israel finish this war without the United States, or does it even matter? I mean, is this just a step to force Iran back to the negotiating table with virtually zero leverage? Matthew Levitt:   So look, I don't think the goal here is completely destroying the Iranian nuclear program, or even completely destroying the Iranian ballistic missile program. The goal is to so degrade it that it is set back many, many years, and break that ceiling. People now understand if Israelis need to come back, they're coming back. I think they would like to do as much damage to these destructive programs as possible, of course, and I don't think we've seen the end of it. I think there are more tricks up Israel's sleeve when it comes to some of these complicated problems.  Judged by this yardstick, by the way, the Israeli operation is a tremendous success, tremendous success, even though there have been some significant casualties back in Israel, and even though this has caused tremendous trauma for innocent Iranians who have no love for the regime. This is a situation that the Iranian regime has brought down on all of us.  I do think that the Israelis have made very, very clear that this doesn't end until something is done to further disrupt and dismantle Fordow, which is the most important and the most heavily fortified, underground, under a mountain facility. It's not clear what the Israelis have in mind. It seems they have something in mind of their own. It's clear they would love for the United States to get involved, because the United States could do real damage to that facility and potentially end the Iranian nuclear program. But at the end of the day, if it can't be completely destroyed, I anticipate it's going to be damaged enough to significantly set it back. This phase of the Israel-Iran war, which didn't start last week, is not about pushing them back a week or a month or two months. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Well, Matt, thank you so much for your wise counsel and perspective on this matter, and yes, hopefully we can have you back another time to talk about peace and love and things that have nothing to do with war and conflict with Iran or its terror proxies. Matthew Levitt:   I would really look forward to prepping for that interview. In the meantime, I want to thank AJC for all the important work it does, and thank you guys for having me on the podcast. Manya Brachear Pashman:   If you missed last week's episodes, be sure to tune in for our crossover episode with Books and Beyond: The Rabbi Sacks Podcast, a podcast of the Rabbi Sacks Legacy, and my conversation with AJC's Jerusalem Director Avital Liebovich. During a special breaking news episode the day after Israel launched Operation Rising Lion, the latest in Israel's ongoing war of self-defense against the Iranian regime.  

For review:Roll-up of today's events concerning the Israeli attack on Iran's Nuclear Sites and Iran's reaction.

In the early hours of Friday morning, Israel pulled off a historic strike on Iran. As I record these lines, Iran is reporting a “massive explosion” in Isfahan, in a province that is home to several nuclear facilities. In Israel, where Shabbat has begun, the government has ordered all synagogues to shut down—and for citizens to remain close to bomb shelters as they brace for a retaliatory strike. It is hard to overstate the magnitude of this operation. Israel has taken out much of Iran's military leadership and some of its top nuclear scientists and hit nuclear facilities across the country. And it is still going. Benjamin Netanyahu has vowed to do whatever it takes in order to prevent a nuclear holocaust. Meanwhile, the X account for Iran's military  has threatened that “our response will be lethal.” And the country's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, has tweeted: “The Zionist regime has prepared for itself a bitter, painful fate, which it will definitely see.” Donald Trump, for his part, is using this as an opening to push Iran into a nuclear deal. This is a historic juncture for the region—not just for the state of Israel, but for the West. So last night, just as the news of these attacks broke, I sat down with former Israeli ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren and former Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennett to discuss all of it: the strikes, what they accomplished, how Israel defied conventional wisdom and seemed to pull off the impossible, what we can expect in the days ahead, and—perhaps most importantly to many of our listeners—whether or not America is supporting Israel in its efforts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Iran has launched an aerial attack on Israel in an operation it's called True Promise 3. Black smoke has been seen rising over Tel Aviv's skyline. Earlier today, the Israeli military said it had struck the Isfahan nuclear facility in Iran - as its strikes on the country continued. Also on the programme: Colombian superstar Shakira tells us about life as an immigrant in the US; and a report on the Air India crash. (Image: Missiles launched from Iran are intercepted as seen from Tel Aviv, Israel on 13 June 2025.Credit: Reuters/Jamal Awad)

Today, we originally planned to publish a piece from Tangle's newest team member, Editor-at-Large Kmele Foster, about his view on the racial reckoning in the United States since the summer of 2020. However, late last night Israel launched a large-scale coordinated attack on Iran, so we decided to release a special edition to all Tangle subscribers covering the news.We're still very excited to share Kmele's piece with everyone in a future Friday edition. However, we decided that the latest news necessitated a special edition this morning.Early Friday morning, around 3:30am local time in Tehran, Israel launched a series of coordinated attacks against Iran, targeting military bases, top generals, and nuclear enrichment facilities. Over 200 Israeli aircraft took part in the strikes on over 100 different targets. According to senior Iranian officials, at least six military bases around the capital of Tehran were attacked, along with residential homes in military compounds, defense and industrial compounds in Kermanshah and Isfahan, and radar facilities in Piranshahr. Israel also targeted key components of Iran's nuclear program, striking Iran's main enrichment facility in Natanz and a nuclear research center in Tabriz, along with two military bases and an airport in the country's northwest. Ad-free podcasts are here!Many listeners have been asking for an ad-free version of this podcast that they could subscribe to — and we finally launched it. You can go to ReadTangle.com to sign up!You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast was written by Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Jon Lall. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Hunter Casperson, Kendall White, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Is your hair trying to tell you something?In this episode, Dr. Stephanie Hack, MD, MPH sits down with Dr. Isfahan Chambers-Harris—biomedical scientist, trichologist, and founder of Alodia Hair Care—to explore the deep connection between healthy hair and overall wellness. They break down the science behind breakage, thinning, and scalp inflammation, while also uncovering how common hair products may be silently impacting your health. Rooted in research and cultural relevance, this conversation offers practical, holistic steps to help you care for your hair—and your body—from the inside out.If you're ready to reclaim your health from root to tip, this episode is a must-listen.

In this delicious episode, we dive into the enchanting world of Persian sweets, where every bite tells a story. Join us as we explore the artful balance of crispy, syrupy, soft, and chewy textures that make these desserts irresistible.   We journey through regional specialties, from the delicate kaak of Kermanshah to the fragrant sohan of Isfahan. We share some of our favorite flavors and memories tied to these traditional treats — think saffron, rosewater, pistachios, and more.   Whether you're nostalgic for a childhood favorite or discovering Persian desserts for the first time, this episode promises a sweet escape into a world rich with history, flavor, and craftsmanship.   Thank you for joining us — and don't forget to leave a review or share this episode if you loved today's taste of tradition!   Episodes referenced:  Episode 74: Persian Cookies   Recipes referenced: Persian Tea Cookies with Aunt Pari Joon – BeatsEats   All Modern Persian Food podcast episodes can be found at: Episodes   Sign up for the email newsletter here!   Check us out on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube   Subscribe+ to the Modern Persian Food podcast on your favorite podcast player, and share this episode with a friend.   Opening and closing music composed by Amir Etemadzadeh, www.amirschoolofmusic.com Podcast production by Alvarez Audio

Iran fascynuje bogatą historią i kulturą. Choć przez lata był owiany tajemnicą i stereotypami, coraz więcej podróżników odkrywa jego piękno. Odwiedziliśmy Persepolis – starożytną stolicę Imperium Perskiego, Isfahan nazywany „Florencją Wschodu”, uduchowiony Yazd, Shiraz – miasto poetów, Hamadan z mauzoleum Awicenny, „księcia uczonych”, Pasargady – pierwszą stolicę Imperium Achemenidzkiego, starożytną Suzę – jedno z najstarszych osiedli ludzkich na Bliskim Wschodzie oraz Teheran z futurystycznymi budynkami. Byliśmy w jaskini Ali-Sadr, najdłuższej jaskini wodnej na świecie i na bazarze pełnym wyjątkowych wyrobów rzemiosła. Poznaliśmy gigantyczny ziggurat, który jest najlepiej zachowanym przykładem piramidy schodkowej. Przypomnieliśmy też Zaratustrę, proroka zaratusztrianizmu. Gościem Jerzego Jopa była Mariola Maćko.

So what, exactly, was “The Enlightenment”? According to the Princeton historian David A. Bell, it was an intellectual movement roughly spanning the early 18th century through to the French Revolution. In his Spring 2025 Liberties Quarterly piece “The Enlightenment, Then and Now”, Bell charts the Enlightenment as a complex intellectual movement centered in Paris but with hubs across Europe and America. He highlights key figures like Montesquieu, Voltaire, Kant, and Franklin, discussing their contributions to concepts of religious tolerance, free speech, and rationality. In our conversation, Bell addresses criticisms of the Enlightenment, including its complicated relationship with colonialism and slavery, while arguing that its principles of freedom and reason remain relevant today. 5 Key Takeaways* The Enlightenment emerged in the early 18th century (around 1720s) and was characterized by intellectual inquiry, skepticism toward religion, and a growing sense among thinkers that they were living in an "enlightened century."* While Paris was the central hub, the Enlightenment had multiple centers including Scotland, Germany, and America, with thinkers like Voltaire, Rousseau, Kant, Hume, and Franklin contributing to its development.* The Enlightenment introduced the concept of "society" as a sphere of human existence separate from religion and politics, forming the basis of modern social sciences.* The movement had a complex relationship with colonialism and slavery - many Enlightenment thinkers criticized slavery, but some of their ideas about human progress were later used to justify imperialism.* According to Bell, rather than trying to "return to the Enlightenment," modern society should selectively adopt and adapt its valuable principles of free speech, religious tolerance, and education to create our "own Enlightenment."David Avrom Bell is a historian of early modern and modern Europe at Princeton University. His most recent book, published in 2020 by Farrar, Straus and Giroux, is Men on Horseback: The Power of Charisma in the Age of Revolution. Described in the Journal of Modern History as an "instant classic," it is available in paperback from Picador, in French translation from Fayard, and in Italian translation from Viella. A study of how new forms of political charisma arose in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the book shows that charismatic authoritarianism is as modern a political form as liberal democracy, and shares many of the same origins. Based on exhaustive research in original sources, the book includes case studies of the careers of George Washington, Napoleon Bonaparte, Toussaint Louverture and Simon Bolivar. The book's Introduction can be read here. An online conversation about the book with Annette Gordon-Reed, hosted by the Cullman Center of the New York Public Library, can be viewed here. Links to material about the book, including reviews in The New York Review of Books, The Guardian, Harper's, The New Republic, The Nation, Le Monde, The Los Angeles Review of Books and other venues can be found here. Bell is also the author of six previous books. He has published academic articles in both English and French and contributes regularly to general interest publications on a variety of subjects, ranging from modern warfare, to contemporary French politics, to the impact of digital technology on learning and scholarship, and of course French history. A list of his publications from 2023 and 2024 can be found here. His Substack newsletter can be found here. His writings have been translated into French, Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese, Hebrew, Swedish, Polish, Russian, German, Croatian, Italian, Turkish and Japanese. At the History Department at Princeton University, he holds the Sidney and Ruth Lapidus Chair in the Era of North Atlantic Revolutions, and offers courses on early modern Europe, on military history, and on the early modern French empire. Previously, he spent fourteen years at Johns Hopkins University, including three as Dean of Faculty in its School of Arts and Sciences. From 2020 to 2024 he served as Director of the Shelby Cullom Davis Center for Historical Studies at Princeton. He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a corresponding fellow of the British Academy. Bell's new project is a history of the Enlightenment. A preliminary article from the project was published in early 2022 by Modern Intellectual History. Another is now out in French History.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children. FULL TRANSCRIPTAndrew Keen: Hello everybody, in these supposedly dark times, the E word comes up a lot, the Enlightenment. Are we at the end of the Enlightenment or the beginning? Was there even an Enlightenment? My guest today, David Bell, a professor of history, very distinguished professor of history at Princeton University, has an interesting piece in the spring issue of It is One of our, our favorite quarterlies here on Keen on America, Bell's piece is The Enlightenment Then and Now, and David is joining us from the home of the Enlightenment, perhaps Paris in France, where he's on sabbatical hard life. David being an academic these days, isn't it?David Bell: Very difficult. I'm having to suffer the Parisian bread and croissant. It's terrible.Andrew Keen: Yeah. Well, I won't keep you too long. Is Paris then, or France? Is it the home of the Enlightenment? I know there are many Enlightenments, the French, the Scottish, maybe even the English, perhaps even the American.David Bell: It's certainly one of the homes of the Enlightenment, and it's probably the closest that the Enlightened had to a center, absolutely. But as you say, there were Edinburgh, Glasgow, plenty of places in Germany, Philadelphia, all those places have good claims to being centers of the enlightenment as well.Andrew Keen: All the same David, is it like one of those sports games in California where everyone gets a medal?David Bell: Well, they're different metals, right, but I think certainly Paris is where everybody went. I mean, if you look at the figures from the German Enlightenment, from the Scottish Enlightenment from the American Enlightenment they all tended to congregate in Paris and the Parisians didn't tend to go anywhere else unless they were forced to. So that gives you a pretty good sense of where the most important center was.Andrew Keen: So David, before we get to specifics, map out for us, because everyone is perhaps as familiar or comfortable with the history of the Enlightenment, and certainly as you are. When did it happen? What years? And who are the leaders of this thing called the Enlightenment?David Bell: Well, that's a big question. And I'm afraid, of course, that if you ask 10 historians, you'll get 10 different answers.Andrew Keen: Well, I'm only asking you, so I only want one answer.David Bell: So I would say that the Enlightenment really gets going around the first couple of decades of the 18th century. And that's when people really start to think that they are actually living in what they start to call an Enlightenment century. There are a lot of reasons for this. They are seeing what we now call the scientific revolution. They're looking at the progress that has been made with that. They are experiencing the changes in the religious sphere, including the end of religious wars, coming with a great deal of skepticism about religion. They are living in a relative period of peace where they're able to speculate much more broadly and daringly than before. But it's really in those first couple of decades that they start thinking of themselves as living in an enlightened century. They start defining themselves as something that would later be called the enlightenment. So I would say that it's, really, really there between maybe the end of the 17th century and 1720s that it really gets started.Andrew Keen: So let's have some names, David, of philosophers, I guess. I mean, if those are the right words. I know that there was a term in French. There is a term called philosoph. Were they the founders, the leaders of the Enlightenment?David Bell: Well, there is a... Again, I don't want to descend into academic quibbling here, but there were lots of leaders. Let me give an example, though. So the year 1721 is a remarkable year. So in the year, 1721, two amazing events happened within a couple of months of each other. So in May, Montesquieu, one of the great philosophers by any definition, publishes his novel called Persian Letters. And this is an incredible novel. Still, I think one of greatest novels ever written, and it's very daring. It is the account, it is supposedly a an account written by two Persian travelers to Europe who are writing back to people in Isfahan about what they're seeing. And it is very critical of French society. It is very of religion. It is, as I said, very daring philosophically. It is a product in part of the increasing contact between Europe and the rest of the world that is also very central to the Enlightenment. So that novel comes out. So it's immediately, you know, the police try to suppress it. But they don't have much success because it's incredibly popular and Montesquieu doesn't suffer any particular problems because...Andrew Keen: And the French police have never been the most efficient police force in the world, have they?David Bell: Oh, they could be, but not in this case. And then two months later, after Montesquieu published this novel, there's a German philosopher much less well-known than Montesqiu, than Christian Bolz, who is a professor at the Universität Haller in Prussia, and he gives an oration in Latin, a very typical university oration for the time, about Chinese philosophy, in which he says that the Chinese have sort of proved to the world, particularly through the writings of Confucius and others, that you can have a virtuous society without religion. Obviously very controversial. Statement for the time it actually gets him fired from his job, he has to leave the Kingdom of Prussia within 48 hours on penalty of death, starts an enormous controversy. But here are two events, both of which involving non-European people, involving the way in which Europeans are starting to look out at the rest of the world and starting to imagine Europe as just one part of a larger humanity, and at the same time they are starting to speculate very daringly about whether you can have. You know, what it means to have a society, do you need to have religion in order to have morality in society? Do you need the proper, what kind of government do you need to to have virtuous conduct and a proper society? So all of these things get, you know, really crystallize, I think, around these two incidents as much as anything. So if I had to pick a single date for when the enlightenment starts, I'd probably pick that 1721.Andrew Keen: And when was, David, I thought you were going to tell me about the earthquake in Lisbon, when was that earthquake?David Bell: That earthquake comes quite a bit later. That comes, and now historians should be better with dates than I am. It's in the 1750s, I think it's the late 1750's. Again, this historian is proving he's getting a very bad grade for forgetting the exact date, but it's in 1750. So that's a different kind of event, which sparks off a great deal of commentary, because it's a terrible earthquake. It destroys most of the city of Lisbon, it destroys other cities throughout Portugal, and it leads a lot of the philosophy to philosophers at the time to be speculating very daringly again on whether there is any kind of real purpose to the universe and whether there's any kind divine purpose. Why would such a terrible thing happen? Why would God do such a thing to his followers? And certainly VoltaireAndrew Keen: Yeah, Votav, of course, comes to mind of questioning.David Bell: And Condit, Voltaire's novel Condit gives a very good description of the earthquake in Lisbon and uses that as a centerpiece. Voltair also read other things about the earthquake, a poem about Lisbon earthquake. But in Condit he gives a lasting, very scathing portrait of the Catholic Church in general and then of what happens in Portugal. And so the Lisbon Earthquake is certainly another one of the events, but it happens considerably later. Really in the middle of the end of life.Andrew Keen: So, David, you believe in this idea of the Enlightenment. I take your point that there are more than one Enlightenment in more than one center, but in broad historical terms, the 18th century could be defined at least in Western and Northern Europe as the period of the Enlightenment, would that be a fair generalization?David Bell: I think it's perfectly fair generalization. Of course, there are historians who say that it never happened. There's a conservative British historian, J.C.D. Clark, who published a book last summer, saying that the Enlightenment is a kind of myth, that there was a lot of intellectual activity in Europe, obviously, but that the idea that it formed a coherent Enlightenment was really invented in the 20th century by a bunch of progressive reformers who wanted to claim a kind of venerable and august pedigree for their own reform, liberal reform plans. I think that's an exaggeration. People in the 18th century defined very clearly what was going on, both people who were in favor of it and people who are against it. And while you can, if you look very closely at it, of course it gets a bit fuzzy. Of course it's gets, there's no single, you can't define a single enlightenment project or a single enlightened ideology. But then, I think people would be hard pressed to define any intellectual movement. You know, in perfect, incoherent terms. So the enlightenment is, you know by compared with almost any other intellectual movement certainly existed.Andrew Keen: In terms of a philosophy of the Enlightenment, the German thinker, Immanuel Kant, seems to be often, and when you describe him as the conscience or the brain or a mixture of the conscience and brain of the enlightenment, why is Kant and Kantian thinking so important in the development of the Enlightenment.David Bell: Well, that's a really interesting question. And one reason is because most of the Enlightenment was not very rigorously philosophical. A lot of the major figures of the enlightenment before Kant tended to be writing for a general public. And they often were writing with a very specific agenda. We look at Voltaire, Diderot, Rousseau. Now you look at Adam Smith in Scotland. We look David Hume or Adam Ferguson. You look at Benjamin Franklin in the United States. These people wrote in all sorts of different genres. They wrote in, they wrote all sorts of different kinds of books. They have many different purposes and very few of them did a lot of what we would call rigorous academic philosophy. And Kant was different. Kant was very much an academic philosopher. Kant was nothing if not rigorous. He came at the end of the enlightenment by most people's measure. He wrote these very, very difficult, very rigorous, very brilliant works, such as The Creek of Pure Reason. And so, it's certainly been the case that people who wanted to describe the Enlightenment as a philosophy have tended to look to Kant. So for example, there's a great German philosopher and intellectual historian of the early 20th century named Ernst Kassirer, who had to leave Germany because of the Nazis. And he wrote a great book called The Philosophy of the Enlightened. And that leads directly to Immanuel Kant. And of course, Casir himself was a Kantian, identified with Kant. And so he wanted to make Kant, in a sense, the telos, the end point, the culmination, the fulfillment of the Enlightenment. But so I think that's why Kant has such a particularly important position. You're defining it both ways.Andrew Keen: I've always struggled to understand what Kant was trying to say. I'm certainly not alone there. Might it be fair to say that he was trying to transform the universe and certainly traditional Christian notions into the Enlightenment, so the entire universe, the world, God, whatever that means, that they were all somehow according to Kant enlightened.David Bell: Well, I think that I'm certainly no expert on Immanuel Kant. And I would say that he is trying to, I mean, his major philosophical works are trying to put together a system of philosophical thinking which will justify why people have to act morally, why people act rationally, without the need for Christian revelation to bolster them. That's a very, very crude and reductionist way of putting it, but that's essentially at the heart of it. At the same time, Kant was very much aware of his own place in history. So Kant didn't simply write these very difficult, thick, dense philosophical works. He also wrote things that were more like journalism or like tablets. He wrote a famous essay called What is Enlightenment? And in that, he said that the 18th century was the period in which humankind was simply beginning to. Reach a period of enlightenment. And he said, he starts the essay by saying, this is the period when humankind is being released from its self-imposed tutelage. And we are still, and he said we do not yet live in the midst of a completely enlightened century, but we are getting there. We are living in a century that is enlightening.Andrew Keen: So the seeds, the seeds of Hegel and maybe even Marx are incant in that German thinking, that historical thinking.David Bell: In some ways, in some ways of course Hegel very much reacts against Kant and so and then Marx reacts against Hegel. So it's not exactly.Andrew Keen: Well, that's the dialectic, isn't it, David?David Bell: A simple easy path from one to the other, no, but Hegel is unimaginable without Kant of course and Marx is unimagineable without Hegel.Andrew Keen: You note that Kant represents a shift in some ways into the university and the walls of the universities were going up, and that some of the other figures associated with the the Enlightenment and Scottish Enlightenment, human and Smith and the French Enlightenment Voltaire and the others, they were more generalist writers. Should we be nostalgic for the pre-university period in the Enlightenment, or? Did things start getting serious once the heavyweights, the academic heavyweighs like Emmanuel Kant got into this thing?David Bell: I think it depends on where we're talking about. I mean, Adam Smith was a professor at Glasgow in Edinburgh, so Smith, the Scottish Enlightenment was definitely at least partly in the universities. The German Enlightenment took place very heavily in universities. Christian Vodafoy I just mentioned was the most important German philosopher of the 18th century before Kant, and he had positions in university. Even the French university system, for a while, what's interesting about the French University system, particularly the Sorbonne, which was the theology faculty, It was that. Throughout the first half of the 18th century, there were very vigorous, very interesting philosophical debates going on there, in which the people there, particularly even Jesuits there, were very open to a lot of the ideas we now call enlightenment. They were reading John Locke, they were reading Mel Pench, they were read Dekalb. What happened though in the French universities was that as more daring stuff was getting published elsewhere. Church, the Catholic Church, started to say, all right, these philosophers, these philosophies, these are our enemies, these are people we have to get at. And so at that point, anybody who was in the university, who was still in dialog with these people was basically purged. And the universities became much less interesting after that. But to come back to your question, I do think that I am very nostalgic for that period. I think that the Enlightenment was an extraordinary period, because if you look between. In the 17th century, not all, but a great deal of the most interesting intellectual work is happening in the so-called Republic of Letters. It's happening in Latin language. It is happening on a very small circle of RUD, of scholars. By the 19th century following Kant and Hegel and then the birth of the research university in Germany, which is copied everywhere, philosophy and the most advanced thinking goes back into the university. And the 18th century, particularly in France, I will say, is a time when the most advanced thought is being written for a general public. It is being in the form of novels, of dialogs, of stories, of reference works, and it is very, very accessible. The most profound thought of the West has never been as accessible overall as in the 18 century.Andrew Keen: Again, excuse this question, it might seem a bit naive, but there's a lot of pre-Enlightenment work, books, thinking that we read now that's very accessible from Erasmus and Thomas More to Machiavelli. Why weren't characters like, or are characters like Erasmuus, More's Utopia, Machiavell's prints and discourses, why aren't they considered part of the Enlightenment? What's the difference between? Enlightened thinkers or the supposedly enlightened thinkers of the 18th century and thinkers and writers of the 16th and 17th centuries.David Bell: That's a good question, you know, I think you have to, you, you know, again, one has to draw a line somewhere. That's not a very good answer, of course. All these people that you just mentioned are, in one way or another, predecessors to the Enlightenment. And of course, there were lots of people. I don't mean to say that nobody wrote in an accessible way before 1700. Obviously, lots of the people you mentioned did. Although a lot of them originally wrote in Latin, Erasmus, also Thomas More. But I think what makes the Enlightened different is that you have, again, you have a sense. These people have have a sense that they are themselves engaged in a collective project, that it is a collective project of enlightenment, of enlightening the world. They believe that they live in a century of progress. And there are certain principles. They don't agree on everything by any means. The philosophy of enlightenment is like nothing more than ripping each other to shreds, like any decent group of intellectuals. But that said, they generally did believe That people needed to have freedom of speech. They believed that you needed to have toleration of different religions. They believed in education and the need for a broadly educated public that could be as broad as possible. They generally believed in keeping religion out of the public sphere as much as possible, so all those principles came together into a program that we can consider at least a kind of... You know, not that everybody read it at every moment by any means, but there is an identifiable enlightenment program there, and in this case an identifiable enlightenment mindset. One other thing, I think, which is crucial to the Enlightenment, is that it was the attention they started to pay to something that we now take almost entirely for granted, which is the idea of society. The word society is so entirely ubiquitous, we assume it's always been there, and in one sense it has, because the word societas is a Latin word. But until... The 18th century, the word society generally had a much narrower meaning. It referred to, you know, particular institution most often, like when we talk about the society of, you know, the American philosophical society or something like that. And the idea that there exists something called society, which is the general sphere of human existence that is separate from religion and is separate from the political sphere, that's actually something which only really emerged at the end of the 1600s. And it became really the focus of you know, much, if not most, of enlightenment thinking. When you look at someone like Montesquieu and you look something, somebody like Rousseau or Voltaire or Adam Smith, probably above all, they were concerned with understanding how society works, not how government works only, but how society, what social interactions are like beginning of what we would now call social science. So that's yet another thing that distinguishes the enlightened from people like Machiavelli, often people like Thomas More, and people like bonuses.Andrew Keen: You noted earlier that the idea of progress is somehow baked in, in part, and certainly when it comes to Kant, certainly the French Enlightenment, although, of course, Rousseau challenged that. I'm not sure whether Rousseaut, as always, is both in and out of the Enlightenment and he seems to be in and out of everything. How did the Enlightement, though, make sense of itself in the context of antiquity, as it was, of Terms, it was the Renaissance that supposedly discovered or rediscovered antiquity. How did many of the leading Enlightenment thinkers, writers, how did they think of their own society in the context of not just antiquity, but even the idea of a European or Western society?David Bell: Well, there was a great book, one of the great histories of the Enlightenment was written about more than 50 years ago by the Yale professor named Peter Gay, and the first part of that book was called The Modern Paganism. So it was about the, you know, it was very much about the relationship between the Enlightenment and the ancient Greek synonyms. And certainly the writers of the enlightenment felt a great deal of kinship with the ancient Greek synonymous. They felt a common bond, particularly in the posing. Christianity and opposing what they believed the Christian Church had wrought on Europe in suppressing freedom and suppressing free thought and suppassing free inquiry. And so they felt that they were both recovering but also going beyond antiquity at the same time. And of course they were all, I mean everybody at the time, every single major figure of the Enlightenment, their education consisted in large part of what we would now call classics, right? I mean, there was an educational reformer in France in the 1760s who said, you know, our educational system is great if the purpose is to train Roman centurions, if it's to train modern people who are not doing both so well. And it's true. I mean they would spend, certainly, you know in Germany, in much of Europe, in the Netherlands, even in France, I mean people were trained not simply to read Latin, but to write in Latin. In Germany, university courses took part in the Latin language. So there's an enormous, you know, so they're certainly very, very conversant with the Greek and Roman classics, and they identify with them to a very great extent. Someone like Rousseau, I mean, and many others, and what's his first reading? How did he learn to read by reading Plutarch? In translation, but he learns to read reading Plutach. He sees from the beginning by this enormous admiration for the ancients that we get from Bhutan.Andrew Keen: Was Socrates relevant here? Was the Enlightenment somehow replacing Aristotle with Socrates and making him and his spirit of Enlightenment, of asking questions rather than answering questions, the symbol of a new way of thinking?David Bell: I would say to a certain extent, so I mean, much of the Enlightenment criticizes scholasticism, medieval scholastic, very, very sharply, and medieval scholasticism is founded philosophically very heavily upon Aristotle, so to that extent. And the spirit of skepticism that Socrates embodied, the idea of taking nothing for granted and asking questions about everything, including questions of oneself, yes, absolutely. That said, while the great figures of the Red Plato, you know, Socrates was generally I mean, it was not all that present as they come. But certainly have people with people with red play-doh in the entire virus.Andrew Keen: You mentioned Benjamin Franklin earlier, David. Most of the Enlightenment, of course, seems to be centered in France and Scotland, Germany, England. But America, many Europeans went to America then as a, what some people would call a settler colonial society, or certainly an offshoot of the European world. Was the settling of America and the American Revolution Was it the quintessential Enlightenment project?David Bell: Another very good question, and again, it depends a bit on who you talk to. I just mentioned this book by Peter Gay, and the last part of his book is called The Science of Freedom, and it's all about the American Revolution. So certainly a lot of interpreters of the Enlightenment have said that, yes, the American revolution represents in a sense the best possible outcome of the American Revolution, it was the best, possible outcome of the enlightened. Certainly there you look at the founding fathers of the United States and there's a great deal that they took from me like Certainly, they took a great great number of political ideas from Obviously Madison was very much inspired and drafting the edifice of the Constitution by Montesquieu to see himself Was happy to admit in addition most of the founding Fathers of the united states were you know had kind of you know We still had we were still definitely Christians, but we're also but we were also very much influenced by deism were very much against the idea of making the United States a kind of confessional country where Christianity was dominant. They wanted to believe in the enlightenment principles of free speech, religious toleration and so on and so forth. So in all those senses and very much the gun was probably more inspired than Franklin was somebody who was very conversant with the European Enlightenment. He spent a large part of his life in London. Where he was in contact with figures of the Enlightenment. He also, during the American Revolution, of course, he was mostly in France, where he is vetted by some of the surviving fellows and were very much in contact for them as well. So yes, I would say the American revolution is certainly... And then the American revolutionary scene, of course by the Europeans, very much as a kind of offshoot of the enlightenment. So one of the great books of the late Enlightenment is by Condor Say, which he wrote while he was hiding actually in the future evolution of the chariot. It's called a historical sketch of the progress of the human spirit, or the human mind, and you know he writes about the American Revolution as being, basically owing its existence to being like...Andrew Keen: Franklin is of course an example of your pre-academic enlightenment, a generalist, inventor, scientist, entrepreneur, political thinker. What about the role of science and indeed economics in the Enlightenment? David, we're going to talk of course about the Marxist interpretation, perhaps the Marxist interpretation which sees The Enlightenment is just a euphemism, perhaps, for exploitative capitalism. How central was the growth and development of the market, of economics, and innovation, and capitalism in your reading of The Enlightened?David Bell: Well, in my reading, it was very important, but not in the way that the Marxists used to say. So Friedrich Engels once said that the Enlightenment was basically the idealized kingdom of the bourgeoisie, and there was whole strain of Marxist thinking that followed the assumption that, and then Karl Marx himself argued that the documents like the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, which obviously were inspired by the Enlightment, were simply kind of the near, or kind of. Way that the bourgeoisie was able to advance itself ideologically, and I don't think that holds much water, which is very little indication that any particular economic class motivated the Enlightenment or was using the Enlightment in any way. That said, I think it's very difficult to imagine the Enlightement without the social and economic changes that come in with the 18th century. To begin with globalization. If you read the great works of the Enlightenment, it's remarkable just how open they are to talking about humanity in general. So one of Voltaire's largest works, one of his most important works, is something called Essay on Customs and the Spirit of Nations, which is actually History of the World, where he talks learnedly not simply about Europe, but about the Americas, about China, about Africa, about India. Montesquieu writes Persian letters. Christian Volpe writes about Chinese philosophy. You know, Rousseau writes about... You know, the earliest days of humankind talks about Africa. All the great figures of the Enlightenment are writing about the rest of the world, and this is a period in which contacts between Europe and the rest the world are exploding along with international trade. So by the end of the 18th century, there are 4,000 to 5,000 ships a year crossing the Atlantic. It's an enormous number. And that's one context in which the enlightenment takes place. Another is what we call the consumer revolution. So in the 18th century, certainly in the major cities of Western Europe, people of a wide range of social classes, including even artisans, sort of somewhat wealthy artisians, shopkeepers, are suddenly able to buy a much larger range of products than they were before. They're able to choose how to basically furnish their own lives, if you will, how they're gonna dress, what they're going to eat, what they gonna put on the walls of their apartments and so on and so forth. And so they become accustomed to exercising a great deal more personal choice than their ancestors have done. And the Enlightenment really develops in tandem with this. Most of the great works of the Enlightment, they're not really written to, they're treatises, they're like Kant, they're written to persuade you to think in a single way. Really written to make you ask questions yourself, to force you to ponder things. They're written in the form of puzzles and riddles. Voltaire had a great line there, he wrote that the best kind of books are the books that readers write half of themselves as they read, and that's sort of the quintessence of the Enlightenment as far as I'm concerned.Andrew Keen: Yeah, Voltaire might have been comfortable on YouTube or Facebook. David, you mentioned all those ships going from Europe across the Atlantic. Of course, many of those ships were filled with African slaves. You mentioned this in your piece. I mean, this is no secret, of course. You also mentioned a couple of times Montesquieu's Persian letters. To what extent is... The enlightenment then perhaps the birth of Western power, of Western colonialism, of going to Africa, seizing people, selling them in North America, the French, the English, Dutch colonization of the rest of the world. Of course, later more sophisticated Marxist thinkers from the Frankfurt School, you mentioned these in your essay, Odorno and Horkheimer in particular, See the Enlightenment as... A project, if you like, of Western domination. I remember reading many years ago when I was in graduate school, Edward Said, his analysis of books like The Persian Letters, which is a form of cultural Western power. How much of this is simply bound up in the profound, perhaps, injustice of the Western achievement? And of course, some of the justice as well. We haven't talked about Jefferson, but perhaps in Jefferson's life and his thinking and his enlightened principles and his... Life as a slave owner, these contradictions are most self-evident.David Bell: Well, there are certainly contradictions, and there's certainly... I think what's remarkable, if you think about it, is that if you read through works of the Enlightenment, you would be hard-pressed to find a justification for slavery. You do find a lot of critiques of slavery, and I think that's something very important to keep in mind. Obviously, the chattel slavery of Africans in the Americas began well before the Enlightment, it began in 1500. The Enlightenment doesn't have the credit for being the first movement to oppose slavery. That really goes back to various religious groups, especially the Fakers. But that said, you have in France, you had in Britain, in America even, you'd have a lot of figures associated with the Enlightenment who were pretty sure of becoming very forceful opponents of slavery very early. Now, when it comes to imperialism, that's a tricky issue. What I think you'd find in these light bulbs, you'd different sorts of tendencies and different sorts of writings. So there are certainly a lot of writers of the Enlightenment who are deeply opposed to European authorities. One of the most popular works of the late Enlightenment was a collective work edited by the man named the Abbe Rinal, which is called The History of the Two Indies. And that is a book which is deeply, deeply critical of European imperialism. At the same time, at the same of the enlightenment, a lot the works of history written during the Enlightment. Tended, such as Voltaire's essay on customs, which I just mentioned, tend to give a kind of very linear version of history. They suggest that all societies follow the same path, from sort of primitive savagery, hunter-gatherers, through early agriculture, feudal stages, and on into sort of modern commercial society and civilization. And so they're basically saying, okay, we, the Europeans, are the most advanced. People like the Africans and the Native Americans are the least advanced, and so perhaps we're justified in going and quote, bringing our civilization to them, what later generations would call the civilizing missions, or possibly just, you know, going over and exploiting them because we are stronger and we are more, and again, we are the best. And then there's another thing that the Enlightenment did. The Enlightenment tended to destroy an older Christian view of humankind, which in some ways militated against modern racism. Christians believed, of course, that everyone was the same from Adam and Eve, which meant that there was an essential similarity in the world. And the Enlightenment challenged this by challenging the biblical kind of creation. The Enlightenment challenges this. Voltaire, for instance, believed that there had actually been several different human species that had different origins, and that can very easily become a justification for racism. Buffon, one of the most Figures of the French Enlightenment, one of the early naturalists, was crucial for trying to show that in fact nature is not static, that nature is always changing, that species are changing, including human beings. And so again, that allowed people to think in terms of human beings at different stages of evolution, and perhaps this would be a justification for privileging the more advanced humans over the less advanced. In the 18th century itself, most of these things remain potential, rather than really being acted upon. But in the 19th century, figures of writers who would draw upon these things certainly went much further, and these became justifications for slavery, imperialism, and other things. So again, the Enlightenment is the source of a great deal of stuff here, and you can't simply put it into one box or more.Andrew Keen: You mentioned earlier, David, that Concorda wrote one of the later classics of the... Condorcet? Sorry, Condorcets, excuse my French. Condorcès wrote one the later Classics of the Enlightenment when he was hiding from the French Revolution. In your mind, was the revolution itself the natural conclusion, climax? Perhaps anti-climax of the Enlightenment. Certainly, it seems as if a lot of the critiques of the French Revolution, particularly the more conservative ones, Burke comes to mind, suggested that perhaps the principles of in the Enlightment inevitably led to the guillotine, or is that an unfair way of thinking of it?David Bell: Well, there are a lot of people who have thought like that. Edmund Burke already, writing in 1790, in his reflections on the revolution in France, he said that everything which was great in the old regime is being dissolved and, quoting, dissolved by this new conquering empire of light and reason. And then he said about the French that in the groves of their academy at the end of every vista, you see nothing but the gallows. Nothing but the Gallows. So there, in 1780, he already seemed to be predicting the reign of terror and blaming it. A certain extent from the Enlightenment. That said, I think, you know, again, the French Revolution is incredibly complicated event. I mean, you certainly have, you know, an explosion of what we could call Enlightenment thinking all over the place. In France, it happened in France. What happened there was that you had a, you know, the collapse of an extraordinarily inefficient government and a very, you know, in a very antiquated, paralyzed system of government kind of collapsed, created a kind of political vacuum. Into that vacuum stepped a lot of figures who were definitely readers of the Enlightenment. Oh so um but again the Enlightment had I said I don't think you can call the Enlightement a single thing so to say that the Enlightiment inspired the French Revolution rather than the There you go.Andrew Keen: Although your essay on liberties is the Enlightenment then and now you probably didn't write is always these lazy editors who come up with inaccurate and inaccurate titles. So for you, there is no such thing as the Enlighten.David Bell: No, there is. There is. But still, it's a complex thing. It contains multitudes.Andrew Keen: So it's the Enlightenment rather than the United States.David Bell: Conflicting tendencies, it has contradictions within it. There's enough unity to refer to it as a singular noun, but it doesn't mean that it all went in one single direction.Andrew Keen: But in historical terms, did the failure of the French Revolution, its descent into Robespierre and then Bonaparte, did it mark the end in historical terms a kind of bookend of history? You began in 1720 by 1820. Was the age of the Enlightenment pretty much over?David Bell: I would say yes. I think that, again, one of the things about the French Revolution is that people who are reading these books and they're reading these ideas and they are discussing things really start to act on them in a very different way from what it did before the French revolution. You have a lot of absolute monarchs who are trying to bring certain enlightenment principles to bear in their form of government, but they're not. But it's difficult to talk about a full-fledged attempt to enact a kind of enlightenment program. Certainly a lot of the people in the French Revolution saw themselves as doing that. But as they did it, they ran into reality, I would say. I mean, now Tocqueville, when he writes his old regime in the revolution, talks about how the French philosophes were full of these abstract ideas that were divorced from reality. And while that's an exaggeration, there was a certain truth to them. And as soon as you start having the age of revolutions, as soon you start people having to devise systems of government that will actually last, and as you have people, democratic representative systems that will last, and as they start revising these systems under the pressure of actual events, then you're not simply talking about an intellectual movement anymore, you're talking about something very different. And so I would say that, well, obviously the ideas of the Enlightenment continue to inspire people, the books continue to be read, debated. They lead on to figures like Kant, and as we talked about earlier, Kant leads to Hegel, Hegel leads to Marx in a certain sense. Nonetheless, by the time you're getting into the 19th century, what you have, you know, has connections to the Enlightenment, but can we really still call it the Enlightment? I would sayAndrew Keen: And Tocqueville, of course, found democracy in America. Is democracy itself? I know it's a big question. But is it? Bound up in the Enlightenment. You've written extensively, David, both for liberties and elsewhere on liberalism. Is the promise of democracy, democratic systems, the one born in the American Revolution, promised in the French Revolution, not realized? Are they products of the Enlightment, or is the 19th century and the democratic systems that in the 19th century, is that just a separate historical track?David Bell: Again, I would say there are certain things in the Enlightenment that do lead in that direction. Certainly, I think most figures in the enlightenment in one general sense or another accepted the idea of a kind of general notion of popular sovereignty. It didn't mean that they always felt that this was going to be something that could necessarily be acted upon or implemented in their own day. And they didn't necessarily associate generalized popular sovereignty with what we would now call democracy with people being able to actually govern themselves. Would be certain figures, certainly Diderot and some of his essays, what we saw very much in the social contract, you know, were sketching out, you knows, models for possible democratic system. Condorcet, who actually lived into the French Revolution, wrote one of the most draft constitutions for France, that's one of most democratic documents ever proposed. But of course there were lots of figures in the Enlightenment, Voltaire, and others who actually believed much more in absolute monarchy, who believed that you just, you know, you should have. Freedom of speech and freedom of discussion, out of which the best ideas would emerge, but then you had to give those ideas to the prince who imposed them by poor sicknesses.Andrew Keen: And of course, Rousseau himself, his social contract, some historians have seen that as the foundations of totalitarian, modern totalitarianism. Finally, David, your wonderful essay in Liberties in the spring quarterly 2025 is The Enlightenment, Then and Now. What about now? You work at Princeton, your president has very bravely stood up to the new presidential regime in the United States, in defense of academic intellectual freedom. Does the word and the movement, does it have any relevance in the 2020s, particularly in an age of neo-authoritarianism around the world?David Bell: I think it does. I think we have to be careful about it. I always get a little nervous when people say, well, we should simply go back to the Enlightenment, because the Enlightenments is history. We don't go back the 18th century. I think what we need to do is to recover certain principles, certain ideals from the 18 century, the ones that matter to us, the ones we think are right, and make our own Enlightenment better. I don't think we need be governed by the 18 century. Thomas Paine once said that no generation should necessarily rule over every generation to come, and I think that's probably right. Unfortunately in the United States, we have a constitution which is now essentially unamendable, so we're doomed to live by a constitution largely from the 18th century. But are there many things in the Enlightenment that we should look back to, absolutely?Andrew Keen: Well, David, I am going to free you for your own French Enlightenment. You can go and have some croissant now in your local cafe in Paris. Thank you so much for a very, I excuse the pun, enlightening conversation on the Enlightenment then and now, Essential Essay in Liberties. I'd love to get you back on the show. Talk more history. Thank you. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode of Misadventures of a Sneaker, I'm joined by Sharique Chishti, a traveler, storyteller, and someone who has a knack for noticing the little things most of us miss.This time, he takes us through the heart of Iran. From the busy streets of Tehran to the spiritual calm of Qom, the postcard-perfect bridges of Isfahan, the mountain village of Abiyaneh, and the ancient ruins of Persepolis—this journey spans centuries, cultures, and empires.We talk about Persian gardens and bathhouses, sip tea in cozy chaikhanas, wander through colorful bazaars, and reflect on the poetry, kindness, and layered history that shape the soul of Iran.It's not just a trip across a country—it's a journey throughtime. This is one of those episodes that will make you wanna plan your visit to Iran - NOW. So dive in.---------------------------------------------Follow Sharique on Instagram  | LinkedIn ---------------------------------------------To support our team and donate generously, please click ⁠⁠⁠⁠SUPPORT ⁠⁠⁠⁠.Like our work? Follow, Like & Subscribe to our podcast from wherever you are listening in. We would also love to hear from you, so do write to us at:Email: ⁠⁠⁠⁠misadventuresofasneaker@gmail.com⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠@misadventuresofasneaker⁠⁠⁠⁠Blog: misadventuresofasneaker.substack.com---------------------------------------00:00:00 Trailer00:01:34 Episode intro00:03:38 What's up + book reco00:07:34 Recent trip to Japan     00:12:32 Introducing Iran00:21:24 Touchdown Tehran00:32:50 Qom & it's mosques00:50:52 Kashan & it's Persian gardens00:58:16 Isfahan: restaurant in a bathhouse01:01:09 Break01:02:00 Abyaneh – the hillside town01:05:38 The grand Isfahan01:22:16 Yazd & the windcatcher towers01:30:28 Understanding Persian 01:30:56 Zurkhane: Persian gyms01:34:24 Pasargade – Cyrus and Darius01:38:13 Persipolis – city of ruins01:27:08 Tandem cycling – world record01:46:34 Shiraz – chill city01:52:43 Highlights from Iran01:55:32 Ideal number of days & tips01:57:56 Local friends01:59:34 Movies/Podcasts/books on Iran02:03:01: Thanks & Toodles

"I have long been inspired by Iranian culture and particularly its music and poetry.  Much to my surprise, my response to the field recording of the city of Isfahan eventually took the form of a kind of oblique word-picture, prompted by the images and themes which the original field recording sounds brought to mind, which I then set to the sound of a Daf percussion arrangement. One of the main jumping off points was also the idea of the festival of the spring equinox, ‘nowruz' - which literally means' ‘new day' in Persian, and which is a central celebration in Iranian culture.  "The Daf is a traditional Iranian percussion instrument associated with nowruz celebrations amongst many other things, whose unique sound I adore and which I felt tied in with the themes of sonic heritage in this context. My dear friend Mobin Hosseini from Sanandaj, Iran, kindly provided the accompanying Daf track. The field recording appears in its entirety, since this seemed the most fitting soundtrack to the rich imagery it inspired for me. I hope it might prove similarly evocative for anyone who listens to my contribution to the project."  Nowruz in Isfahan reimagined by Fiona Conn @outsidetheoutlines. ——————— This sound is part of the Sonic Heritage project, exploring the sounds of the world's most famous sights. Find out more and explore the whole project: https://www.citiesandmemory.com/heritage

In the heart of Isfahan, Iran, the beauty of Naqsh-e Jahan Square comes alive at sunset, where the fountain glimmers under the fading light, accompanied by the chant of the muezzin in the background. UNESCO listing: Meidan Emam, Esfahan Recorded by Azadeh Nilchiani. ——————— This sound is part of the Sonic Heritage project, exploring the sounds of the world's most famous sights. Find out more and explore the whole project: https://www.citiesandmemory.com/heritage

It's in front of Hakim Mosque (Masjed-e-Hakim) in Isfahan. The fountain and water are always integral to the architecture. At the end of the day, people pass by, and conversations flow gently, mingling with the soothing ambiance of the evening. UNESCO listing: Meidan Emam, Esfahan, Iran Recorded by Azadeh Nilchiani. ——————— This sound is part of the Sonic Heritage project, exploring the sounds of the world's most famous sights. Find out more and explore the whole project: https://www.citiesandmemory.com/heritage

"The ancient Hakim Mosque, located in the Isfahan province of Iran, was built in the 17th century on the ruins of an even older mosque. The relatively ordinary field recording made outside this mosque contrasts with the intricate beauty of its architecture. We are situated near a fountain, its bubbling flow audible as people chat nearby. As the recording progresses, a procession passes by, with chanting and the jingling of small bells in the background. "I was captivated by the heritage of the Hakim Mosque and the layers of history beneath it. It made me reflect on the many layers of architecture and culture that form the foundation of human civilization. Our structures and ideas are not new; they are merely one link in a long chain that stretches across countless generations. These ideas inspired my piece "Hakim" for the Sonic Heritage Project. The piece begins with a trumpet playing a melody reminiscent of the Adhan, the Muslim call to prayer.  "As the melody repeats, subtle variations are introduced. More layers are added, ever-changing, yet still true to the original. I carefully divided and processed the field recording into contrasting layers, creating a foundational structure that weaves in and out of the listener's perception. Echoes of the past (represented by a stretched version of the recording) mingle with the modern soundscape of the sample. The Adhan is intentionally left incomplete, allowing space for the generations of culture yet to come." Isfahan mosque reimagined by Nathan Plante. ——————— This sound is part of the Sonic Heritage project, exploring the sounds of the world's most famous sights. Find out more and explore the whole project: https://www.citiesandmemory.com/heritage

Sie ist die schönste Frau der Welt, er der Schah von Persien - die Welt liegt ihnen zu Füßen. Bei ihrem Besuch am 27.02.1955 bringen sie Glamour in das graue Nachkriegs-Bonn. Von Anja Arp.

Apasionarse por la vida. De eso se trata: el mejor jazz como regalo el primer Músicas Posibles del año. Alone Together Chet Baker Chet (Mono)Rosita Hawkins, Webster Coleman Hawkins Encounters Ben Webster Lush Life Michel Petrucciani The Blue Note AlbumsMy Funny Valentine Miles Davis Quintet Cookin' With The Miles Davis Quintet RVG Remaster 2007These Foolish Things Lester Young Blue Lester: The Immortal Lester YoungAlone Together Kenny Dorham Quiet Kenny RVG Remaster 2006Isfahan Duke Ellington Far East SuiteA Taste of Honey Paul Desmond  The Complete RCA Victor RecordingsIn A Sentimental Mood Sonny Rollins S. Rollins With The Modern Jazz QuartetAfter The Rain Duke Pearson Sweet Honey BeeDidn't Know About You Johnny Hodges & His Orchestra Blues-A-PlentySaturday Afternoon Blues Johnny Hodges & His Orchestra Blues-A-PlentyIn A Sentimental Mood Ellington & Coltrane Impulse! Escuchar audio

Vid förra sekelskiftet var Sverige var ett utvandringsland och invandringen var fri. Sveriges första muslim Ebrahim Umerkajeff flyttade till Stockholm år 1897. Han kom som en fattig äventyrare från Ryssland och blev med tiden en framgångsrik affärsman med familj, våning och butik på Östermalm.Under Ebrahim Umerkajeffs liv i Sverige kom invandrarpolitiken att skifta från helt fri, till starkt reglerad efter rashygieniska principer för att sedan pragmatiskt assimilera hundratusentals flyktingar under kriget. Behovet av arbetskraft ändrade sedan politiken från att alla skulle smälta in till att stödja bevarandet av invandrarnas kultur.I detta avsnitt av podden Historia Nu samtalar programledaren Urban Lindstedt med Simon Sorgenfrei är religionsvetare och föreståndare för Institutet för forskning om mångreligiositet och sekularitet vid Södertörns högskola. Han är aktuell med boken ”De kommer att vara annorlunda svenskar”.Vid förra sekelskiftet var 99,7 procent medlemmar i Svenska kyrkan och av de 35 000 invånare som var födda utomlands kom nästan alla i grannländerna. Idag är tjugo procent av alla människor som bor i Sverige födda någon annanstans, och islam Sveriges näst största religion.Ebrahim Umerkajeff och de första muslimerna är början på berättelsen om hur Sverige blev ett invandrarland. Ebrahim Umerkajeff beskrevs samtidigt stereotypiskt rasistiskt i Stockholms-Tidningen efter att han ville ha upprättelse efter felaktiga skriverier om att han rövade bort unga damer till ett harem, men möttes med respekt av myndigheter.Under 1900-talet utvecklades också Sverige till världens mest sekulariserade land, där religionen kom att betyda allt mindre för människor. Samtidigt har det genom en rad politiska beslut och ideologiska skiften blivit Europas mest mångreligiösa land.Redan Gustav Vasa hade kontakter med muslimer. Kungen träffade tartaren Bissure flera gånger i mitten på 1550-talet. Och Karl XII lierade sig med muslimer under det stora nordiska kriget och till med bodde i Bender som var en del av det Osmanska riket.De flesta av de muslimer som kom till Sverige under första hälften av 1950-talet var tatarer men den första muslimska imamen i landet kom att bli turken Osman Soukkan (1903-1975). Tillsammans med Umerkajeff och Akif Arhan bildade han 1949 landets första muslimska församling och förening, Turk-Islam Föreningen i Sverige för Religion och Kultur.Detta är en nymixad repris.Lyssna också på Sultanens sändebuds resa till Sverige år 1733.Bild: Mustafa Arhan och pappa Akif Arhan tillsammans på Stortorget 13, Malmö, ner plan med en vacker persisk Isfahan av utomordentligt god kvalitet. Titta på de persiska mattorna hängande på väggen bakom och på prislapparna. 790 kronor för den ljusa och 680 för den röda. Okänd fotograf. Malmö museum, Some Rights Reserved. Musik: Middle Eastern Arabian Night [ Version 5 | av Volodymyr, Storyblock Audio. Vill du stödja podden och samtidigt höra ännu mer av Historia Nu? Gå med i vårt gille genom att klicka här: https://plus.acast.com/s/historianu-med-urban-lindstedt. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Journey with Global Treasures to Meidan Emam, one of the world's largest public squares, located in the heart of Isfahan, Iran. Built in the early 17th century, this "Image of the World" showcases the pinnacle of Islamic architecture through its four magnificent monuments: the ethereal Sheikh Lotfollah Mosque, the commanding Royal Mosque, the six-story Ali Qapu Palace, and the grand portal to Isfahan's ancient bazaar. Discover how this remarkable UNESCO World Heritage site served as the beating heart of the Safavid Empire, where royal ceremonies and bustling markets coexisted in perfect harmony, and where four centuries later, history still lives and breathes in every intricate tile and soaring arch.

M

M

Former National Security Advisor to both President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg says Israel's tough military response with its enemies “could start to establish some type of long term peace.” Kellogg comments he does not think a two state solution is going to happen in the near future, but reminds listeners it took the United States “11 years to reintegrate the south into the north after our Civil War, and it took us about 11 years to reintegrate both Japan and Germany into the League of Nations after World War Two. So that can be done. So I think there's an opportunity here, as long as we let the Israelis do their job. And what I mean by that is this is when, when, President Biden makes the comment, ‘well, we need to have a proportionate response to the Israelis.' No what you want to have and just what President Trump said, you want to have a disproportionate response. It's what we did with Soleimani with Iran. And what I mean by that, the reason I made a comment, is maybe it is time you either go after the Supreme Leader Khamenei, or you go after his nuclear facilities, and [the Israelis] can do it, be it in Isfahan, or be it Natanz, or be it Fordow. They can actually go hit those sites, take them out, reset the conditions in the Middle East. And maybe, just maybe, now you have a chance with those personalities changing, You have a chance for peace.”See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Tras el ataque iraní sobre Israel con misiles balísticos de hace una semana, el Gobierno de Benjamin Netanyahu prometió una respuesta contundente. No tenemos aún claro ni cómo ni cuándo responderán, pero muchos analistas apuntan que el objetivo prioritario será el programa nuclear iraní. Para Israel esto supone toda una oportunidad ya que su principal enemigo no es otro que Irán pero hasta ahora no podía atacarles directamente. Ahora, después de dos ataques sobre su territorio, está legitimado para escoger el objetivo que más le interese dentro de Irán e ir a por él. Hasta hace no tanto se suponía que la amenaza de represalias por parte de Hezbolá y, en menor medida, de Hamás, ayudaría a disuadir a Israel de atacar directamente a Irán. Pero la guerra en Gaza y el modo de proceder de los iraníes ha cambiado el cálculo y la situación. Israel ha tenido éxito debilitando a estas dos organizaciones que actúan como representantes de Irán al norte y al sur de Israel. En resumidas cuentas, Hezbolá y Hamas en estos momentos luchan por su supervivencia mientras Irán ha quedado expuesto. El Gobierno israelí lo expresa de un modo inequívoco a través de sus portavoces. Saben que se les presenta la mejor oportunidad en medio siglo para causar un daño considerable a Irán sin que eso merezca reproche de la comunidad internacional, ya que están actuando en defensa propia. Tampoco tienen mucho que temer por el daño que puedan hacerles Hezbolá desde el norte y Hamas desde el sur. Los segundos se encuentran sitiados en Gaza, muchos de sus líderes han muerto, empezando por Ismail Haniya, asesinado en Teherán a finales de julio, y su capacidad de combate ha quedado notablemente reducida. Respecto a Hezbolá, que lleva un año bombardeando el norte de Israel con municiones iraníes, está desorganizado, se ha quedado sin comandantes y buena parte de su arsenal ha sido destruido. Así las cosas, si quieren responder deben hacerlo cuanto antes aprovechando esta ventaja táctica que será necesariamente temporal. Es muy posible que esta vez su represalia sea de mayor dureza que la realizaron en abril tras otro ataque similar. En aquel momento Netanyahu se dejó persuadir por Joe Biden y limitó el ataque a una base cercana a Isfahan. Le insistió en que supiese administrar una victoria que había conseguido gracias a su ayuda y la de los Estados árabes que contribuyeron de forma directa a la defensa de Israel. Esta vez podrían ser mucho más ambiciosos y apuntar directamente hacia el primer activo estratégico iraní, que no es otro que su programa nuclear que, según los especialistas occidentales, se encuentra en un grado de desarrollo muy avanzado. A nadie se le oculta que si Irán dispusiese de una bomba atómica propia plenamente operativa es muy probable que la utilizaría sin dudarlo y el primer objetivo sería Israel. Esto convierte esta operación en algo que todo el mundo da por descontado, pero los iraníes desarrollan este programa en secreto y en instalaciones no declaradas. Es posible que tanto la inteligencia israelí como la estadounidense las tengan localizadas, pero no serán fáciles de atacar y destruir. Biden no es partidario de hacerlo y así lo manifestó hace unos días. Algo inexplicable ya que EEUU lleva décadas tratando de frenar este programa. Quizá se trataba de simple diplomacia o quizá es que en la Casa Blanca creen que todavía se puede llegar a un acuerdo. El hecho es que si en Israel ven que tienen a tiro las instalaciones del programa nuclear iraní las destruirán al margen de lo que les digan en Washington. Lo que nadie sabe aún es cómo y cuándo lo harán. En La ContraRéplica: 0:00 Introducción 3:59 Objetivo nuclear en Irán 30:07 El fallo del Mosad 37:14 La partición de Palestina 43:58 La dignidad del trabajo · Canal de Telegram: https://t.me/lacontracronica · “Contra la Revolución Francesa”… https://amzn.to/4aF0LpZ · “Hispanos. Breve historia de los pueblos de habla hispana”… https://amzn.to/428js1G · “La ContraHistoria de España. Auge, caída y vuelta a empezar de un país en 28 episodios”… https://amzn.to/3kXcZ6i · “Lutero, Calvino y Trento, la Reforma que no fue”… https://amzn.to/3shKOlK · “La ContraHistoria del comunismo”… https://amzn.to/39QP2KE Apoya La Contra en: · Patreon... https://www.patreon.com/diazvillanueva · iVoox... https://www.ivoox.com/podcast-contracronica_sq_f1267769_1.html · Paypal... https://www.paypal.me/diazvillanueva Sígueme en: · Web... https://diazvillanueva.com · Twitter... https://twitter.com/diazvillanueva · Facebook... https://www.facebook.com/fernandodiazvillanueva1/ · Instagram... https://www.instagram.com/diazvillanueva · Linkedin… https://www.linkedin.com/in/fernando-d%C3%ADaz-villanueva-7303865/ · Flickr... https://www.flickr.com/photos/147276463@N05/?/ · Pinterest... https://www.pinterest.com/fernandodiazvillanueva Encuentra mis libros en: · Amazon... https://www.amazon.es/Fernando-Diaz-Villanueva/e/B00J2ASBXM #FernandoDiazVillanueva #israel #iran Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals

In this episode, we bring you the brief stories of two incredible doctors who are women worth knowing. The first is Dr. Catherine Ironside. She was born just outside of London in 1970. Catherine originally studied to be a nurse, but had such a natural propensity for diagnosis that she decided to study at the London School of Medicine for Women. After she received her medical degree, Catherine joined the Church Missionary Society and was assigned to work in Isfahan, Persia. She lived there until World War I broke out. She later returned to Persia after the war. Though this is only a short sketch of her life, drawn from the little information available, there is much in Catherine's story to commend her as a Woman Worth Knowing. Wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Ironside The second woman is Dr. Emmeline Stuart. There was only one source of information we could find about Dr. Stuart, and that was from Wikipedia. We stumbled on Dr. Stuart in our research on Mary Bird (1859-1914) who was a missionary in Persia. Dr. Emmeline Stuart was the female doctor who was sent to relieve Mary of her medical responsibilities. Dr. Stuart was committed to the cause of the gospel. Though she was a skilled surgeon and doctor, her first concern was for the spiritual well-being of the women in Persia. Though the information on Dr. Emmeline Stuart is scant, what we learned is both inspiring and stunning. Wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmeline_Stuart

A vibrant urban settlement from mediaeval times and the royal seat of the Safavid dynasty, the city of Isfahan emerged as a great metropolis during the seventeenth century. Using key sources, Isfahan: Architecture and Urban Experience in Early Modern Iran (Penn State University Press, 2024) reconstructs the spaces and senses of this dynamic city. Focusing on nuances of urban experience, Dr. Farshid Emami expands our understanding of Isfahan in a global context. He takes the reader on an evocative journey through the city's markets, promenades, and coffeehouses, bringing to life the social landscapes that animated the lives of urban dwellers and shaped their perceptions of themselves and the world. In doing so, Emami reveals seventeenth-century Isfahan as more than a cluster of beautiful monuments and gardens. It was a cosmopolitan city, where senses and materials, nature and artifice, and ritual and sociability acted in unison, engendering urban experiences that became paramount across the globe during the early modern period. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

A vibrant urban settlement from mediaeval times and the royal seat of the Safavid dynasty, the city of Isfahan emerged as a great metropolis during the seventeenth century. Using key sources, Isfahan: Architecture and Urban Experience in Early Modern Iran (Penn State University Press, 2024) reconstructs the spaces and senses of this dynamic city. Focusing on nuances of urban experience, Dr. Farshid Emami expands our understanding of Isfahan in a global context. He takes the reader on an evocative journey through the city's markets, promenades, and coffeehouses, bringing to life the social landscapes that animated the lives of urban dwellers and shaped their perceptions of themselves and the world. In doing so, Emami reveals seventeenth-century Isfahan as more than a cluster of beautiful monuments and gardens. It was a cosmopolitan city, where senses and materials, nature and artifice, and ritual and sociability acted in unison, engendering urban experiences that became paramount across the globe during the early modern period. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

A vibrant urban settlement from mediaeval times and the royal seat of the Safavid dynasty, the city of Isfahan emerged as a great metropolis during the seventeenth century. Using key sources, Isfahan: Architecture and Urban Experience in Early Modern Iran (Penn State University Press, 2024) reconstructs the spaces and senses of this dynamic city. Focusing on nuances of urban experience, Dr. Farshid Emami expands our understanding of Isfahan in a global context. He takes the reader on an evocative journey through the city's markets, promenades, and coffeehouses, bringing to life the social landscapes that animated the lives of urban dwellers and shaped their perceptions of themselves and the world. In doing so, Emami reveals seventeenth-century Isfahan as more than a cluster of beautiful monuments and gardens. It was a cosmopolitan city, where senses and materials, nature and artifice, and ritual and sociability acted in unison, engendering urban experiences that became paramount across the globe during the early modern period. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/islamic-studies

A vibrant urban settlement from mediaeval times and the royal seat of the Safavid dynasty, the city of Isfahan emerged as a great metropolis during the seventeenth century. Using key sources, Isfahan: Architecture and Urban Experience in Early Modern Iran (Penn State University Press, 2024) reconstructs the spaces and senses of this dynamic city. Focusing on nuances of urban experience, Dr. Farshid Emami expands our understanding of Isfahan in a global context. He takes the reader on an evocative journey through the city's markets, promenades, and coffeehouses, bringing to life the social landscapes that animated the lives of urban dwellers and shaped their perceptions of themselves and the world. In doing so, Emami reveals seventeenth-century Isfahan as more than a cluster of beautiful monuments and gardens. It was a cosmopolitan city, where senses and materials, nature and artifice, and ritual and sociability acted in unison, engendering urban experiences that became paramount across the globe during the early modern period. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/middle-eastern-studies

A vibrant urban settlement from mediaeval times and the royal seat of the Safavid dynasty, the city of Isfahan emerged as a great metropolis during the seventeenth century. Using key sources, Isfahan: Architecture and Urban Experience in Early Modern Iran (Penn State University Press, 2024) reconstructs the spaces and senses of this dynamic city. Focusing on nuances of urban experience, Dr. Farshid Emami expands our understanding of Isfahan in a global context. He takes the reader on an evocative journey through the city's markets, promenades, and coffeehouses, bringing to life the social landscapes that animated the lives of urban dwellers and shaped their perceptions of themselves and the world. In doing so, Emami reveals seventeenth-century Isfahan as more than a cluster of beautiful monuments and gardens. It was a cosmopolitan city, where senses and materials, nature and artifice, and ritual and sociability acted in unison, engendering urban experiences that became paramount across the globe during the early modern period. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/architecture

In this episode, we bring you the brief stories of two incredible doctors who are women worth knowing. The first is Dr. Catherine Ironside. She was born just outside of London in 1970. Catherine originally studied to be a nurse, but had such a natural propensity for diagnosis that she decided to study at the London School of Medicine for Women. After she received her medical degree, Catherine joined the Church Missionary Society and was assigned to work in Isfahan, Persia. She lived there until World War I broke out. She later returned to Persia after the war. Though this is only a short sketch of her life, drawn from the little information available, there is much in Catherine's story to commend her as a Woman Worth Knowing.The second woman is Dr. Emmeline Stuart. There was only one source of information we could find about Dr. Stuart, and that was from Wikipedia. We stumbled on Dr. Stuart in our research on Mary Bird (1859-1914) who was a missionary in Persia. Dr. Emmeline Stuart was the female doctor who was sent to relieve Mary of her medical responsibilities. Dr. Stuart was committed to the cause of the gospel. Though she was a skilled surgeon and doctor, her first concern was for the spiritual well-being of the women in Persia. Though the information on Dr. Emmeline Stuart is scant, what we learned is both inspiring and stunning. Wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmeline_Stuart Wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Ironside

In this episode, Victor Davis Hanson and cohost Jack Fowler analyze LA exodus to Bakersfield, US government forewarning of the Iran attack, Israel's response, USC cancels commencement speeches, and Bill Maher though disinterested is still unprofessional.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

GOOD EVENING: The show begins at the Federal Reserve, searching for the fate of the three promised interest rate cuts in 2024 -- none of which are currently in sight. We then delve into memories of Perry Mason while reading about the Trump trial. Next, we move to Tehran, Isfahan, and Gaza, discussing the imminent Rafah Operation. We then visit Midland, Michigan, and the pristine and busy Northwood University, known for its programs in marketing and management. Shifting focus to Berlin, we discover the potent new nationalist party, Alternative für Deutschland. We then explore Turkey's offer of sanctuary to Hamas and the situation in Ethiopia, where the country is collapsing around the isolated Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed. Moving on to Nigeria, we find the nation failing once again. We then cover Queen Camilla's visit to the Royal Lancers. Finally, we travel to Pakistan and Iran before concluding at the English Channel, where small, overfilled rafts carrying refugees drift toward England in the swells. 1934 TURKIYE MILITARY AIRCRAFT

Is anything more on-brand than seismic geopolitical events co-occurring with Bill's family vacation? No.Bill is back and leaning on co-host Joe Truzman to help him piece together the events of last week. He doesn't want it to be “a what-the-hell-happened episode,” so we won't call it that.They revisit Iran's historic strike on Israel and Israel's retaliatory strike in Isfahan, Iran — including what targets they hit, what message they wanted to send by hitting them, and whether this was the right move. They contemplate whether Israel's relatively tempered response is indicative of U.S. restraint and if Israel will continue to go after IRGC-QF targets.They also discuss reports of an attack on an Iranian-backed militia outside of Baghdad as well as allegations of Hezbollah Brigade forces launching an attack on U.S. forces in Syria.

Today's Headlines: The House of Representatives passed $95 billion in foreign aid packages for Ukraine, Taiwan, and Israel, with $60 billion allocated for Ukraine, $26 billion for Israel, $8 billion for Taiwan, and $9 billion for humanitarian aid in Gaza and the West Bank. Additionally, they approved a measure allowing the sale of frozen assets of Russian oligarchs to fund aid for Ukraine, sanctions on Russia, China, and Iran, and a TikTok ban if not sold within 9 months. Israel conducted a retaliatory strike against Iran in Isfahan, damaging part of an air defense system, and intensified air raids on Rafah. Maine joined 16 states and Washington DC in the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. On Earth Day, alarming reports revealed that wildfire smoke contributes to thousands of deaths annually, while the Interior Department expanded protections in Alaskan wilderness and the EPA targeted hazardous "forever chemicals." Resources/Articles mentioned in this episode: CBS News: House approves aid bills for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan  BBC: Israel Iran attack: Damage seen at air base in Isfahan AP News: Israeli strikes on southern Gaza city of Rafah kill 22, mostly children, as US advances aid package AP News: Maine joins compact to elect the president by popular vote but it won't come into play this November NPR: Wildfire smoke contributes to thousands of deaths each year in the U.S. WA Post: For the first time, U.S. may force polluters to clean up these 'forever chemicals' NY Times: Biden Shields Millions of Acres of Alaskan Wilderness From Drilling and Mining Morning Announcements is produced by Sami Sage alongside Bridget Schwartz and edited by Grace Hernandez-Johnson Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On the 1st of April, 2024, a presumed Israeli airstrike destroyed the Iranian consulate in Damascus, killing 13 people. Amongst them was a Brigadier General of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Mohammad Reza Zahedi. In retaliation, Iran launched its first-ever direct attack on Israeli soil, firing some 300 missiles and drones at targets within Israel. As of the 19th of April, an Israeli attack had in turn been launched on a nuclear research site in Isfahan, central Iran.Tensions between the two countries are clearly running high - but has it always been this way? Dan is joined by Maziar Bahari, an Iranian-Canadian journalist and filmmaker. He has produced and directed numerous documentary films on Iran and Israel and is the founder of the news website IranWire. Maziar explains how these two nations went from partners in the Middle East to implacable enemies.Produced by James Hickmann and edited by Dougal Patmore.Enjoy unlimited access to award-winning original documentaries that are released weekly and AD-FREE podcasts. Get a subscription for £1 per month for 3 months with code DANSNOW sign up at https://historyhit/subscription/We'd love to hear from you- what do you want to hear an episode on? You can email the podcast at ds.hh@historyhit.com.You can take part in our listener survey here.

#Nukes: The Isfahan "nuclear site" and up to date  brinkmanship. Henry Sokolski, NPEC. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/iran-fires-at-apparent-israeli-attack-drones-near-isfahan-air-base-and-nuclear-site/ar-AA1ngLM6 1925 PERSIA POLICE

Iranian state media says air defence systems were activated in several cities including Isfahan and Tabriz. Also: people in India begin voting in the first round of a seven phase general election, and the four fastest finishers in Beijing's half marathon have their prizes withdrawn.

Last night, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel reportedly retaliated against Iran's unprecedented attack. According to reports, Israel initiated a “limited” drone strike on an apparent military target in Isfahan, avoiding civilians. Before the launch, Israel reportedly informed the White House and carried out the drone strike despite President Biden's opposition. The Sekulow team discusses Israel's justified response to defend itself, how the Biden Administration will react, possible further turmoil in the Middle East – and much more. We are joined by several guests to discuss Israel's response: ACLJ Senior Counsel for International and Government Affairs Jeff Ballabon, CBN's Chris Mitchell, retired Israeli Brigadier General Amir Avivi, and former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. and the U.N. Danny Danon.

Voting has begun in India in what's being called the largest election in recorded history. Nearly 1 billion people are eligible to vote in the election, which will happen over the next six weeks. Also, US and Iranian officials confirm an Israeli attack on the Iranian city of Isfahan, which is home to several key military sites. And, there's a growing social media campaign to boycott Canada's biggest grocery store chain, Loblaws, as prices rise across the market. Plus, the UN describes the current state of government and society in Haiti as "cataclysmic," with armed gangs seizing control of much of the country.Music heard on air My Soul Thirsts Moonshine Part 1 All Winter Nature

Israel carried out what has been described as a 'limited' missile strike against Iran in retaliation to Tehran firing more than 300 drones and missiles at Israel just days ago. The strike targeted a major air base and a nuclear site in Isfahan province about 200 miles south of Tehran. Meanwhile, two men are arrested in Germany accused of spying for Russia and plotting a bombing to undermine German aid to Ukraine. FOX's John Saucier speaks with Dr. Rebecca Grant, president of IRIS Independent Research specializing in defense and aerospace research and consulting, who says the strike was extremely 'selective' and taught both countries much about their military capabilities. Click Here To Follow 'The FOX News Rundown: Evening Edition' Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

US officials say Israel hit Iran with a missile overnight on Friday, in what appears to be a retaliatory strike after weeks of escalating tensions between the two countries. There are competing claims about the scale of the attack on the Isfahan region and the extent of any damage, with Iranian state media downplaying its significance. It comes after weeks of soaring tensions between the regional rivals, which have already seen an Israeli attack on an Iranian compound in Syria, and Iran launch an unprecedented assault against Israel.Also in the programme: we speak to Newshour's James Coomarasamy in Uttar Pradesh as voting has ended in the first phase of India's general election and we hear why so many of China's cities are sinking.Photo: Anti-Israel billboards in Tehran following explosions around central city of Isfahan, Iran- 19 Apr 2024 Credit: ABEDIN TAHERKENAREH/EPA-EFE/REX/Shutterstock

Just before sunrise in Iran, an Israeli strike targeted a military airbase in Isfahan, a retaliation against Tehran for attacking Israel over the weekend. Iran's attack was itself a retaliation for an Israeli strike in Syria which killed several Iranian commanders. To discuss all this, retired Israeli General Amos Yadlin, former Head of Israeli Defense Intelligence, joins the show from Tel Aviv.  Also on today's show: Ray Takeyh, Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations; 2022 Nobel Prize Laureate, Ukrainian human rights lawyer Oleksandra Matviichuk; climate expert/author Bill Weir  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices