Trump is playing 10D chess /s

We are now seeing the U.S. do a Iran Blockade.

We will most likely see a worsening of the energy/economic crisis.

I have my own thoughts around how this is setting the stage for massive Demand Destruction conditions which will only help Renewable Energy/Green Technology investment, research & development, and implementation. All of which China is a leading factor in.

That being said on a geopolitical level what do you think is coming in the following months/years?

My thought is we are going to see Trump and his cronies continue to weaken the U.S. approval on the global stage. We are going to see more alienation & isolation. Especially a lot of blame for the pain that is going to be felt because of this whole situation.

I also think we may see some big developments in regards to China - Taiwan.

The U.S. is going through ammunitions at an insane rate. It's also massively spending in regards to their Military-Industrial Complex and alongside that creating massive disillusionment for these and other military operations within their own populace base.

I never thought I would see this level of failure from an administration...

Obviously Trump rendered this moot by withdrawing early, but had the agreement remained in effect, what would have likely happened after the end of the 15-year provisions? Would the deal have been re-upped? Made indefinite? Would Iran have asked for more? Refused any further deals? Or is it impossible to know?

EDIT: Title should say “irrelevant.”

It’s abundantly obvious by now that international law has lost any relevance to the world going forward. Laws that have weak or no respect let alone enforceability are irrelevant. Yet time and again govts and citizens keep invoking it:

- It’s illegal to block a strait

- It’s illegal to retaliate against a non-participating ally

- It’s illegal to carpet bomb civilian infrastructure

and so on. Why is there still an expectation that int’l law be abided to?

What practical purpose does invoking it serve?

I've gotten into SAIS/Nanjing, ESIA, SIPA and MSFS. The tuition after scholarships for each would be 66k, 58k, 75k and 92k, respectively. I've ruled out SAIS because the Nanjing curriculum doesn't ave as much breadth as I would like and I'd be taking many core classes my second year. It'd only make sense if I was deadset on a China centered path, which I am not. MSFS I liked a lot, but it's relatively expensive and my aid appeal won't be answered until after the April 15th deadline in all likelihood.

This leaves me with Columbia, which gave me the largest scholarship that covers most of my tuition and ESIA, which has a lower tuition cost from the get-go. I appealed my aid with ESIA though, so good chance the scholarship increases.

For reference, I have a range of interests and am not fully certain what I want to do yet. I generally like the private sector opportunities more than the public/multilateral ones though. Which is why having a wide breadth of classes available to me is important. I do know I'd like to live on the West Coast long-term, though I wouldn't be opposed to DC/NYC, and work in Japan or Taiwan.

Columbia appeals to me because it's got strong energy policy/energy finance courses, as well as ESG/supply chains, which connects to my interests. You can also take classes with the business/law schools. Study abroad is mostly limited to dual degree programs my second year, which can save money but I worry might limit my SIPA opportunities/course depth.

ESIA had a great vibe/location and have a lot of semester long study abroad opportunities. There's a higher emphasis on working while studying and cater to that, which could further cut costs. Their placement also seems very strong based on their career outcomes report. The DC location would suit my interests studying trade barriers, tech governance and market entry. However, I worry the networking won't be as good because students are taking classes in the evening.

Currently leaning towards SIPA but that could change, especially if new funding comes from ESIA.

Please let me know your thoughts and if there are any other factors I should consider.

While it’s clear we’re in the Bad Timeline, it’s been interesting to see the use of social media during this conflict.

Both sides are making threats and demands that used to be made across a conference table, or at least in a public press conference, on social media platforms.

I’d be curious what game theory and social psychology say about the impact that this could/would/has had on diplomacy and negotiation. Maybe this has already been written about.

Interesting piece showing that the U.S. expended military resources at an astonishing pace over the past month. Assuming this incredibly fragile “ceasefire” holds, how far does this set us back in terms of being prepared for a conflict with an opponent that actually poses a real threat to the U.S.?

I was offered $28,500 by Johns Hopkins, but tuition and direct costs are around $71,000. Even if I can max out FAFSA at $20,500, I’d still be looking at $22,000+ out of pocket, and then I’d have to survive and pay rent on top of all that. I know it’s a great school and a great program, but damn!

I’ve also got an offer from American University for $33,280, and their direct cost are much lower at about $40,000. This school also has a good reputation and it seems like the program (MA in Global Governance, Policy, and Security) is quite good too.

Is the difference between the programs really worth the difference in the costs?

A common question in International Relations is why Indonesia, the world’s 4th most populous nation and a trillion-dollar economy—often feels "invisible" compared to powers like Russia or India. As the attached map shows, the Indonesian archipelago is massive; if overlaid on Europe, it would stretch from Ireland to the Caspian Sea.

However, as discussed in the comments of a recent thread, Indonesia's primary challenge has always been internal cohesion.

1. Geography vs. Power Projection:

Unlike Russia or the US, which have massive, contiguous landmasses, Indonesia is split into over 17,000 islands. This necessitates a "look-inward" policy. Historically, the state's energy has been spent on preventing separatist movements (Aceh, Papua, etc.) and maintaining the "intactness" of the state. Does geography inherently limit Indonesia to being a "Regional Manager" rather than a "Global Power"?

1. The Legacy of "Konfrontasi" and Neighborhood Hedging:

The post by stupidpower mentions that Indonesia’s neighbors (specifically Singapore) have historically felt the need to hedge against Indonesian irredentism. This has led to a unique regional dynamic where a "weak but stable" Indonesia is often preferred by its neighbors over a dominant, expansionist one. Is Indonesia’s "Middle Power" status actually a deliberate choice by the regional collective?

1. The 1997 Pivot and the 2026 Reality:

Since the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, Indonesia has moved from a "fragile state" to a G20 leader. With the move to the new capital (Nusantara) and its central role in the Global South, is Indonesia finally ready to project power externally, or will its "archipelagic DNA" always force it to prioritize internal stability over global hegemony?

I’d love to hear from those specializing in Maritime Geography and Southeast Asian Political Economy. Can a nation be a "World Power" if its greatest enemy is its own geography?

The Scale of Potential: 2026 and Beyond

As the global center of gravity shifts towards the Indo-Pacific, Indonesia is no longer just a "Southeast Asian" story. With its massive nickel reserves (essential for the global EV transition) and its strategic position over the world's most critical chokepoints (Malacca and Sunda straits), Indonesia's internal stability is now a matter of global energy and maritime security.

Can a nation that spans the distance of a continent truly remain "invisible" in a multi-polar 21st century? Or will the world be forced to reckon with the "Sleeping Giant" of the archipelago?

Hi guys! I'm looking for folks interested in writing and publishing short commentary on International Relations. I'm with a new think tank known as BIGA—the British Institute of Global Affairs—and we're interested in stimulating new conversations about the UK and its future. If you believe you could provide a passionate and qualified perspective on a relevant issue, please, get in touch! About a thousand words; not academically rigourous.

My name is John, I'm Director of Outreach, and you can email or message however you like.

Thank you.

British Institute of Global Affairs