MIL-OSI Export

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sanjoy Paul, Associate Professor in Operations and Supply Chain Management, UTS Business School, University of Technology Sydney

For weeks now, the world economy has been on tenterhooks, waiting for one outcome: reopening the Strait of Hormuz.

In response to war with Israel and the United States, Iran has effectively closed the narrow waterway, through which about a fifth of the world’s oil and gas normally passes.

Some ships have passed through the strait during the war, but largely on Iran’s terms, including by reportedly paying tolls for safe passage.

Opening the strait back up to all shipping traffic was a key condition of the two-week ceasefire agreed to last week. But after “marathon” talks between the US and Iran failed to result in a deal on the weekend, US President Donald Trump used a Truth Social post to announce a major escalation:

Effective immediately, the United States Navy, the Finest in the World, will begin the process of BLOCKADING any and all Ships trying to enter, or leave, the Strait of Hormuz.

US Central Command later confirmed a blockade on all Iranian ports would begin on April 13 at 10am eastern time in the US.

The idea is to put severe pressure on the Iranian economy by restricting its exports, and force the country to allow all shipping through. But Iran – a major exporter of oil and gas – warned the global economy would pay.

So, under pressure to get oil and gas flowing again, why is the US blockading the Strait of Hormuz? What impacts could this have on the world?

Read more: Would a US blockade of the Strait of Hormuz be legal?

Iran’s reliance on oil

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), Iran produced 3.59 million barrels of crude oil per day in February (before war broke out).

In 2025, global crude oil demand was about 105 million barrels per day. That means Iran’s production accounts for about 3.5% of global demand – significant enough to influence global oil economy.

Iran’s economy is overwhelmingly dependent on oil and gas, especially crude oil, which accounted for 57% of the country’s total export revenue in 2024.

China is the main buyer, receiving about 90% of Iran’s oil exports in 2024. Other buyers include Syria (3.3%) and UAE (2%). Iraq, Turkey, Malaysia, and Oman bought less than 1% of Iranian oil exports.

Iran also exports petrochemicals products, such as methanol, urea, polyethylene and ammonia.

How the blockade will work

US Central Command has announced the blockade will target all vessels entering or departing Iranian ports and coastal areas.

Iran has 11 major ports. Eight of them are in the Southern region in Arabian Gulf and Gulf of Oman regions and three in the Caspian Sea (North) for regional trade.

Iranian ports located in these regions are set to be impacted by the targeted blockade. This includes the port in Kharg Island that handles about 90% of the country’s crude exports.

What will the impacts be?

Oil prices rose again on the news, having fallen when a ceasefire was announced last week.

Trump isn’t planning a permanent blockade. As he stated in his Truth Social post announcing the the move:

At some point, we will reach an “ALL BEING ALLOWED TO GO IN, ALL BEING ALLOWED TO GO OUT” basis but Iran has not allowed that to happen […] No one who pays an illegal toll will have safe passage on the high seas.

But it’s difficult to predict how long a blockade would last, how successful it would be, and the extent to which shipping would be affected.

China will be impacted first, as the main buyer of Iran’s crude oil. The knock-on effects may create a chronic shortage of oil and contribute to higher oil prices in the global market.

Adding to this, many Gulf countries typically import key materials and food products from Iran. For example, in 2022, the United Arab Emirates imported mineral fuels, oils, distillation products, organic chemicals, iron and steel, copper and fertilisers from Iran.

Oman and Qatar also import key materials and food products, such as steel, iron, construction materials, petrochemicals, agricultural products, and fruits.

Pressure on farming

Urea, a crucial fertiliser used for farming, deserves a special mention. Iran is a major producer of urea and is the largest exporter in the Gulf region.

Farmers around the world are already under pressure as the conflict puts severe strain on global fertiliser supplies.

Even if they don’t get fertiliser from Iran directly, countries such as Brazil, India, and Australia could be impacted from the flow-on effects of disruption to the fertiliser supply chain.

A tense wait

After failed peace talks, Trump says he is moving to stop Iran’s “world extortion” – referring primarily to charging ships for safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz. But the knock-on effects of a US blockade could create new costs for the global economy.

For countries around the world, the unpredictability further strengthens the case for diversifying crude oil sources and investing in their own refining capability.

In the longer term, greater adoption of renewable energy and electrification of transportation, manufacturing and logistics systems can help a country to become less reliant on oil.

– ref. Trump’s Strait of Hormuz blockade risks new costs for the global economy – https://theconversation.com/trumps-strait-of-hormuz-blockade-risks-new-costs-for-the-global-economy-280448

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/13/trumps-strait-of-hormuz-blockade-risks-new-costs-for-the-global-economy-280448/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Art Cotterell, Postdoctoral Fellow, Faculty of Law & Justice, UNSW Sydney

The successful Artemis II trip around the Moon was a historic achievement – the first crewed lunar fly-by in more than 50 years, and the greatest distance yet travelled by humans from our “pale blue dot”.

The mission was marked by engineering, scientific and technical feats, by the astronauts and team at NASA and beyond, who got the crew there and back safely.

With the technical achievement came symbolic firsts, too. The first woman and the first person of colour to orbit the Moon. As astronaut Victor Glover put it, “people need to be able to see themselves in the things that they dream about”.

Artemis II deserves celebration. But the celebration should not crowd out political scrutiny.

Power and resources on the Moon

Artemis II is one mission in a broader US program to start establishing a permanent Moon base by 2030.

This is about more than exploration. As US President Donald Trump has said, it is about asserting “American space superiority”, establishing a “sustained American presence” and developing a lunar economy. The US colonial thinking of a “manifest destiny to the stars” returns.

The bigger picture is that the US sees itself in a “space race” with what NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman has called its “geopolitical adversary”, China.

One point of conflict is access to finite, valuable resources at the lunar south pole, where water ice could sustain life and provide rocket fuel for missions to Mars. More speculative, profit-driven visions also play a part, from mining helium-3 to extracting resources from asteroids and bringing them to Earth.

Global rules – beyond the globe

International space treaties, largely forged during the 20th century Cold War, have little to say about appropriating resources off-Earth.

The US wants to shape the rules, and the US-led Artemis Accords are part of that effort. They are non-binding principles, but consequential.

Grounded in the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, they offer a “blueprint” for how resource activities, and other unsettled topics, may be governed.

Many observers see the Artemis Accords as more transparent and open than China’s counterpart, the International Lunar Research Station. However, critics argue the Artemis Accords undermine multilateral, consensus-based processes.

Sixty-one countries have signed the Artemis Accords. Only nine new signatories have joined since Trump’s return as US president, versus 19 in the year prior. It remains to be seen if the trend continues.

Why US leadership in space demands scrutiny

US leadership in space is often discussed only in contrast to China. This binary view can help the US escape scrutiny, especially in allied nations.

Consider America’s recent actions here on Earth. As Artemis II drew our gaze skyward, the US–Israel war on Iran was intensifying.

In an expletive-filled post on Truth Social, Trump hinted at a nuclear attack with a threat that “a whole civilization will die tonight” unless Tehran reopened the Strait of Hormuz.

The US also threatened to target civilian infrastructure, after one strike hit a school, reportedly killing more than 150 people.

All of this occurred amid the ongoing crisis and civilian casualties in Gaza, where Trump’s “Board of Peace” has faced criticism for seeking to function as an “alternative UN”.

Trump has also revived territorial ambitions toward Greenland, saying: “We need it”. He floated annexing Canada as the fifty-first US state. He spoke of the “honour of taking Cuba”. He declared he would “run” Venezuela.

All of these places have natural resources that would give the US strategic advantages, including in critical minerals and oil.

This conduct has raised concerns from international lawyers and international organisations. Even US allies have spoken up, whom Trump criticised for not joining the Iran war.

Hard questions about a US-led future in space

A disregard for international law on Earth leads us to question how the US will ultimately act in space.

Scholars from the Global South, notably law professor Antony Anghie, have long argued that the US uses international law selectively and in line with its own interests. This is not new with Trump, even if the pattern has now become more visible and more intense. What may be changing is that more of the world is taking notice, including states that once benefited from that status quo.

At the World Economic Forum in Davos this year, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney described the “rules-based order” as “partially false”, in which “international law applied with varying rigour depending on the identity of the accused or the victim”. He was not speaking about space – but his point applies here too.

This puts question marks over US leadership in space – and whether it will abide by agreed rules when control over lunar resources is no longer just a hypothetical question. Even America’s own Artemis Accords principles may prove optional if they stop being convenient to US interests.

That question is worth considering, given Trump has already justified withdrawing from many international instruments and organisations for this reason. Even NATO may be next.

No superpower should be immune from scrutiny – on Earth or beyond.

– ref. As Artemis II is celebrated, the world faces hard questions about US leadership in space – https://theconversation.com/as-artemis-ii-is-celebrated-the-world-faces-hard-questions-about-us-leadership-in-space-280371

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/13/as-artemis-ii-is-celebrated-the-world-faces-hard-questions-about-us-leadership-in-space-280371/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matthew Sussex, Associate Professor (Adj), Griffith Asia Institute; and Fellow, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University

Hungary’s most consequential election in decades has just delivered an important victory for democracy and accountability.

For Hungarians, opposition leader Péter Magyar’s emphatic defeat of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and his ruling Fidesz Party ends 16 years of corruption and quasi-authoritarianism.

The outcome will also be felt widely, from Moscow to Washington and beyond.

In a contest characterised as a referendum on whether Hungary should pivot west or continue its authoritarian drift, Magyar’s victory is a stern rebuke to the dark, transnational forces of nativism, division and the politics of resentment that have become part of mainstream political discourse.

Perhaps the most surprising thing about the election was not the turnout (more than 74%, shattering previous records), or even the result (a two-thirds supermajority for Magyar’s Tisza party, winning at least 138 of 199 parliamentary seats).

Both had been predicted for some time, and Orbán’s soft authoritarianism had always left the door ajar for a possible opposition victory at the polls.

Rather, the biggest surprise might have been Orbán’s immediate concession. He didn’t try to manufacture a crisis or use his security services to hold onto power. Given the strength of anti-government sentiment in Hungary, such a move could have led to a “colour revolution” – the type of massive street protests seen previously in Ukraine, Georgia and other countries.

This could have turned bloody. Liberal Hungarians, and the European Union more broadly, will be heaving a collective sigh of relief.

Why Orbán was suddenly vulnerable

Having won office, Magyar will need to move quickly but also carefully to bring change, so as not to alienate too many former Fidesz voters.

He has already asked President Tamaś Sulyok to resign, along with other Orbán loyalists. The Tisza supermajority in parliament is important here. It will be required for constitutional amendments to dismantle the architecture of Orbán’s authoritarian state.

Fortunately, this will be easier in Hungary than fully fledged autocratic systems. Indeed, Orbán’s longevity can somewhat be attributed to the fact that his brand of authoritarianism was only partial.

Certainly, it had the structural elements of an autocracy. That included widespread, government-controlled gerrymandering to ensure Fidesz victories, and the cynical diversion of state funds to cities and provinces controlled by Orbán’s political allies.

In addition, the nationalised media ecosystem was heavily supportive of the government, although alternative voices kept debate alive via foreign-owned news organisations.

But Orbán’s success also came from facing weak and easily fragmented or coopted oppositions. Magyar – a former Orbán ally – ran a disciplined campaign that nullified the electoral advantage for Fidesz.

Ultimately, though, when voters have a choice – even a constrained one – they will eventually reject governments that rely on blame and victimhood to mask their inability to offer people a better future.

Under Orbán, Hungary was consistently ranked the most corrupt nation in Europe. In 2025, it ranked last in the EU on relative household wealth. It had also suffered rampant inflation and economic stagnation after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Video footage of country estates built by Hungary’s elites, complete with zebras roaming the grounds, perfectly symbolised the popular outrage with wealth inequality.

A setback for Putin, Trump and right-wing populism

Hungary’s new start also sends a powerful message to other nations. Clearly the biggest loser from the election is Vladimir Putin’s Russia, which had hastily tapped Kremlin powerbroker Sergey Kiriyenko and a team of “political technologists” to assist Orbán.

Under Orbán, Hungary was the strongest pro-Kremlin voice in the EU. It regularly stymied aid packages for Ukraine, tied up decision-making on the war in bureaucratic processes, and held the European Commission to ransom by threatening hold-out votes.

In fact, just days before the election, Bloomberg published a transcript of a phone call between Orbán and Putin from October 2025, in which Orbán compared himself to a mouse helping free the caged Russian lion.

This came on the back of revelations that Orbán’s foreign minister, Péter Szijjártó, and other Hungarian officials had regularly been leaking confidential EU discussions to Moscow.

Another loser from the Hungarian election is the Trump White House.

The pre-election Budapest visit by US Vice President JD Vance to shore up support for Orbán was breathtakingly hypocritical. Vance farcically demanded an end to foreign election meddling, while engaging in precisely that. The White House then doubled down, with Trump promising on Truth Social to aid Orbán with the “full Economic Might of the United States”.

Now, though, Trump is very publicly on the losing side. And like the debacle of his Iran war, he tends to chafe at losing.

The election also shows that US foreign interference campaigns are not invulnerable, though the White House will doubtless continue excoriating Europe. The Trump administration’s view that Europe is heading for “civilisational erasure”, necessitating US efforts to “cultivate resistance” and “help Europe correct its current trajectory” is documented in its 2025 National Security Strategy.

But the broader movements representing what Russian journalist Mikhail Zygar calls the “Putinisation of global politics” have been repudiated by Hungary’s election result.

Under Orbán, Hungary was a hub for ultraconservative voices. Think tanks like the MAGA-boosting US Heritage Foundation and Hungary’s Danube Institute regularly held prominent dialogues bemoaning Europe’s capitulation to wokeism.

The Hungarian iteration of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), sponsored by the American Conservative Union, was a key calendar for Western right-wing politicians and commentators, including former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, and former Fox News host Tucker Carlson.

China will also be keenly watching Magyar’s new government, especially since it has viewed Hungary as a soft entry point to the EU. The large-scale investment in electric vehicle manufacturing, especially battery production, are part of a growing Chinese business footprint in the country.

For Beijing, the question will be whether Magyar seeks to sacrifice this lucrative investment to burnish his European credentials.

What about the winners?

In addition to Hungarians outside Orbán’s orbit of elites, the EU will welcome the news that it remains an attractive force.

Ukraine, too, may find it easier to secure European assistance. At the very least, smaller Ukraine detractors like Slovakia will have to choose between acquiescing quietly or thrusting themselves uncomfortably into the open.

Yet, although Hungary’s result is promising, the world is still trending towards illiberalism.

And with the US midterm elections fast approaching, far-right American politicians, including Trump himself, will be studying Hungary’s lessons closely. If they conclude that Orbán’s brand of authoritarianism was too soft, a more hardline path looms as an ominous alternative.

– ref. What Viktor Orbán’s election loss means for Putin, Trump and the rise of right-wing populism – https://theconversation.com/what-viktor-orbans-election-loss-means-for-putin-trump-and-the-rise-of-right-wing-populism-280447

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/13/what-viktor-orbans-election-loss-means-for-putin-trump-and-the-rise-of-right-wing-populism-280447/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sophie Smit, Postdoctoral Research Associate in Cognitive Neuroscience‬, University of Sydney

Have you ever tasted a word, or seen colours while listening to music?

If you have, you may be among the 1% to 4% of people who have a fascinating trait known as synaesthesia.

Synaesthesia is a neurological phenomenon where the activation of one sense, such as hearing, triggers the activation of another usually unrelated sense, such as sight. This means people with synaesthesia often experience additional sensations compared to the rest of us.

We’ve devoted a lot of time to understanding this rare phenomenon. While there’s much more to unpack, what we do know shows we don’t all perceive the world in the same way.

What is synaesthesia?

People with synaesthesia are known as synaesthetes. Research suggests synaesthesia may be more common among women, although this could reflect sampling biases, and may be influenced by genetics.

There are many different types of synaesthesia. Some people have auditory-visual synaesthesia, meaning they see colours when they hear sounds. Others see colours when they read, hear or think about letters or numbers. This is known as grapheme-colour synaesthesia. Another example is mirror-touch synaesthesia, where a person feels sensations on their own body when they see another person being touched.

All of us naturally combine information from different senses. For instance, when you watch someone speak, your brain blends what you see and hear to understand them better. In synaesthesia these links are a bit different – a sound might, for example, trigger a visual experience – but may still depend on the same mechanisms.

People with synaesthesia don’t have any control over how their senses collide. Instead, these are spontaneous, vivid experiences that usually stay the same over time. For example, today a person with grapheme-colour synaesthesia may perceive the letter “A” as being red. And they’ll most likely see it as being the same shade even years later.

It’s worth noting synaesthesia is not an illness or disorder. And it doesn’t cause harm or impairment, although some people may find their synaesthesia overwhelming at times. For example, if they feel pain every time they see someone else in pain, going to the movies can be quite disturbing. However, on the whole it does not seem to interfere with daily life. In fact, many people don’t realise they have synaesthesia because it’s simply how they perceive the world.

What causes it?

We don’t yet know exactly what causes synaesthesia. But scientists have come up with two main theories.

1. Synaesthetes have more connections in their brain

According to this view, known as the cross-activation theory, people with synaesthesia have more connections between different parts of their brain. This could happen because their brain hasn’t gotten rid of unused connections between brain cells. This process, known as synaptic pruning, helps the brain work more efficiently and is part of normal development.

Under this theory, a person with grapheme-colour synaesthesia for example, would have the region that recognises letters directly linked to the part that processes colour. So when they see a letter, they perceive it with a colour.

2. Synaesthetes have slightly different activity in their brain

The other main theory is that people with synaesthesia have the same neural connections as non-synaesthetes, but certain pathways might be stronger or more active. Synaesthesia does seem to build on mechanisms we all have. For example, when you see a picture of a grey banana, you know bananas are usually yellow. We even see patterns of brain activity that reflect this. Grapheme-colour synaesthetes might also do this with letters so that when they see black letters, their brain activates specific colours.

Simply put, the debate about what causes synaesthesia comes down to whether synaesthetes have a different brain structure or just use their brains in an alternative way.

Does it make you more creative?

You might’ve heard artists such as Kandinsky or musicians such as Lorde describe their synaesthesia-like experiences. And there is some evidence to suggest synaesthesia is more common among people in creative fields.

One large survey of Australian synaesthetes found roughly 24% had creative occupations, such as being an artist, musician, architect or graphic designer. This is compared to the less than 2% of people in the general population who have these jobs. This gap is striking, even though we don’t understand what’s behind it. One reason may be synaesthetes link ideas and sensations in unusual ways, helping them think more creatively. Research suggests people with certain kinds of synaesthesia may form stronger memories or have more vivid imaginations, but only to a limited extent.

Synaesthesia is a powerful window into how our brains make sense of the world. It reminds us perception is not a fixed, one-size-fits-all process. Rather, it’s something the brain actively builds in ways that are often more varied, and far richer, than we might expect.

– ref. Do you taste words or hear colours? Here’s the neuroscience behind synaesthesia – https://theconversation.com/do-you-taste-words-or-hear-colours-heres-the-neuroscience-behind-synaesthesia-277960

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/13/do-you-taste-words-or-hear-colours-heres-the-neuroscience-behind-synaesthesia-277960/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexa Scarlata, Lecturer, Digital Communication, RMIT University

Australian kids’ TV shows are now few and far between. During the pandemic, the Australian government scrapped decades-old quotas for minimum hours of children’s content to try and bail out flailing commercial television networks. They were never reinstated.

In 2023, the Australian Communications and Media Authority reported the local kids TV sector decreased by more than 84% between 2019 and 2022. Certainly, Bluey continues to top global streaming charts. But beyond this phenomenon – which only financially benefits BBC Studios – local children’s TV has been in grave danger.

Last year, new laws were introduced in Australia to force streaming giants to invest in local content, including children’s programming. But these laws don’t include any minimum title numbers, or hours, per genre, so their tangible impact on kids’ TV remains unclear. For instance, Netflix’s 2026 Australian production slate includes no new kids content.

Essentially, it’s up to our national broadcaster the ABC, and advocacy organisations such as the Australian Children’s Television Foundation (ACTF), to carry the mantle and deliver this valued content.

The latest collaboration between the ABC and the ACTF is the new live-action family adventure series, Caper Crew. The first children’s series from acclaimed production company Easy Tiger, it demonstrates how good Australian kids TV can be, with a bit of resourcing.

Heists, hijinks and heartwarming fun

In Caper Crew, 12-year-old Amelia and 9-year-old Kai Delaney live in Woodspring, which they consider to be “the most boring town on Earth”.

Its only claim to fame is that 27 years ago the infamous Kangaroo Gang stole the town’s priceless golden meteorite, “The Nug”. Despite a $100,000 reward, its whereabouts remain a mystery. The series draws inspiration from the true story of the Kangaroo Gang, a group of Australian crooks who pulled off daring jewellery heists around Europe in the 1960s.

Just as Amelia embarks on a campaign to become the Year 6 school captain – against her nemesis and heir to the town’s dynasty, Emilia Katinkatonk – her glamourous con-artist grandmother Queenie mysteriously appears.

Queenie starts to teach her grandchildren the art of the grift, imparting a series of mischievous “con-mandments” from her personal playbook. As she shares her wisdom, Amelia and Kai can’t help but wonder: was this grandmother they never knew about once the Kangaroo Gang’s leader? Does she know where The Nug is?

Amelia and Kai, along with their friends Penelope and Ophelbert, form their own gang called the Joeys. They’re hell-bent on finding The Nug and claiming the reward.

The young cast of Caper Crew are very endearing, even when they precociously break the fourth wall. Tina Bursill’s Queenie is magnetic, Annie Maynard’s Mayor Katie Katinkatonk is gloriously grating, and ABC-favourite Michael Theo as drama teacher Jo Jo Encore will captivate the whole family.

For parents and carers watching with kids, Caper Crew combines a nostalgic ode to millennial classics such as Matilda and Harriet the Spy, with a Wes Anderson-esque visual quality. The series will likely charm young viewers into taking up magic or planning their own heist; parents be warned.

Family viewing key for the ABC

Caper Crew is emblematic of the ABC’s recent strategic shift to make shows optimised for co-viewing between parents and kids.

In June 2024, the ABC rebranded its ABC TV Plus channel (a more general family entertainment channel) to ABC Family, which is described as a “destination for big kids and their parents, with comedies, game shows, natural history, and movies”.

According to the ABC’s then-head of programming, acquisitions and streaming, Roberta Allan, this shift sought to capitalise on how most viewers were engaging with the ABC: via smart TVs, rather than on desktop or mobile browsers. As Allan explained:

Creating a brand like ABC Family will mean that we’ll be able to transition children as they get older with their families into that co-viewing safe environment. And expose them to some of the other content we have.

It’s a smart and appealing way to bolster kids programming at the ABC and to encourage a new generation of Australian families to watch together.

Caper Crew is available now on ABC iview and broadcasting on ABC Family.

– ref. ABC’s Caper Crew delivers heists and heart – a bright spot in a struggling kids’ TV sector – https://theconversation.com/abcs-caper-crew-delivers-heists-and-heart-a-bright-spot-in-a-struggling-kids-tv-sector-279216

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/13/abcs-caper-crew-delivers-heists-and-heart-a-bright-spot-in-a-struggling-kids-tv-sector-279216/