James' World 2

Click the link below the picture

.

Do you doomscroll? If so, you’re not alone. One 2024 survey found that almost a third of American adults regularly doomscroll—that is, swipe through endless social media feeds—and millennials and Gen Zers are even more likely to engage in this behavior.

This is partly because social media feeds often have no end, so users continuously scroll to get to the next thing that catches their attention—and the next after that. These design features keep users on social media platforms—but they have also been criticized as a pathway to problematic social media use and even addiction.

But is it possible for someone to become addicted to social media in the same way as they can develop an addiction to nicotine or alcohol, say? The answer is more complicated than you might think.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has an entire center dedicated to digital well-being, the Center of Excellence on Social Media and Youth Mental Health. On its website, it explains that concerning social media use might include behaviors such as struggling in school because of technology or withdrawing socially—but that concerning use may not always rise to the level of “addiction.”

The issue of whether social media is addictive is at the center of thousands of lawsuits brought against the companies Meta, TikTok, YouTube and Snap. The verdict in one of these cases, involving Meta and YouTube, could be decided as soon as this week. In New Mexico, a jury recently found that Meta must pay $375 million for endangering child safety in violation of the state’s consumer protection law.

To try and understand what the science says about social media and addiction, we spoke to two experts in the field: Jenny Radesky, co-medical director of the AAP’s social media and youth mental health center, and Bradley Zicherman, a clinical associate professor at Stanford University, who directs the Youth Recovery Clinic and treats patients struggling with social media.

What evidence is there for social media addiction?

“I tend to think of addictive use as being a subset or a more intense or severe form of the larger umbrella of problematic media use,” Radesky says. The AAP encourages a broader (and less stigmatizing) term to talk about the issue: “problematic Internet use.”

Zicherman is more comfortable describing this kind of problematic behavior as addiction. “It is most appropriate at this point to actually say that there is a condition of social media addiction,” he says.

Zicherman likens social media to slot machines: “Because you don’t know when you’re going to win,” he says, “you keep pulling that slot machine lever, pressing the button, pressing the button, pressing button—eventually you win something.”

He argues that social media features such as likes, followers, and never-ending new content feeds function in much the same way, triggering a rush of dopamine that some users will keep chasing. Dopamine, a neurotransmitter, helps the brain identify pleasurable experiences—say, validation or success or even a good meal—and to repeat behaviors linked to them. Substances like drugs, however, can make the process go haywire

The AAP notes that in a 2021 Common Sense Media survey, tweens said they spent about 18 minutes per day on social media, while teenagers devoted about an hour and a half, on average. And there is evidence that comes with some risks: One study published last May, for example, analyzed data from 11,876 children enrolled in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study, a large, long-term investigation that has been tracking children’s mental health over time. The May paper showed that an individual’s increase in social media use correlated with increased signs of depression in the following year. Interestingly, the reverse wasn’t true—children who had higher “depressive symptoms” didn’t necessarily use social media more later on.

Conversely, some studies suggest social media use can have some benefits. A recent study that included more than 100,000 Australian students in grades four to 12 showed that older adolescents who engaged in moderate social media use after school—up to 12.5 hours per week—had higher scores on measures of well-being than those who didn’t use social media at all.

Why is the research so mixed?

Part of the reason why there are such conflicting results is that social media and addiction is hard to study, Radesky says. Researchers often rely on study participants to self-report how they feel about a digital product, and these reports are not always reliable and are inherently subjective. Collecting phone data doesn’t offer a full picture either. Scientists could perform brain scans to look at how social media affects the brain’s reward centers, but that would require teenagers to undergo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans—which would also not exactly be a true snapshot of their real-life social media use, Radesky says.

Adults can have an unhealthy relationship with social media, but Zicherman says that children and younger users may be particularly vulnerable. Some platforms, such as Meta’s Instagram, have taken steps to limit younger users on the platform, including by offering special teen accounts or by limiting how long younger users can be on the app. But some of these age-based restrictions may be ineffective, not least because some kids may be able to get around them, Zicherman says.

“We’ve intentionally designed automatic defaults like Sleep Mode that encourage teens to leave the app and pause notifications over night. Parents can go even further by restricting their teens’ total time to as little as 15 minutes a day or setting scheduled breaks when teens are required to exit our apps,” a Meta spokesperson said in a statement, adding that the company now uses artificial intelligence to help verify young users’ ages. Google didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Addictive or not, social media platforms benefit from holding users’ attention, the experts argue. Some studies suggest people may seek out social media to dissociate—mindlessly scrolling purely to give their brain a break. But that behavior could also lead to “a loss of agency,” Radesky says.

“[There] are all these design features that keep us going and going and going,” she says. These include never-ending feeds, autoplay, and “engagement-based algorithms” that optimize for content that keeps users hooked. “Whether or not it was intentional, I think it simply is designed to be addictive,” Zicherman says.

.

martin-dm/Getty Images

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

Paratroopers leaping down from Osprey choppers and swarming onto the shores of Kharg Island under a hail of gunfire…could this be the next phase of fighting in the Iran war?

The Pentagon is sending its prestigious 82^nd Airborne Division to the Middle East— elite soldiers trained to parachute into hostile foreign territory and take control of the area.

The deployment, leaked to media on Tuesday, is just the latest round of forces being directed to the region as the U.S. gears up for a potentially huge escalation in the war — a possible invasion of Iran’s oil export hub.

Up to 3,000 paratroopers could be joining the estimated 5,000 Marines currently being shipped over, swelling the ranks of the 50,000 American troops already in the Middle East.

President Donald Trump has proposed a deal with the Iranians this week, but also threatened attacks, saying the U.S. “can take out” Kharg Island “at any time”. The small island, sitting just 15 miles off the mainland, is crucial to Iran’s already poor economy, as it accounts for 90 percent of Tehran’s oil exports.

U.S. forces bombed it last week, targeting naval mine sites. But the arrival of thousands of Army soldiers and Marines could give the White House several options to launch an attack on land and allow the administration to make good on its threat.

Why Seize Kharg Island?

Iran’s shut down of the Strait of Hormuz, the crucial shipping lane through which a fifth of the world’s oil and gas normally transits, has been one of the most effective elements of its fight back against the U.S and Israel’s bombardments since February 28.

Blocking flows through the strait has sent oil and gas prices soaring on supply concerns, wreaking havoc on share markets.

Seizing Kharg Island, which lies further north of the Strait in the Gulf, would give the U.S. control of Iran’s oil exports — the backbone of its economy — and also a foothold in the waterway. Taking control of Kharg would pressure Tehran into easing its chokehold on the Strait.

Iran says it is prepared for a U.S. invasion, though. On Wednesday, one of its top wartime leaders said Tehran was “closely monitoring all U.S. movements in the region, especially troop deployments.”

“Do not test our resolve to defend our land,” warned parliamentary speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf.

Why Has the 82nd Airborne Division Been Deployed?

The 82^nd — a division of the U.S. Army —  is usually stationed at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, but can be deployed anywhere, at any time. Officials speaking anonymously have indicated the troops are being sent over, but details on when they would arrive or where they would go have not been disclosed yet.

Unlike other soldiers, they’re trained to swoop into an area within 18 hours without lots of tanks or armored vehicles to back them up. That can leave them vulnerable to enemy attacks, experts say, but their goal is speed and surprise.

They would be supported by thousands of Marines who have also been ordered to the region in recent days. These Marines are masters of missions like quickly taking control of islands, said retired U.S. Navy Vice Admiral Robert Murrett, now a professor of practice of public administration and international affairs at Syracuse University. 

Establishing control over an island is “as front a center a mission” as these Marines could have, Murrett told Newsweek.

The Marine Element

Just shy of 5,000 Marines are currently heading to the Middle East, in two Marine Expeditionary Units (MEUs).

The 31st MEU, made up of 2,200 Marines, are travelling with the USS Tripoli, which left Japan last week and is expected to arrive in the region on Friday.

The Pentagon has also ordered the Boxer Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) — made up of three warships and carrying the 11th MEU — to the region from California. That will take about three to four weeks to arrive, according to reports.

It’s “unusual” for two large MEUs to be deployed at the same time in the Middle East, Murrett said. They would likely work together as even combined, they would still be a relatively small force when pitched against what could be thousands of Iranian soldiers.

While it would make sense to use this number of troops on an island or to launch in-and-out raids on the mainland, they couldn’t hold territory on Iran’s coast for any length of time. These rapid-response units don’t have enough soldiers or equipment to do this successfully.

There have been reports that the U.S. could send troops to clear Iran’s southern coastline, ultimately reopening the Strait of Hormuz. Speculation has also swirled that the U.S. could take other islands off Iran’s coast to achieve the same goal as the need to restore traffic in the strait becomes more pressing for the U.S.

An ARG is made up of an amphibious assault ship — in this case, the USS Boxer, which is essentially a small aircraft carrier ferrying troops, helicopters, and advanced fighter jets — and two other ships. 

They carry vehicles, equipment, and smaller landing craft for Marines to quickly land on shore. 

Such an operation would be an amphibious assault, where U.S. troops would surge onto land from small boats and helicopters, supported by aircraft firing on any Iranian assets that could threaten the American personnel.

The U.S. would find and knock out the major defenses on Kharg in advance. Iranian state-linked media reported that U.S. strikes last week had targeted air defenses on the island, which would threaten troops, aircraft, and ships in a future invasion.

But Iran would still have some weapons to hit back at an invasion, including firing longer-range ballistic missiles or drones from the mainland.

Fighter jets and helicopters would need to shield the U.S. forces while they establish positions on the island, from which they can then launch further attacks.

But it’s risky. Troop deaths would be a nearly impossible to avoid, and although the Marines would receive some cover from their fighter jets and helicopters, ARGs don’t have the same firepower to target Iranian threats as aircraft carriers. 

So a Navy destroyer ship, equipped with powerful long-range missiles, would be key in protecting the ARG, said Murrett.

However, getting bigger ships close enough to the island to support the Marines has its own dangers. They would likely come under fire from Iranian forces, including from anti-ship missiles, and there are fears of mines within the waterway.

Once they’re on shore, the countdown starts. While the Marines and the 82nd could hold an island for a while — even under persistent Iranian fire — they would be unlikely to keep control of mainland Iranian sites without more troops arriving quickly.

.

Prestigious 82^nd Airborne Division to the Middle East

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

At the start of the year, the Russian economy looked to be giving way. Under the strain of war and sanctions, revenues were falling, production was shrinking, and trade was running low. With rising tariffs, credit was prohibitively expensive and borrowing all but impossible: A wave of bankruptcies was on the horizon. In late January, Russia was forced to sell oil to India at just $22 per barrel, about a third of the market rate. As a symbol of unsustainability, it was hard to beat.

President Vladimir Putin has heard such complaints throughout the war. Yet, according to those around him, he has chosen largely not to listen. Officials and business leaders, for their part, understood that the continuation of the war was his absolute priority and that the country’s economic situation was of little consequence. But in February, something shifted. Mr. Putin began, suddenly, to pay attention to the flagging economy. There were even signs he might be changing his mind on negotiations with Ukraine, perhaps seeking an exit from the conflict.

Then came the war in Iran. In one swoop, the conditions for conciliation were overturned. Amid buoyant oil prices, Western division and American overreach, the pressure on Mr. Putin to come to terms ebbed away. By a strange twist of history, the start of the war in Iran halted the prospect of ending the war in Ukraine — at the very moment when Mr. Putin appeared ready to consider it.

In February, Mr. Putin seemed ready to change course and overhaul his negotiating team. Kirill Dmitriev, the Kremlin’s chief envoy who is widely seen as an insubstantial figure with no real mandate, was reportedly on the verge of dismissal. The leading candidate to replace him was Igor Sechin, the head of the state oil giant Rosneft. Regarded as Mr. Putin’s right-hand man, Mr. Sechin previously oversaw Russia’s relationships with Latin America, as well as the cultivation of close relationships with American oil executives. Here was an indication that Mr. Putin might begin to take talks seriously.

At the same time, rumors began circulating of an imminent large-scale reshuffle of the Russian government. If Mr. Putin were to engage properly in negotiations and pursue peace with Ukraine, he would have to entirely rebuild the structure of power. According to people close to the Kremlin, that could include dismissing the current government. Clouds had already begun to gather over Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin: Individuals close to him have recently become defendants in criminal cases.

We will never know what might have happened. On Feb. 28, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed in a joint U.S.-Israeli attack; in the days that followed, everything changed. Oil prices surged above $100 a barrel and, in a major reversal, the United States lifted sanctions on Russian oil. Demand soared for Russian fertilizer as the world reeled from disruptions to food supply. All of a sudden, the economic problems bedeviling Russia seemed to evaporate.

What’s more, divisions deepened between the United States and its NATO allies, who refused to send ships to the Strait of Hormuz. President Trump called it a “very foolish mistake.” For Mr. Putin, whose foreign policy has been built around cultivating disorder in the West, this was welcome. Equally important is the absorption of America’s attention in the Middle East, pushing Ukraine far from mind. It’s not just attention that is being diverted: The United States is burning through weaponry and ammunition that could otherwise be sent to Ukraine.

In America, too, the Kremlin spies an advantage. It’s not hard to see how a protracted conflict with Iran could erode Mr. Trump’s political standing and weaken the Republican Party, making the upcoming midterm elections especially precarious. This reinforces Mr. Putin’s conviction about the transience of American politics. Mr. Trump, like any American president, is a temporary figure: A new administration will eventually arrive, potentially with a very different approach to Russia. The war in Iran may hasten that shift. In this view, concessions on Ukraine would be pointless.

These are all considerable boons for the Kremlin. But the money now flooding into Russia is by no means a guarantee that Mr. Putin will be able to continue the war indefinitely. On the contrary, some close to the government believe that the current situation will be short-lived. By May, many in Moscow expect, the war in Iran could be over, and sanctions against Russia reinstated. For the troubled Russian economy, there is no permanent salvation.

The situation inside Russia is becoming turbulent, too. Ahead of parliamentary elections this fall, the Kremlin is in a state of near-paranoid anticipation, nervously flip-flopping on plans to stuff Parliament with veterans and dealing harshly with a pro-regime blogger who publicly turned on Mr. Putin. It has moved to block Telegram, the country’s most widely used messaging platform, while internet outages are becoming increasingly frequent in Moscow and St. Petersburg. The rumors of sweeping government reshuffles have not gone away.

A level of public discontent that until recently would have been unthinkable is now part of daily life. Before too long, it seems, Mr. Putin will have to make a consequential choice: either agree to some form of de-escalation in Ukraine, potentially including an end to the war, or move in the opposite direction — tightening controls across the board, even to the point of a new mobilization. It’s impossible to predict what decision Mr. Putin will make. But a large factor will be whether America continues in its own war.

.

Pool photo by Alexander Zemlianichenko

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

https://www.nytimes.com

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

When we think of drought, we tend to think of consequences we can see—wildfires, hose bans, taps that run dry and crops that fail. But it turns out drought can have a damaging effect even on the microscopic level by promoting dangerous antibiotic resistance in bacteria.

The finding is detailed in a study published Monday in Nature Microbiology. Researchers discovered that drought conditions can boost both soil-dwelling and human-hosted bacteria’s ability to resist antibiotics. And as rising global temperatures dry out more of the world, more people may be exposed to these treatment-immune pathogens.

“We found this really surprisingly strong correlation of the aridity index and antibiotic resistance,” says Dianne Newman, senior author of the study and a microbiologist at the California Institute of Technology, who adds that the data are a “wake-up call” for people to pay attention to antibiotic resistance.

“I think [the study authors] are exploring something novel,” says Jason Burnham, an infectious diseases physician and clinical researcher who was not involved in the new research. Antibiotic resistance isn’t a new problem: first noticed soon after the discovery of antibiotics, the ability of some bacteria to evade treatment with these drugs has challenged physicians for decades and contributes to an estimated five million deaths worldwide each year. But connecting it to climate change is an emerging area of interest—and there are many unanswered questions about how a warmer world will influence disease.

Newman and her colleagues were interested in the ecological niche of phenazines, which are naturally occurring antibiotics that live in soil. When they tested the microbial population in wet and dry soil samples, they noticed that drier conditions tended to increase the concentration of antibiotics—and resistant bacteria.

“It stands to reason that if you have bacteria in the soil making antibiotics, and you start drying out the soil, those antibiotics become more concentrated,” Newman says. “The only bacteria that can withstand that are those that can resist it.”

The researchers also looked at soil data from several different ecosystems that had experienced drought and found elevated levels of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Then they analyzed hospital data that revealed that the aridity of a hospital’s location was strongly correlated with the number of antibiotic-resistant infections.

As the planet warms, more of the world—perhaps as much as 25 percent of Earth by 2050—will experience droughts and desert-like conditions. That could translate to much higher rates of antibiotic-resistant bacterial diseases—but it could also help doctors in dry areas better prepare to fight these illnesses.

“What [the authors] are proposing, reading between the lines a little bit, is that hospitals in drier areas may need to use different antibiotics than hospitals with sort of less arid conditions,” Burnham says.

.

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

From

Click the link below the picture

.

Carrot cake is as quintessential to an Easter table as ham or lamb. Some say it made its way to Easter’s spotlight because it’s supposedly the favorite snack of the Easter Bunny. Folklore aside, we do know that carrots harvested in the spring are especially sweet. When combined with warm spices, bright citrus, crunchy nuts, and dried fruit, carrot cake strikes the balance of bright yet cozy — perfect for the crossover from winter to spring. Whether it’s a layer cake, sheet cake, or baked in a Bundt, carrot cake is beloved in all forms. 

When considering the best desserts for Easter, we dug into the Food & Wine archives to revisit some of our favorite carrot cake recipes. We chose a classic layer cake, a citrus-scented Bundt, a simple snack cake, and a sheet cake made with loads of cardamom and ghee. The variety of carrot cakes was impressive, but only one delivered on taste and flavor while providing the nostalgic experience many crave from this classic dessert.

Experienced recipe testers from the People Inc. Food Studios got to baking, then tasted the results alongside a team of F&W food experts and editors. It was the ultimate carrot cake showdown, with one cake standing out among the rest.

Winner: Jodi Elliott’s Classic Carrot Cake with Fluffy Cream Cheese Frosting

Food & Wine / Photo by Victor Protasio / Food Styling by Emily Nabors Hall / Prop Styling by Priscilla Montiel

Active time: 40 minutes
Total time: 3 hours 30 minutes

Chef Jodi Elliott took home the 2013 F&W People’s Best New Pastry Chef award for her work at the award-winning restaurant Foreign & Domestic in Austin. She went on to open the now-closed Bribery Bakery, which filled its cases with classic, nostalgic desserts that featured her own creative spins. In a 2014 interview with Edible Austin, she noted, “Everyone connects with desserts that remind them of family and things they can make in their own home.” This feeling of familiarity was what our tasting team loved most about her traditional carrot cake recipe, taking it to the top of our list.

Elliott’s Classic Carrot Cake with Cream Cheese Frosting looks and tastes nostalgic. Two round cake layers pack a pound of coarsely grated carrots and loads of toasted pecans for crunch. Buttermilk keeps the layers tender and moist, while a whisper of cinnamon lends subtle spice. Layered with a simple cream cheese frosting, then garnished with more crunchy pecans, this cake looks like it belongs on a cake stand in an American-style 1950s diner. 

.

Credit: Food & Wine / Photo by Victor Protasio / Food Styling by Emily Nabors Hall / Prop Styling by Priscilla Montiel

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

President Trump seized on initial contacts between Iranian and American officials to back away on Monday from his threat to strike power plants in Iran, declaring that the countries had begun “productive conversations” for the first time since the war began more than three weeks ago.

Iranian officials publicly denied that any negotiations about terms to end the war were underway, and American officials said the contacts were in a very early stage and not substantive.

But Mr. Trump used the opening of even an early dialogue as an offramp from the threat he issued Saturday to attack Iran’s power plants in retribution for the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Iran had vowed not to capitulate, and the 48-hour deadline Mr. Trump had set would have expired on Monday.

Mr. Trump said he would now extend his deadline to Friday to give the talks time to proceed, setting off a flurry of diplomacy by a number of nations seeking to nurture the talks. It remained unclear, though, how seriously the White House was taking the potential for a breakthrough in a conflict that has seen both sides escalate for weeks.

“We’re doing a five-day period,” Mr. Trump told reporters on Monday about his pause on hitting Iranian power plants, targets that are forbidden under most circumstances under the Geneva Conventions. “We’ll see how that goes, and if it goes well, we’re going to end up with settling this. Otherwise, we’ll just keep bombing our little hearts out.”

Even as Mr. Trump retreated from one military option, U.S. and Israeli officials said they were continuing to carry out other strikes against Iran, and more American military assets were headed to the region. Officials said Mr. Trump was still weighing more aggressive operations, including one to seize Kharg Island, Iran’s main oil export hub, and another to send ground forces into Iran to secure highly enriched uranium.

Mr. Trump on Monday provided few details of the conversations with Iran beyond saying Jared Kushner, his son-in-law, and Steve Witkoff, his special envoy, were leading the negotiations. He said they were communicating directly with one of Iran’s leaders, without naming the person. American and Iranian officials familiar with the conversations, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive talks, said Mr. Witkoff has had direct communication with Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, in recent days.

The president said the United States was still demanding an end to Iranian nuclear enrichment and elimination of all of the country’s uranium stockpiles that could be used to one day make a bomb, terms that Iran had previously rejected. It was the breakdown of diplomatic negotiations between Mr. Kushner, Mr. Witkoff, and Mr. Araghchi that led to the United States and Israel launching strikes against Iran at the end of February.

Iranian officials denied Monday that they were negotiating with the United States, and Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the speaker of Iran’s Parliament, wrote on social media that Mr. Trump’s comments were an attempt to “escape the quagmire in which the US and Israel are trapped.”

In interviews, four Iranian officials said that the messages passed in the past few days through intermediaries and in direct conversations with the Americans were essentially probes on how to de-escalate the conflict, with the goal of averting a spiraling escalation, including attacks on critical energy infrastructure.

The officials said that Mr. Araghchi told Mr. Witkoff that Iran was not interested in a temporary cease-fire and wanted a sustainable peace deal, with guarantees that the United States and Israel would not attack it again. The officials said the Iranians also sought specific economic sanctions relief from Washington, a topic that, in negotiations before the war, American officials said would only happen after Iran delivered on its nuclear and other commitments in any agreement.

But Mr. Trump’s characterization of these as “productive conversations” seemed to overstate the current state of the talks.

Ali Vaez, the Iran project director at the International Crisis Group, said the Iranians would not engage in a high-level meeting before knowing that the United States was stepping away from its “maximalist” demands.

“Not attacking energy infrastructure is a low bar,” he said. “The terms of a cease-fire, or an agreement that would resolve the longer-term problems. including the fate of the stockpile or reopening of the strait — none of those things are anywhere close to the finish line right now.”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel said that he spoke with Mr. Trump on Monday and that Mr. Trump believed it was possible to “leverage” their military achievements against Iran to “realize the objectives of the war in an agreement.”

But Mr. Netanyahu, whose strategy has sometimes been at odds with Mr. Trump’s in recent weeks, made it clear he had no intention of letting up. “We are smashing the missile program and the nuclear program, and we continue to deal severe blows to Hezbollah.” He revealed that Israel recently “eliminated two more nuclear scientists” in Iran.

Arab countries in the Persian Gulf decided they did not want to act as mediators as long as Iran continued to attack their countries, but several other countries, including Pakistan, Turkey, and Egypt, have offered assistance, though it remains unclear if there are any mediating partners involved.

Turkey and Pakistan have floated ideas for in-person meetings between U.S. and Iranian officials. One proposal calls for a meeting between Mr. Araghchi, Mr. Witkoff, and Mr. Kushne,r while another suggests Vice President JD Vance meets with Mr. Ghalibaf. Officials said none of the meetings have been scheduled.

“These are sensitive diplomatic discussions and the U.S. will not negotiate through the press,” Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said in a statement. “This is a fluid situation, and speculation about meetings should not be deemed as final until they are formally announced by the White House.”

For Mr. Trump, the prospect of negotiations allows him to buy time to try reopen the Strait of Hormuz and to extract himself from a box of his own construction. On Saturday night, Mr. Trump said if Iran did not open the strait within 48 hours, the United States would “obliterate” Iran’s power plants.

After he issued his threat, it became clear that if he attacked Iran’s electrical infrastructure, the retaliation would take place against Gulf allies who are already trying to keep the war from spreading. But if he backed away from his threat, some officials around him feared he would be conveying weakness to the Iranians.

Already on Monday, Iranian officials said Mr. Trump’s announcement was evidence of the United States giving in. “Trump, out of fear of Iran’s response, backed down from his 48-hour ultimatum,” the Iranian state broadcaster, IRIB, said.

Mr. Trump is facing increasing domestic and economic pressure to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. The war’s global fallout has seen the price of oil and gas shoot up as much as 40 percent since late February, a crisis that is now worse than the oil shocks in 1973 and 1979 combined, according to the head of the International Energy Agency.

Mr. Trump’s statement about talks with Iran immediately reduced energy prices somewhat, but it was unclear how long that could last without tangible progress toward ending the war. The president has repeatedly given optimistic assessments that temporarily eased market jitters, only for prices to rise again.

Mr. Trump on Monday promised the Strait of Hormuz would be open “very soon” and would be “jointly controlled.”

“Maybe me? Maybe me,” he said when asked who would control the key waterway. “Me and the ayatollah. Whoever the ayatollah is.”

.

Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s foreign minister, in Tehran last year. He is said to have conveyed to the U.S. that Iran would need sanctions relief and guarantees against future attacks. Credit…Arash Khamooshi for The New York Times

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

https://www.nytimes.com

.

__________________________________________