For the first time in nearly 70 years, it looks like there may be major political changes afoot in Cuba — driven by the United States.

The Trump administration has been ratcheting up pressure on the island, including by imposing an oil embargo that is strangling the country's energy supplies. On Monday, March 16, Cuba experienced a complete collapse of its electric grid, triggering a nationwide blackout. Meanwhile, Cuba's erstwhile major patron was Venezuela, which, since the ouster of Maduro, no longer provides the support on which Havana once relied. Recent reporting also indicates that Washington and Havana are now engaged in direct talks, even as the Trump administration is explicitly seeking the ouster of President Miguel Díaz-Canel. Trump has also publicly suggested he could "take" Cuba.

So will Cuba go the way of Venezuela? What role does the U.S. war in Iran play in Washington's policy toward Cuba? And might the Cuban regime survive after all?

My interview guest today, James Bosworth, answers these questions and more. He writes the Latin America Risk Report on Substack, and we kick off with a brief overview of seven decades of U.S.-Cuba relations before having a longer conversation about where things stand today — and where they may be headed.

https://www.globaldispatches.org/40PercentOff

Earlier last last week, he United Nations reported that around 300,000 Lebanese had been displaced since Israel opened a new front in southern Lebanon amid this widening regional conflict. Yesterday, that figure surged to more than 800,000 people forced from their homes in just a matter of days.

Lebanon is where the humanitarian crisis stemming from the Iran war is most urgent at the moment—but the fallout is rapidly spreading across the region. In Gaza, humanitarian aid has dropped dramatically following Israel's decision to close a major crossing. Pakistan is bracing for refugees even as it is in the midst of its own war with the Taliban, and in Iran itself, more than 3 million people are reportedly displaced.

But according to my guest today, the impact of this conflict on some of the world's most vulnerable people will be felt far beyond the region. Scott Paul is the Director of Peace and Security at Oxfam America. We begin by discussing the various crises this war has sparked across the region before turning to a broader conversation about the impact this conflict will have on humanitarian operations worldwide.

In short, the ability of local and international humanitarian organizations to meet the basic needs of millions of people around the world has just become substantially more difficult because of this war.

https://www.globaldispatches.org/40PercentOff

Today's episode is produced in partnership with the Global Challenges Foundation. The Foundation is dedicated to raising awareness of global catastrophic risks and strengthening global governance to address them. Global Challenges Foundation's 2026 Global Catastrophic Risks report outlines five of the biggest risks facing humanity today, including catastophic climate change, the topic of this episode. You can find this report at globalchallenges.org/gcr-2026.

Two of the authors of the chapter on catastrophic climate change are my guests today. Manjana Milkoreit is a researcher of earth systems governance at the University of Oslo. Eva Mineur is head of climate and sustainability at Global Challenges Foundation.

We kick off by discussing what we mean by catastrophic climate change and examining examples of this phenomenon already underway around the world, before turning to a longer conversation about how to strengthen international cooperation and global governance to prevent catastrohic climate change—and the catastrophe it would entail.

We cover a lot of ground in this week's episode of To Save Us From Hell! There are two new entrants to the race to succeed António Guterres as the next UN Secretary-General; Cindy McCain announced she is stepping down as head of the World Food Programme, meaning there will soon be a vacancy at the top of one of the largest UN agencies—one typically led by an American; and we dissect a bizarre Security Council meeting earlier this week chaired by…Melania Trump. But we begin with an extended discussion of how the new war in Iran is impacting diplomacy at the United Nations—and what role the UN may play as this conflict evolves.

The full episode is immediately available after the fold for our paying subscribers. You can use the discount link to get 40% off a subscription, or, if you'd prefer, support Global Dispatches and To Save Us From Hell at full price.

https://www.globaldispatches.org/40PercentOff

Things are obviously moving very fast in the Middle East. When I caught up with my guest today, Dalia Dassa Kaye, the war was in its second day. Bombings in Iran and throughout the region continued at a rapid clip, and there was little sense of when, if, or how it might end.

Regular listeners of the show are no doubt familiar with Dalia Dassa Kaye. She is a senior fellow at the UCLA Burkle Center for International Relations and the author of a new book on U.S.–Iran relations, Enduring Hostility: The Making of America's Iran Policy. She has researched and written extensively about escalatory dynamics in the region—how Iran, Israel, the United States, and Gulf countries may respond to being attacked. Now that this dynamic is clearly underway, I thought it would be useful to get her perspective on what we are seeing unfold.

We kick off by discussing why the United States and Israel launched this war, given that Trump has never really articulated his motivations as the U.S. moved massive military assets to the region. We then discuss where this may head—and what might inspire de-escalation in the near future.

This conversation will give you useful context as this crisis continues to develop.

https://www.globaldispatches.org/

Earlier this week, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth held a high-stakes meeting with Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei and, according to several news reports, delivered an ultimatum: either Anthropic drops the safety guardrails built into its AI model, Claude, or it faces potentially punishing consequences—including invoking the Defense Production Act to effectively seize Claude, or banning Anthropic outright by declaring the company a "supply chain risk."

At issue are Anthropic's terms of service for Claude, which prohibit the model from being used to develop or deploy lethal autonomous weapons systems—so-called "killer robots" that can identify and strike targets without meaningful human oversight. The Pentagon wants a free hand to potentially use Claude to develop these systems; Anthropic wants to prevent Claude from doing so.

The outcome of this dispute is highly consequential—potentially even for the future of humanity. So-called swarms of drones and other military hardware could operate autonomously, coordinating among themselves to kill with impunity. The Pentagon worries that if it doesn't develop these systems, China might. Anthropic considers these systems an ethically abhorrent line it does not want to cross.

Joining me to discuss the details of this clash between a leading AI company and the Pentagon is Anna Hehir, head of Military AI Governance at the Future of Life Institute. We kick off with a discussion of how AI systems are already integrated into the U.S. military, before turning to a longer conversation about the vast implications of whether Anthropic complies with the Pentagon's ultimatum. We also discuss how this incident illustrates the need for international agreements on lethal autonomous weapons systems, including a potential treaty now being hashed out at the United Nations.

Ethiopia is on the brink of a war that could turn into a major regional conflagration. Over the past several weeks, military forces have been moving into position across the region in a conflict that would pit the government of Ethiopia and some allied militias against Eritrea and a rebel faction from Ethiopia's northern Tigray region, among others.

There are several concurrent forces driving the region toward conflict: lingering resentments and unresolved disputes from Ethiopia's civil war from 2020 to 2022; a move by the government of landlocked Ethiopia to potentially claim a Red Sea port in neighboring Eritrea; and spillover from the civil war in Sudan, where outside forces like the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia are seeking to expand their regional footprint. All of this is pushing the region, seemingly inexorably, toward war.

This would be a disaster. The civil war from 2020 to 2022 killed an estimated 500,000 people and exposed violent ethnic fissures in Ethiopia. This time around, many of the belligerents are the same—but they have switched sides. Back in 2020, Eritrea and Ethiopia allied to fight a rebellious group in the Tigray region. This time, Eritrea and Tigrayan rebels are joining forces to fight Ethiopia, with several other ethnic militias joining in. Also different this time is the active presence of malicious Gulf actors. Earlier this month, Reuters reported that Ethiopia had established, with UAE backing, a training camp for the Rapid Support Forces militia that is ravaging Darfur in Sudan.

Several NGO groups, think tanks, and regional or specialty news outlets have picked up this story—and are sounding the alarm. But so far, we have not yet seen much Western media attention to this incipient crisis. That's tragic, given the sheer human calamity that would unfold if Ethiopia and Eritrea once again descend into a conflict that reverberates across the region.

My interview guest today is journalist Zecharias Zelalem. We kick off by discussing recent moves that suggest war could break out at any moment, and then have a longer conversation about what is driving this conflict—and what might bring the region back from the brink.

Support this kind of journalism with your paid subscription. https://www.globaldispatches.org/40PercentOff

It was an odd juxtaposition: Trump's inaugural Board of Peace gathered in Washington, D.C. as the U.S. appeared to be readying for war with Iran. In this week's To Save Us From Hell episode, Mark and Anjali discuss why this Board of Peace can't really compete with the Security Council, and what its advent says about international relations today. They then discuss a looming American attack on Iran, and what that suggests about the diminishing role of international law and the much-lamented rules-based international order. Finally, they unpack a bizarre confirmation hearing for Trump's pick for assistant secretary of state for international organization affairs—who appears to be too racist for this particular role.

https://www.globaldispatches.org/40PercentOff