World Review: Iran Deal Redux. US Decouples from Europe. The AI Revolution
A synopsis of this week's edition of World Review
Each week, I host a video podcast called World Review with Ivo Daalder where journalists from major news outlets around the world join me to discuss the latest global news stories of the week.
World Review can now be heard on Sundays, at 7:00 a.m. Central Time, on Chicago’s NPR station, WBEZ, or on the WBEZ app. We’ll still tape the show on Fridays, and post the video on YouTube and the audio version on Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.
“World Review is always fascinating. I love the fact that you can get journalists from around the world to participate since zoom is the medium.”
— A Subscriber to America Abroad
Now, on to this week’s show. We covered the on-again, off-again Iran ceasefire and what it tells us about the limits of American leverage; the Pentagon’s retreat from a Tomahawk missile deal with Germany and what it means for NATO’s future; and the staggering SpaceX IPO as a window into AI’s growing—and largely unregulated—hold on the global economy. I was joined by Adam Cancryn, White House reporter for CNN; Stefanie Bolzen, Washington correspondent and North America editor for Die Welt; and James Harding, editor-in-chief of The Observer.
While I encourage you to watch or listen to the episode (and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts!), here are a few interesting things I took away from our discussion.
The Art of the Almost-Deal
By CNN’s count, Donald Trump has now claimed roughly forty times that a deal with Iran is done—or about to be. This week’s version came after a fresh round of strikes between Israel, Iran, and the United States, followed by Trump’s overnight declaration that an agreement had been reached. Adam laid out the problem with that claim: barely a day later, Washington and Tehran couldn’t even agree on what the supposed deal contained. But what is clear, Adam noted, any deal amounts to an agreement to keep talking for another sixty days—not a resolution of the issues that started the war.
Stefanie offered a useful diagnosis from inside the White House press corps: reporters have largely stopped trying to parse Trump’s deal pronouncements in real time, because so little of what he says translates into anything concrete. She also raised a sharper question—whether the decision to strike Iran will be remembered as the turning point of Trump’s presidency, pointing to his visibly fraying temper and sliding approval numbers. James added a journalist’s-eye observation: covering Washington today increasingly resembles covering a government that tells you everything and reveals nothing.
The bigger throughline, though, was substantive rather than stylistic. As James put it, the war has cemented two durable facts: that the United States has no real commitment to the rights of Iranian citizens, and that the Strait of Hormuz has now been normalized as a tool of geopolitical leverage. On the question of who actually has the advantage, the panel converged on an uncomfortable answer—not Washington. Iran, as Stefanie put it, has discovered that squeezing the Strait works, and works to the detriment of the global economy far more than to America’s. James framed it as a question of who has the benefit of time, and concluded that Tehran, facing no midterms and no inflationary clock, can simply wait this out. I suggested that the answer to the question of who holds the cards, is both—but Trump’s are face-up on the table while Iran’s stay folded.
The Quiet Unraveling of NATO
If the Iran story was about the limits of force, our second topic was about the visible retreat of American commitment. Stefanie broke the news that the Pentagon appears set to cancel a Biden-era plan to send Tomahawk cruise missiles to Germany—missiles Berlin had been counting on as a long-range deterrent—reportedly because Washington worries about provoking Moscow and because its own missile stockpiles, drained by the Iran war, need replenishing. But as Stefanie made clear, this is one data point in a much faster-moving pattern. In just the past six weeks, she’s tracked the decision to withdraw 5,000 troops from Germany, the likely cancellation of a Biden-Scholz era agreement to deploy precision-strike missile systems in Germany, and the decision by Washington to pull US forces committed to NATO’s “model force,” which is designed to respond immediately to an attack on the alliance’s eastern flank. The throughline, Stefanie argued, runs straight through America’s own national security strategy: Moscow is no longer viewed in Washington as much of a threat, and the doctrine increasingly amounts to “Europe has to look after herself.”
James connected this to a parallel earthquake in London: the resignation of Defence Secretary John Healey, who quit because the government wouldn’t commit to the defense spending increases he believed were necessary—spending increases driven, in no small part, by the sense that America is walking away. James walked through what he called a genuinely strange moment in British politics: a prime minister who won a landslide two years ago now widely expected to be gone by year’s end, undone by a combination of Iran-driven inflationary pressure, a domestic split between Atlanticists like Tony Blair and a more oppositional left, JD Vance’s interventions in Britain’s culture wars boosting the populist right, and now a defense secretary’s resignation over the affordability of the very commitments Washington is asking for. James’s verdict was blunt: the special relationship, once seen as Britain’s anchor, increasingly looks like the thing rocking the boat.
Adam added the broader frame—an America First foreign policy in which alliances are evaluated in transactional, even tribal terms, where yesterday’s ally can become tomorrow’s afterthought depending on what Washington needs. Stefanie pushed back gently on “transactional,” noting that even when Germany has offered to pay for its own defense systems outright, the U.S. still isn’t interested—suggesting this may be less a negotiation than a genuine decoupling. James offered perhaps the sharpest twist: even as governments pursue political decoupling, their economies and defense systems are becoming more entangled than ever, because weapons systems are now built as much by AI companies as by traditional defense contractors.
A Two Trillion Dollar Question Mark
Our final topic brought us back to the company whose satellites are helping Ukraine survive and whose IPO was, on the day we recorded, on track to value it near two trillion dollars—SpaceX, and the broader AI-driven market mania surrounding it. James noted that his paper ran an editorial some weeks ago pointedly titled “Artificial Stupidity,” arguing that SpaceX’s IPO prospectus rested on the implausible premise that no competitor could ever challenge its dominance of space-based data infrastructure. Whether anyone read it or not, the market seemed poised to shrug it off—for now. James’s instinct was to revisit the question in a month, once the initial retail enthusiasm fades and more sober analysis sets in. His deeper worry was double-edged: if the valuation collapses, it could create systemic risk across the broader economy; but if it doesn’t—if it keeps soaring—the concentration of wealth in a handful of AI companies raises its own destabilizing question about what’s left for anyone else to do.
Adam picked up the politics of that imbalance, describing a real internal debate inside the White House between Silicon Valley voices like David Sacks, who frame AI primarily as a race to stay ahead of China, and others worried about the economic and political fallout of moving too fast. He pointed to a recent executive order on AI oversight that was reportedly watered down at the last minute after Sacks intervened—a small but telling example of who currently holds the pen. Stefanie brought it back to lived experience: in Northern Virginia, residents are already paying more for water and electricity because of data center demand, while a European lawmaker she spoke with described regulation as inevitable even as a young American AI fundraiser told her, flatly, that regulation simply isn’t on the table because “we have to beat China.” James extended the political tensions into a broader observation about a “K-shaped” politics, where one part of the electorate worries about inflation and cost of living and another worries about AI-driven job displacement, leaving politicians with two audiences pulling in opposite directions.
We closed where we’d started, with a touch of skepticism about whether a company generating perhaps thirty billion dollars in annual revenue—however transformative Starlink’s role in Ukraine has been—really justifies a two trillion dollar valuation. As I told the panel, we’ll know more by the end of the month. We always do.
Those are my quick takes on this week’s episode of World Review. To get the full story, please listen to the episode itself.