Home

Recent U.S. strikes on Iran have heightened tensions in the Middle East, raising new questions about the motivations behind the conflict as well as the risks of potential consequences across the region. While the escalation is often framed around nuclear weapons or regional tensions, many say the current situation is defined as much by strategic uncertainty and weakened deterrence as by traditional territorial disputes.

According to the William R. Cotter Distinguished Teaching Professor of Government Ken Rodman, the motivations behind the U.S. decision to strike Iran remain unclear. “The administration has given many contradictory explanations,” Rodman said. In a conventional foreign policy process, major military actions typically involve deliberation with nuclear experts, regional specialists, and military leaders, along with efforts to build both congressional and public support. In this case, that process was notably absent. 

The claim that Iran posed an imminent nuclear threat has also been called into question. Rodman noted that Iran’s nuclear capability had already been weakened by previous strikes earlier in the year, making an immediate nuclear-based escalation unlikely. “The notion that there was an imminent threat from Iranian nuclear developments is implausible, to say the least,” he said. Instead, the strikes may have been designed to take advantage of Iran’s current vulnerabilities, yet with no clear message from the administration, the underlying strategy remains difficult to determine. 

Mixed signals have added to the uncertainty. Some officials have framed the strikes as a contained air campaign. Others, including President Donald Trump, have suggested that additional military options, including ground troops, have not been ruled out. “There isn’t any clear communication coming from the administration as to what the purpose of this war is,” Rodman said.

From an international relations perspective, the conflict doesn’t conform to typical patterns. Historically, Iran’s pursuit of nuclear capabilities has been interpreted partly as a deterrent strategy against the United States and Israel, weapons that prevent stronger powers from taking military action. 

That, however, has been superseded by events. The network of allies Iran relied on for deterrence has significantly weakened. For decades, Iran leaned on groups such as Hezbollah to threaten retaliation against Israel. Following Israel’s recent military operations, that threat has weakened significantly. “The threat posed by Hezbollah has never been weaker since it first emerged in the early 1980s,” Rodman said.

These shifts are also affecting other regional powers. When the Obama administration negotiated the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, both Israel and Saudi Arabia opposed it, fearing that lifting sanctions would strengthen Iran’s influence. Those shared concerns helped drive the cooperation that eventually produced the Abraham Accords. Today, however, some Gulf states worry that continued escalation could destabilize the region further.

Despite rising tensions, Rodman says the conflict is unlikely to draw in major powers like Russia or China directly. Russia remains focused on Ukraine, while China has generally avoided projecting military force beyond its immediate region.

The more immediate danger, Rodman warned, is potential destabilization within Iran itself. Efforts to weaken the Iranian government could create “ungoverned spaces” where state authority collapses, conditions similar to those that followed the U.S. invasion of Iraq and contributed to the rise of ISIS.

The path toward de-escalation remains uncertain. Opposition to the United States is central to how Iran’s government justifies its rule, making compromises politically costly. The absence of well-defined U.S. goals offer little foundation for negotiation. “It’s not entirely clear how this ends,” Rodman said.

For now, the region holds its breath, caught between a conflict with no clear purpose and no clear path forward to peace.

~ Mia Dinunzio `28

The Goldfarb Center’s In the News series hosted the Executive Director of the Wabanaki Alliance and a citizen of the Penobscot Nation, Maulian Bryant, for a conversation titled “Sovereignty and Shared Humanity.” Bryant began by explaining what tribal sovereignty means in practice. For her, sovereignty is rooted in stewardship of land, water, and natural resources across the Wabanaki homeland. She noted that the four federally recognized Wabanaki nations in Maine — the Penobscot Nation, the Passamaquoddy Tribe at Sipayik and Motahkomikuk, the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians, and the Mi’kmaq Nation — share ancestral ties to lands across the entire state.

Tribal sovereignty, Bryant explained, involves the ability to care for those lands and waters and to protect what is sacred. But the 1980 Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act has significantly limited those powers. Bryant described the act as the result of a lawsuit brought by the tribes and the federal government after it was discovered that large portions of Maine had been taken without properly ratified treaties. While the settlement resolved the dispute, she said it created a legal framework unlike those that governed tribes elsewhere in the United States. In Maine, state authority often stands between tribal governments and their ability to exercise full jurisdiction over matters concerning natural resources, taxation, and criminal law.

Much of Bryant’s current work focuses on efforts to amend the Settlement Act. The Wabanaki Alliance, which she leads, was formed in 2020 after tribal leaders and state lawmakers convened a task force to study possible reforms. That process produced recommendations for legislative changes aimed at restoring elements of tribal sovereignty and clarifying access to federal law.

Building support for those reforms has required an unusually broad coalition. Bryant described a network that now includes environmental groups, faith communities, businesses, and political leaders across party lines. She said the coalition has expanded largely because personal relationships have changed how people understand tribal issues. According to Bryant, when people hear directly from tribal leaders, elders, and younger generations about the lived consequences of the settlement act, the issue becomes less abstract.

She also discussed national advocacy, including a testimony she delivered before a congressional Appropriations Committee on the crisis of missing and murdered Indigenous women. The hearing, she said, stood out for its unusually personal tone and bipartisan support. Lawmakers listened as Indigenous women from across the country described gaps in data collection, jurisdiction, and law enforcement coordination that have complicated investigations of these cases.

In Maine, Bryant said one significant development has been the expansion of tribal jurisdiction under the federal Violence Against Women Act. Previously, tribal courts often lacked authority to prosecute certain domestic violence cases involving non-tribal perpetrators on tribal lands. Changes in federal law have begun to address those gaps.

Near the end of the conversation, Bryant reflected on the event’s theme of shared humanity. She described her early activism against Indigenous mascots in Maine schools, an effort that eventually contributed to the state’s ban on such imagery.

At first, Bryant said, her advocacy was driven largely by anger at stereotypes and cultural appropriation. Over time, however, she realized that meaningful change required understanding why communities held onto those symbols. During one school board meeting, she recalled, a man confronted her and insisted that his community’s mascot was part of their identity. Rather than dismissing the comment, Bryant said the moment forced her to think more carefully about how identity and belonging shape people’s reactions. While she remains firm in her belief that such mascots are harmful, she emphasized that real progress often requires patience, empathy, and discipline.

Bryant described this approach as “leading with love,” a principle she sees not as sentimentality but as demanding work. Understanding the emotions behind anger or resistance, she said, can make it possible to move difficult conversations forward.

~ Sophia Ikiri `29

Miller Library is the centerpiece of the College’s campus. The website is littered with shots of the imposing building from various angles and distances. Most visitors to the campus would agree that the building, which was built in 1939 and modeled after Independence Hall in Philadelphia, is worthy of the attention it is awarded. 

On a more symbolic note, at a college that has worked to build an intellectual community in which rigorous academics are prized and promoted, centering campus life around the main library makes a statement on priorities. 

Miller Library is truly a hub for students and faculty alike, who use library spaces as classrooms and study areas, check out books and discover journal articles both in-person and through the website, visit the Farnham Writers’ Center, and consult with librarians for assistance and advice at each step of the research process. 

An interesting contrast exists between the walls of Miller Library. The building houses the Special Collections & Archives department, containing the College’s rare and unique materials dating from the 12th through the 21st centuries. It is also home to information professionals who, as stated by the Director of the Colby Libraries L Slingluff, “have always had to be on the forefront of learning the new technology first ourselves, so that we can reliably and responsibly help others.” 

As generative AI has emerged and developed, the librarians of the Colby Libraries have taken on the task of learning about AI, deciding when and how to incorporate it in library services or with the libraries’ academic partners throughout the College, and generally figuring out what its development means for students of the College. 

“It’s made the Libraries and the work that [we] do even more essential, like, how do you find things that you need? And how do you know that you need them and how do you reliably and ethically use them and create new knowledge? 
That’s what libraries have always done and will continue to do. It’s just that the landscape in which we do that becomes even more complex,” Slingluff said. 

The work has presented obvious challenges. For example, large language models (LLMs), which are a popular tool with students to help with research, have become known for “hallucinating” information and presenting fictions as facts.

When students use ChatGPT, for example, as a research aid, they encounter information from made-up books and journals. Slingluff shared, “We would get interlibrary loan requests for citations for things that don’t exist… if you ask it to cite its sources, it would create really realistic fake sources.”

Libraries can be oases of information that is quality-assured. The proliferation of AI has already flooded the internet with tons of content that is low-quality or untrue, and it will continue to do so. Having a resource that allows students to not only access tons of real, high-quality information, but also provides them with professionals who specialize in being able to find good information, is invaluable in this age of information overload. 

Another issue that the Libraries are working to understand and address is the impact of generative AI on learning. According to Slingluff, “Library professionals care a lot about learning development, so we’re always looking at learning outcomes.” Since the introduction of chatbots into general society, educators have had concerns about how the use of such technology could impact learning. 

Slingluff explained that, with this in mind, the College’s librarians along with partners from various disciplines across campus have been looking into questions such as, “What does using chatGPT or Gemini every single day to draft all of your emails do to your own internalized communication skills? And what does that do if you are already very developed as a writer versus if you’re trying to find your writer’s voice?” 

Though confronting the challenges of AI is no easy task, the Colby Libraries are working with care and dedication to allow the College to reap the benefits of the new technology while remaining educated on the pitfalls. And for all of the reasons they always have been, the librarians of the College remain an indispensable resource. 

As Slingluff put it, “[LLMs are] good for some things, and they’re not always perfect, and you have to check, and how do you know how to do that? Because a librarian taught you.”

~ Anna Izquierdo `29

The student body has officially elected its new student government representatives for the 2026–2027 school year. Along with the class presidents, senators, and treasurers, the College community chose our newest SGA President and Vice President: Aubrey Costello `27 and Jed Swan `28. Both longtime members of SGA, Costello and Swan are dedicated to creating a unified student body at the College. They are excited to work with the administration and students to continue to better the College community and bring back fun.

Like they said throughout their campaign, Costello and Swan have a goal to revive the College’s lost traditions. However, their most important mission is to build an inclusive space for all and build more transparency around what the Student Government does in terms of student support. Costello shared a sentiment about her goal of increasing student participation in SGA meetings, saying: “I’ve been on SGA for three years now, and I have never once seen a student who was not a member of SGA show up to one of our meetings… the student body has the right to show up and to see what their representatives are doing. I’d love to get more students to come to our meetings.” 

This spring, Costello and Swan are intent on connecting with as many student groups as possible to determine how they can best support them. Swan has a goal to meet with students in the community this spring to “see where their pain points are, what they want to get done next year… and how we can help them.” By bringing more voices into the picture to ensure that students feel heard, Costello and Swan believe that our College’s community will be more unified. Another one of their main priorities is to build connections through events. During their campaign, they emphasized their mission to revive older traditions like the Johnson Pond Regatta, Winter Carnival, and Oktoberfest, to name a few. Behind the scenes, this work has already started, and they hope to bring these events back stronger than ever.

To refine the College’s internal structure, Costello and Swan have begun looking outward by exploring Student Government models at peer institutions. They have reached out to the Bates and Bowdoin communities, asking to sit in on their Student Government meetings to gain new ideas for our own College community. They hope that this will be an informative process that will support their work in the upcoming school year.

As they continue to prepare for their position next year, Costello and Swan have shown that they are committed and excited to support our school community as best they can. They hope to be approachable leaders who take student concerns seriously. When it comes to leaving a legacy behind, Costello believes that “a successful presidency for us and a successful administration [will be] if we’re able to increase the number of students who feel personally connected to the SGA.” Through inclusion, connection, and determination, Costello and Swan are committed to bettering student life. Together, the College community will see how these goals translate into action in the year ahead.

~ Catherine Galvez `29

On March 12, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) unveiled a sweeping deregulatory campaign under the leadership of Lee Zeldin, the current EPA administrator. This campaign, which is part of President Trump’s broader agenda to increase domestic energy production and reduce protections for the environment, seeks to review dozens of environmental regulations, including those governing power plants, oil and gas exploration, manufacturing, and the auto industry. Although this campaign seeks to ease regulations and boost economic development, it has sparked alarm among environmental scientists and researchers all over the United States, as it may hinder environmental protection and reduce support for research of environmental risks. 

The first item in Trump’s initiative is eliminating the EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding. Under this finding, the EPA declared that greenhouse gases pose a risk to public health and the environment. This finding is the scientific basis underpinning emissions regulations issued by the federal government under the Clean Air Act, so now that it has been retracted, the future of emissions and greenhouse gas regulation is uncertain.

The initiative does not immediately abolish current environmental regulations. Instead, it mandates  a process whereby the EPA will review and, if they deem it necessary, amend many of the regulations through a formal rulemaking process. Federal agencies are required to go through the same process they follow when they introduce new rules: public notification, opportunities for public comment, and legal review. Thus, many of the changes may take years to be implemented and are likely to face legal challenges from states and environmental groups.

The other factor that may impact the process is the changed legal standard regarding the scope of  federal agency authority. Traditionally, federal agencies like the EPA have been able to interpret ambiguous federal laws under a legal doctrine called Chevron deference, whereby courts would grant broad deference to agency experts’ interpretation of the law. However, the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo has greatly limited the application of this doctrine, and the court now independently interprets the law rather than deferring to the agency involved. This may make EPA regulations difficult to enforce and limit the agency’s ability to implement regulations without express and specific statutory authority from Congress.

Taken together, the retraction of the scientific finding supporting emissions regulation, a broad mandate to lessen environmental regulation, and a court ruling impacting the interpretative power of federal agencies in implementing these regulations are likely to greatly alter environmental policy in the United States.

In Maine, many researchers collaborate with organizations such as the Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences, a place where students at the College often gain hands-on research experience. The laboratory focuses on studying ocean ecosystems, marine microbes, and the impacts of climate change on ocean environments.

Significant changes in environmental policy could lead some researchers to increase international collaborations or to conduct more  research outside of the country. This shift could allow scientists to be able to continue their research on climate change in places where the support and environmental policies are strong. However, the change in the research programs or collaborations might hinder the research process, especially when it is related to monitoring the environment for long periods of time. Changes in research funding and priorities may cause scientists to go several years without making progress.

All of these issues are important in Maine; the Gulf of Maine is warming at a faster rate than the rest of the world’s oceans and is an important place for research on climate change. Scientists all over Maine are working together to research how the temperature of the ocean is changing and how this is affecting the fishing industry and other marine ecosystems, as the temperature of the water is so important for the populations of the fish and other marine habitats.

As the EPA continues to progress in its deregulatory initiative, the consequences of the actions will be felt outside of the realm of politics and regulation. Environmental regulations play a role in the environment in which scientists conduct their research and the pace at which knowledge about climate change is acquired. For students at the College, changing regulations remind us of the interrelation of environmental science and politics.

~ Jane Kulevich `29