After months of tension and hostility in the Middle East over the Gaza-Israel conflict, Iran has publicly stated its desire to avoid a regional conflict. It has however displayed its military force on several fronts.

There have been missile strikes. Iran targeted militant bases in western Pakistan leading to a retaliatory back-and-forth with Pakistan. With attacks on Iraq and Syria, Tehran said it was targeting Islamic State and Israel's Mossad spy agency - both of whom it claimed were behind the deadliest domestic attack on Iranian soil since the Islamic revolution – an attack in early January that killed almost a hundred people in the southern city of Kerman.

Iran has been using proxy groups too - the so-called “Axis of Resistance” – to carry out attacks on Israel and its allies to show solidarity with the Palestinians. The axis is a grouping of Iran-backed militant groups including Houthi militants in Yemen who have been responsible for disrupting shipping in the Red Sea and have been targeted by US and UK air strikes aimed at deterring them. Other members of the axis include Hezbollah in Lebanon and various groups in Syria and Iraq. Tehran insists that the groups act independently but that the coalition shares its goals. Iran’s stated aim is to roll back US influence in the Middle East and it stands ideologically opposed to Israel. Iran’s grown closer to China and Russia too, the latter more so since the start of the Ukraine war in 2022. What does Iran hope to gain from these relationships?

We also ask how Iran wants the current Israel-Gaza conflict to end.

So this week on The Inquiry we’re asking ‘What does Iran want?’

Experts: Negar Mortazavi, Iranian journalist and Senior Fellow at the Center for International Policy. Kirsten Fontenrose is a non-resident fellow at the Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative in the Atlantic Council’s Middle East Programs. Professor Maryam Alemzadeh, Associate Professor in History and Politics of Iran at the Oxford School of Global and Area Studies (OSGA) and a Middle East Centre Fellow. Suzanne Maloney is the vice president and director of the Foreign Policy program at the Brookings Institution, where her research focuses on Iran and Persian Gulf energy.

CREDITS: Presenter: Charmaine Cozier Producer: Philip Reevell Researcher: Matt Toulson Production Coordinator: Tim Fernley Editor: Tara McDermott Technical Producer: Nicky Edwards

Image: Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamanei

Image Credit: Anadolu/Getty

Indonesia’s ambitious plan to move the administrative headquarters of its capital city from Jakarta to a new location on the island of Borneo, in the East Kalimantan province, is nearing the completion of its first phase. Known as Nusantara, the new city’s inauguration is scheduled to coincide with Indonesia’s Independence Day on 17th August, the date of the final term of office for the current President Joko Widodo.

The project has been deemed necessary as Jakarta is considered no longer fit for purpose. Located on the island of Java, it ranks as one of the most densely populated cities in the world and it is reported to be sinking by around 17 centimetres a year in some areas, due to a combination of environmental pollution and climate change.

With four more phases to go, around two million people are expected to inhabit Nusantara by the planned completion date of 2045, but that remains dependent on a number of factors and the schedule has already hit some challenges.

Future development is reliant on billions of dollars from foreign investors and currently the Government is struggling to secure much commitment. Furthermore, with Presidential elections due next month, there are concerns about whether a new leader will be inclined to continue with the vision announced by the outgoing President Joko Widodo.

So this week on The Inquiry, we’re asking ‘Can Indonesia pull off relocating its capital?’

Contributors: Dr Athiqah Nur Alami, Head of Research Centre for Politics, National Research and Innovation Agency, Indonesia. Dimas Wisnu Adrianto, Assistant Professor, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Brawijaya University, Indonesia Sulfikar Amir, Associate Professor of Science, Technology and Society, School of Social Sciences, Nanyang University, Singapore Julia Lau, Senior Fellow and Co Coordinator, Indonesia Studies Programme, ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, Singapore

Presenter: Charmaine Cozier Producers: Matt Toulson and Jill Collins Editor: Tara McDermott Technical Producer: Nicky Edwards and Toby James Production Co-ordinator: Tim Fernley

Image credit: Dimas Ardian/Bloomberg/Getty.

In 1973 America ended a draft that had been in effect since before it entered the second World War, and for the last fifty years the US Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines have been an all-volunteer military.

But, recently, of the four major branches which make up the US armed services, only the Marines have achieved their target for new recruits. And the biggest force, the Army, has been struggling most of all. In the past two years its missed its recruiting target by several thousand.

In this edition of the Inquiry, Sandra Kanthal looks at the myriad reasons the American Army is failing to enlist enough new soldiers, and why this may affect what impact it can have on global security.

Guests: Nora Bensahel – Professor of the Practice at the School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University Mark Cancian - Senior Advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies Peter Feaver – Professor of Political Science and Public Policy, Duke University and author of Thanks For Your Service: The Causes and Consequences of Public Confidence in the US Military Beth Asch – Senior Economist, The Rand Corporation

Production Team: Presenter: Sandra Kanthal Producer: Sandra Kanthal Editor: Tara McDermott Technical Producer: James Beard Production Co-ordinator: Tim Fernley

Image Credit: Bo Zaunders\Getty

Something strange started happening in early 2023 in the waters off south-western Europe, where the Mediterranean sea meets the Atlantic ocean. Orcas began slamming into the sides of fishing and sailing vessels. The killer whales then dived underneath to locate and destroy the rudders used to steer the boats. Once finished, the orcas departed, leaving shocked crews and thousands of dollars of damage behind. Some of the attacks were over in a matter of minutes, but others lasted hours.

It’s very unusual behaviour for this particular mammal, but orcas are under a lot of threat from man-made hazards. Factors like underwater noise pollution, overfishing, toxic waste and climate change to name a few are making orca life extremely difficult. Could all of this have caused this change in behaviour?

Contributors:

Billy Heaney, zoologist, wildlife tour guide and presenter Dr Jeremy Kiszka, professor of biology at Florida International University in Miami Hannah Strager, marine biologist and director of exhibitions at the Whale Museum in Norway Nicola Hodgins, researcher with the global charity Whale and Dolphin Conservation

Presenter: Charmaine Cozier Producers: Anoushka Mutanda-Dougherty, Jill Collins, Matt Toulson Editors: Tara McDermott and Tom Bigwood Researcher: Matt Toulson Sound designer: Nicky Edwards Production co-ordinator: Jordan King

Image: An orca showing its teeth (Credit: Marcos del Mazo/LightRocket via Getty Images)

Sargassum seaweed was recorded as far back as the 15th century when Christopher Columbus wrote in his expedition diaries about miles and miles and miles of dense seaweed as he crossed the Atlantic Ocean. In 2011, a great mass of this seaweed emerged, stretching from West Africa to the Gulf of Mexico, a phenomenon known as the Great Atlantic Sargassum Belt. Since then it’s been washing up on coastlines in massive amounts, causing a big impact on communities whose economy relies heavily on the tourism industry. As the seaweed decays it releases hydrogen sulphide which has a strong odour of rotten eggs.

Various research projects are looking into ways of containing this seaweed, as no one has found a viable solution on an industrial scale. But whilst it is causing problems onshore, offshore in the deep ocean of the Sargasso Sea, the sargassum provides a unique ecosystem for a variety of marine life including turtles and swordfish.

So, this week on The Inquiry we’re asking, ‘What’s going on with sargassum seaweed?’

Contributors:

Dr. Chuanmin Hu, Professor of Oceanography, University of South Florida College of Marine Science, USA

Dr. David Freestone, Executive Secretary, The Sargasso Sea Commission, Washington DC, USA

Dr. Marie-Louise Felix, Marine Biologist and Lecturer, Sir Arthur Lewis Community College, Consultant to the Department of Fisheries, St Lucia

Ajit Subramaniam, Biological Oceanographer, Lamont Research Professor, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, New York, USA

Presenter: Charmaine Cozier Producer: Jill Collins Researcher: George Crafer Editor: Tara McDermott Technical Producer: Nicky Edwards Production Co-ordinator: Jordan King

Image: Miami Beach, Florida, North Beach Atlantic Ocean shoreline, large quantity of arriving seaweed sargassum macroalgae, tourist trying to swim. (Photo by: Jeffrey Greenberg/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)

Toyota has unveiled a revolutionary electric car battery, able to travel 1,200 kilometres in one go and can be charged in just ten minutes.

Toyota’s CEO Koji Sato said that “commercialisation of solid state batteries is a thing of the future... now within reach, changing the future of cars". The company also claims to be on the brink of being able to manufacture them.

So is this, as some are claiming, a ‘watershed moment’ in car making? Can these new batteries now be produced at scale? What impact will this have on the popularity of electric cars and their uptake?

Has Toyota solved the electric car battery problem?

Contributors:

Paul Shearing, chair in sustainable energy engineering and director of the Zero Institute at the University of Oxford. Shirley Meng, Professor of Molecular Engineering at the University of Chicago. Jeff Liker, Professor of Industrial Engineering at the University of Michigan for 35 years. Dr Evi Petavratzi, a mineral commodity specialist from the British Geological Survey. Presenter: Tanya Beckett Producer: Bob Howard Editor: Tara McDermott Sound Designer: Gareth Jones Production Coordinator: Jordan King

Image: Olga Rolenko via Getty Images - 1403000871

Tensions between South American neighbours Venezuela and Guyana have ratcheted up a notch in recent weeks over the disputed oil rich region of Essequibo. The territory, which is roughly the size of Florida, currently makes up around two thirds of Guyana and vast oil reserves were discovered here in 2015 which have helped make Guyana’s economy one of the fastest growing in the world. Essequibo has come under the authority of Guyana and before it British Guiana for more than a century, but Venezuela has always disputed that decision made by an international tribunal back in 1899. The issue is currently with the International Court of Justice in the Hague, who are expected to make a decision next year. But Venezuela does not recognise their jurisdiction. And now President Maduro has used the results of a recent referendum claiming rights over Essequibo, as evidence to support his threat to move forward with plans to annexe the region.

So this week on The Inquiry, we’re asking ‘Is Venezuela about to invade its neighbour?’

Contributors: Phil Gunson, Senior Analyst, Andes, Caracas, Venezuela for International Crisis Group Alejandro Velasco, Associate Professor of Latin American History, New York University, author of ‘Barrio Rising: Urban Popular Politics and the Making of Modern Venezuela Dr Christopher Sabatini, Senior Fellow for Latin America at Chatham House, London Dr Annette Idler, Associate Professor in Global Security, Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford.

Presenter: David Baker Producer: Jill Collins Researcher: George Crafer Editor: Tara McDermott Technical Producer: Mitch Goodall Broadcast Co-ordinator: Jordan King

Image credit: Anadolu\Getty

In less than a year, France will play host to the Olympic and Paralympic Games. The opening ceremony will be played out along the River Seine in the nation’s capital city Paris. The Seine is also set to be the scene of the open-water swimming events and work is now being done to make sure the polluted waterway will be clean and safe enough for the Olympic participants.

To accommodate the expected influx of visitors to the Games, new transport links are been built. Whilst its already been acknowledged that some of the network is planned to link up a number of Olympic sites, it won’t be ready in time for the Games. There are plans to provide extra river boats and cycle lanes.

In addition to all this is the question of whether the French themselves are in the mood to celebrate the Games. This summer saw waves of social and political unrest in the country, but traditional sporting events like the Rugby World Cup have played a role in bringing the country together.

This week on The Inquiry, we’re asking ‘Is Paris Ready for the 2024 Olympics?’

Contributors: Jean-Marie Mouchel, Professor of Hydrology, Sorbonne University, Paris, France Florence Villeminot, Journalist and Presenter, France 24, Paris, France Bill Hanway, Global Sports Leader, AECOM, Dallas, Texas, USA Rainbow Murray, Professor of Politics, Queen Mary University of London

Presenter: Tanya Beckett Producer: Jill Collins Researcher: Matt Toulson Technical Producer: Kelly Young Production Co-ordinator: Jordan King Editor Tara McDermott

Photo: Olympic Rings to celebrate the IOC official announcement that Paris won the 2024 Olympic bid are seen in front of the Eiffel Tower at the Trocadero square in Paris, France, September 16, 2017. Credit: Reuters

Around 1 billion people around the world suffer from a mysterious neurological condition called migraine. Far more than just a headache, migraine is abnormal processing of the world around us that can have symptoms like loss of sight and speech, dizziness, nausea and extreme fatigue.

There are drugs which can help those struggling with the condition like anti-depressants and anti-convulsants. However, they weren’t developed specifically for migraine and can come with quite a lot of side effects or simply not work.

For a long time migraine medication has been a process of trial and error.

But a new class of drugs called anti-CGRPs are being hailed as a breakthrough migraine medication. Anti-CGRPs have a small side effect profile and were designed specifically to target migraine. They work by blocking CGRP (Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide) from building up in the body and triggering a receptor in the brain which turns on a head pain pathway causing the migraine attack.

Earlier this year the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence - or NICE – in England cleared the use of an anti-CGRP called Rimegepant to use as both a preventive and acute treatment. Clinicians are hoping this will massively improve the lives of those living with the condition.

So this week on The Inquiry were asking ‘Have we reached a turning point with migraine medication?’

Contributors: Dr. Amaal Starling, neurologist and headache specialist at Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, in the US state of Arizona. Dr Faraidoon, researcher at the Georgian Institute for Global Health at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. Peter Goadsby , Director of the NIHR King's Clinical Research Facility and a professor of neurology at King's College London, England. Dr Lise Rystad Oie, researcher at the government funded Norwegian Centre for Headache Research - also known as NorHead.

Presenter: Charmaine Cozier Producer: Anoushka Mutanda-Dougherty Editor: Tara McDermott Researcher: Matt Toulson Technical Producer: Craig Boardman Broadcast Co-ordinator: Jordan King

Image: eternalcreative - Getty Images: 1372323487

Bangladesh is set to hold parliamentary elections next January. But only time will tell whether there will be real change at the top or whether the current Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and her Awami League will remain in power.

In recent months there has been an increase in political protests calling for a neutral interim government ahead of the polls opening. But these protests have only resulted in increasing numbers of senior leaders of the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party being rounded up and put in jail.

Historically, the country has had a fractured relationship with democracy since its birth in 1971, but the government for their part has denied accusations of democratic backsliding.

So this week on the Inquiry we’re asking ‘Why is Bangladesh in turmoil?’

Contributors:

Sabir Mustafa, a former Editor of the BBC Bengali Service, now based in Washington DC, USA

Dr. Avinash Paliwal, Reader in International Relations, Department of Politics and International Relations, SOAS University of London

Ali Riaz, Distinguished Professor in the Department of Politics and Government, Illinois State University, USA and non-resident Senior Fellow of the Atlantic Council

Dr. Geoffrey MacDonald, Visiting Expert in the South Asia Programme, United States Institute of Peace, Washington DC, USA

Presenter: Tanya Beckett Producer: Jill Collins Researcher: Matt Toulson Editor: Tara McDermott Technical Producer: Richard Hannaford Broadcast Co-ordinator: Jordan King

Photo: Bangladesh Nationalist Party protest for Sheikh Hasina’s resignation, Dhaka -28th Oct 2023. Credit: Photo by MONIRUL ALAM/EPA-EFE/REX/Shutterstock(14171078p)

The head of Ukraine’s armed forces, General Zaluzhny, has a frank take on his country’s conflict with Russia: "Just like in the First World War, we have reached the level of technology that puts us into a stalemate."

He explains that using drones and remote surveillance equipment in battlezones means each side knows what the other is doing. That slows down troops advancing, and creates a standoff. In a separate essay offering solutions, the general states that fresh tech innovation is the key to cracking it.

President Zelensky disagreed, and his office accuses the general of making “the aggressor’s job easier.” The Kremlin also denies there’s a deadlock. But with the world’s attention also focused on the Middle East, has attention drifted away from the Ukraine conflict – and if it has, what does that mean for Ukraine’s campaign?

Charmaine Cozier explores the current state of fighting which continues on the eastern frontline, and whether Ukraine’s recent attacks on Crimea demonstrate the country’s capacity to fight back against Russia’s forces. Meanwhile, Moscow has been building up an ‘axis of the sanctioned’ – countries including Iran and North Korea, which are providing armaments and sharing technology to support Russia’s military in Ukraine in a war of attrition.

And as the war heads towards its second year, is international support for Ukraine holding up? In the United States, some Republican lawmakers have delayed the latest package of military aid to Ukraine as they raise questions about the cost of the war for Americans. One year out from the next Presidential election, support for Ukraine may become an election issue. In Europe, support for Ukraine has been signalled by the European Union as it recommends formal talks should begin. Contributors: Tymofiy Mylovanov is president of Kyiv School of Economics. He’s also a former member of the Ukrainian government. Before leaving it in 2020, his roles included minister of economy, international trade and agriculture.

Dr. Hanna Notte is director of the Eurasian programme at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. It focuses on research and training around preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and technologies. She’s also senior associate with the Europe, Russia and Eurasia programme at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

Natasha Lindstaedt is a professor of government at the University of Essex in England

Mark Katz is a professor of government and politics at the George Mason University Schar School of Policy and Government in Virginia in the US.

Presenter: Charmaine Cozier Producer: Philip Reevell. Researcher: Matt Toulson Editor: Tara McDermott Technical producer: Richard Hannaford.

Image credit Getty Images

When the Referendum to give Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders greater political rights was first announced, it was well received, with the early polls suggesting that more than sixty percent of Australians supported it.

This was an opportunity for the establishment of an advisory body to Parliament that would allow Indigenous Peoples a voice on the issues affecting their own communities and for them to be recognised in the Australian constitution.

The ‘YES’ campaign said their proposals outlined in the Uluru Statement from the Heart, requested a modest yet profound change, allowing Indigenous Australians to take their ‘rightful place’ in their own country.

Whilst the ‘NO’ campaigners argued that the ‘Voice to Parliament’ would be racially divisive, giving Indigenous Peoples greater rights over other Australians.

In the end Australia voted ‘NO’ to changing the status quo, by an overwhelming majority.

This week on The Inquiry, we’re asking ‘What went wrong with Australia’s Indigenous call for a voice?’

Contributors: John Maynard, Emeritus Professor, Aboriginal History and Research, University of Newcastle, NSW Australia. Tim Soutphommasane, Chief Diversity Officer, Professor of Practice in Human Rights and Political Theory, University of Oxford, UK and a Former Race Discrimination Commissioner for Australia Andrea Carson, Professor of Political Communication, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia Thomas Mayo, Indigenous Rights Advocate, Maritime Union of Australia Official and Author

Presenter: David Baker Producer: Jill Collins Researcher: Matt Toulson Technical Producer: Richard Hannaford Production Co-ordinator: Jordan King Editor: Tara McDermott

Image: Voice Referendum in Australia: Credit: Reuters.

Audio for this episode was updated on 20th November 2023.