One of the ranking’s most surprising findings is that healthcare occupations appear on both sides. Physicians, dentists, and physical therapists rank among America’s lowest-divorce occupations, while home health aides, psychiatric aides, and practical nurses rank among the highest.
The contrast suggests that schedules, working conditions, and job structure may play a larger role than industry alone.
The Jobs With the Lowest Divorce Rates
America’s lowest-divorce occupations are remarkably similar. Most require years of advanced education, professional licensing, or specialized technical expertise.
Education appears to be one factor. Census-based research shows divorce rates generally decline as education levels rise.
Individuals with only a high school diploma experienced a divorce rate of 38.8%, compared with 30.1% for those with an associate degree and 25.9% for those holding at least a bachelor’s degree.
Notably, America’s lowest-divorce occupations include not only high earners such as physicians and dentists, but also clergy, one of the few modest-paying professions in the group.
The Jobs With the Highest Divorce Rates
Telemarketers, bus drivers, bartenders, home health aides, psychiatric aides, casino workers, and security personnel all rank among America’s highest-divorce occupations, with rates exceeding 45%.
The occupations at the opposite end of the ranking share a different set of characteristics. Many involve irregular schedules, shift work, public-facing responsibilities, or emotionally demanding working conditions.
Work schedules may be part of the explanation. A landmark study of more than 3,400 married couples found that irregular schedules, such as night shifts, were associated with significantly higher odds of separation or divorce than regular daytime work.
Other research has linked night-shift work to greater marital instability and work-family conflict, particularly for new parents.
The Surprising Healthcare Divide
One of the ranking’s most surprising findings is that healthcare occupations appear on both sides.
Physicians, surgeons, dentists, physical therapists, optometrists, and physician assistants all rank among the lowest-divorce occupations in America.
Yet healthcare support roles tell a very different story. Home health aides, psychiatric aides, practical nurses, ambulance attendants, and other healthcare support workers rank among the highest-divorce occupations.
The divide suggests that job conditions may matter as much as industry. Workers in healthcare can face vastly different schedules, levels of autonomy, educational requirements, and workplace pressures, even while serving similar patient populations. In other words, two people can work in healthcare and face entirely different relationship pressures depending on their role.
What the Rankings Reveal
The rankings suggest that occupation and family life may be more connected than many people realize. While no profession determines whether a marriage succeeds, factors such as work schedules, stress levels, educational attainment, and job autonomy appear to be linked with markedly different divorce outcomes.
The healthcare divide is perhaps the clearest example. People working in the same industry can face entirely different relationship pressures depending on the role they hold.
To learn more about this topic, check out this graphic on America’s 30 highest-paying jobs.
A Chinese robotics company has begun placing its humanoid robots inside real homes, marking a significant step in the race to develop machines capable of performing everyday household tasks.
Wuhan-based GigaAI recently deployed the first batch of 100 SeeLight S1 humanoid robots for household testing, according to reports from China. The trial is being positioned as China’s first large-scale real-home test of a general-purpose humanoid robot designed for domestic use.
While humanoid robots have become increasingly adept at performing carefully choreographed demonstrations, researchers say the real challenge lies in operating inside unpredictable human environments.
From Robot Demos To Real Household Work
In a demonstration apartment in Wuhan, two SeeLight S1 robots carried out a variety of household chores. According to Global Times and China Daily reports, one robot prepared breakfast by retrieving food items, heating chicken in a microwave, clearing dishes, and loading a dishwasher. Another removed laundry from a dryer, folded clothes, and organized them in a wardrobe.
According to GigaAI, the robots learned these tasks through less than a month of on-site training. The company’s executives argue that household robotics represents a fundamentally different challenge from the acrobatic robot videos that often dominate social media.
“Tasks such as dancing or performing flips mainly rely on what we can call the robot’s cerebellum,” GigaAI co-founder and chief scientist Zhu Zheng told Global Times. “Household robots, however, depend on the brain.”
That distinction reflects a broader challenge in robotics known as embodied AI, where machines must perceive their surroundings, understand spoken instructions, plan actions, and adapt to constantly changing environments.
Check out China’s SeeLight S1, a household humanoid robot capable of cooking, doing laundry, folding clothes, and organizing spaces pic.twitter.com/oHqbb0B6oZ
Factories are structured and predictable. Homes are not. Furniture gets moved, objects are left in unexpected places, lighting conditions change throughout the day, and every household follows different routines.
Researchers often point to Moravec’s paradox, a long-observed phenomenon in artificial intelligence where tasks humans consider difficult, such as advanced mathematics or strategic games, can be easier for machines than seemingly simple activities like folding clothes, grasping objects, or navigating cluttered rooms.
The SeeLight S1 attempts to address this challenge through what GigaAI describes as an embodied foundation model. Rather than following pre-programmed action sequences, the system is designed to process natural-language instructions, interpret its surroundings, create a plan, and execute tasks autonomously. According to the company, the robot can also adapt when furniture layouts change and continue operating even when interrupted during a task.
Still Far From A Robotic Maid
Despite the impressive demonstrations, reports from users and observers suggest there is still considerable room for improvement.
According to Global Times, some household tasks remain slow. Organizing a few books can take several minutes, while folding a single piece of clothing may require more than ten minutes. The robot has also reportedly struggled with tasks such as handling cups without spilling liquids.
Those limitations highlight the gap that still exists between controlled demonstrations and practical household automation. The current SeeLight S1 is therefore less a finished consumer product and more a data-collection platform designed to learn from real-world environments.
GigaAI plans to launch an upgraded SeeLight S2 later this year with a smaller chassis, longer battery life, improved arm reach, and more advanced AI algorithms. The company also intends to expand testing into homes with elderly residents, children, and various living arrangements to expose the robots to a wider range of real-world scenarios.
While humanoid assistants capable of seamlessly handling household chores remain a work in progress, the deployment of 100 robots into actual homes represents an important experiment. The question is no longer whether robots can perform tasks in carefully staged demonstrations. It is whether they can cope with the messy, unpredictable reality of everyday life.
In general, women tend to live longer and healthier lives than men for a variety of reasons, including greater health consciousness and a tendency to avoid risky behaviors, but also genetic and hormonal factors. A study published in 2020 in the Journal SSM – Population Health shows that at 65 years old, U.S. women were expected to live for an additional 19 to 21 years, while for U.S. men, this number only stood at around 16 to 18.5 years. Nevertheless, the devil is once again in the details and reveals itself when looking at the differences in sex and marital status.
Here, married men aged 65 gain almost 2.5 years of life expectancy over their unmarried counterparts of the same age, boosting their outlook on life significantly. The data shows how having a spouse brings the life expectancy of married men quite close to that of never-married women – quite significant if one considers how fundamental the longer life span of women has been across ages and cultures. Married and never-married women, on the other hand, have a more similar expected lifespan. However, marriage also benefits women and increases their life expectancy, if only by 1.8 years on average compared to never-married females.
Another study looking at Danish people at age 50 even shows that men benefited from an added life expectancy of around eight years through marriage, while married women could expect to live approximately five years longer compared to never-married women. This gave men an increase that was 60 percent bigger than that of women, compared to the 33 percent U.S. researchers found in 65-year-olds. A study in Asia even found benefits of marriage in reducing mortality only in men, but not in women, concluding that more traditional Asian marriages where female partners take on a lot of household and child-rearing chores on top of possible employment might cancel out any potential benefits.
The role women play in marriages as planners and facilitators of medical care as well as advocates for healthy habits becomes clear when looking at divorced and widowed men’s life expectancy. In the U.S., it falls to basically the same level as that of never-married men when considering 65-year-olds. In the case of U.S. women, the differences are again not that stark. Even if a women is divorced or widowed, her life expectancy is still somewhat above that of a never-married woman, highlighting how women benefit from the overall advantages of marriage rather than just their spouse. These come in the form of so-called marriage protections, like adopting better habits, better mental health outcomes and better social connectedness. They are also often explained by so-called marriage selection, the idea that those individuals who manage to get married are already starting out with a better outlook on life.
Newer research into these factors has added an important distinction to these theories, however. It finds that while overall, marriages tend to provide benefits to a majority of individuals, this doesn’t mean that every marriage is beneficial. A bad marriage or one that places a lot of additional burdens on both or one of the individuals involved can diminish the positive effects of marriage significantly. Likewise, smaller differences between the life expectancies of married, divorced, widowed and never-married women potentially mask a set of more diverse outcomes for women.
Where men’s benefits stemming from marriage seem more widespread and typical, women may still often find positive outcomes from a marriage that is going well for them, but many might also see minimal or even adverse effects, culminating in a less clear picture of marriage and female longevity.
EU Targets Head Of Russian Orthodox Church With Sanctions
What is there left to sanction in Russia? Apparently the European Union still sees plenty of opportunity to punish Russia over the Ukraine war, and is set to go after even religious leaders, now in year five of the conflict and many sanctions packages later.
The head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill, is among many names to be targeted in the EU’s latest anti-Moscow sanctions proposal. Kirill has long been accused of justifying the war based on his several patriotic-themed sermons over the years.
Brussels first tried to impose individual sanctions on the patriarch in 2022, but Hungary under PM Viktor Orban had exercised veto power over the move.
The sanctions would involve travel bans and an asset freeze, as has already happened with Kremlin officials and notables.
Kirill has at times utilized language in public that frames Putin’s ‘special military operation’ in Ukraine as a ‘holy war’; however, some sympathetic pundits especially in the Orthodox Church world have said these are simple calls to patriotism and defense of the ‘motherland’ or homeland – a common mindset among most religions and nationalities.
American politicians and other church leaders in the US have taken swipes at Kirill and the Russian Orthodox Church – and yet it must be recalled that in the lead-up to Bush’s disastrous 2003 Iraq invasion, since proven to have been based on lies, propaganda, and falsehoods – an overwhelming number of prominent Evangelical and Baptist leaders supported it as a somehow ‘righteous’ or ‘godly’ regime change mission.
The Russian Orthodox Church has of late been especially angry that the Ukrainian government under Zelensky has been seizing churches and historic monasteries in Ukraine which still hold communion with Moscow.
In some cases, Orthodox bishops in Ukraine have been arrested simply for not severing spiritual ties with Kirill. This has happened even when bishops, monks, or priests – who find themselves targeted by Ukrainian authorities – don’t support Russia’s war.
And yet, the EU has remained largely silent on Ukraine’s own abuses, and using religion to foster nationalism and conformity to a political agenda.
Moscow has long highlighted this hypocrisy, also as Orthodox Christian clergy in the United States have of late lobbied Congress to demand that Kiev overturn its discriminatory laws which target Orthodox leaders in Ukraine.
The US war with Iran has moved beyond its initial phase to an emerging new one — one in which Iran implicitly stakes its chances on the next phase being war. Most likely this will be in abbreviated episodes of limited war, but possessing nevertheless a potential to widen regionally, should the US (and Israel) elect to sharply escalate.
The new phase involves risk of course, yet Iran holds the high cards of an ability to impose disproportionately heavier damage upon Gulf infrastructure as retaliation for any hurt inflicted upon it — and the awareness that the West is edging ever closer to dropping off the energy “cliff.”
The three pillars underlying this shift are firstly, confidence that Iran will not (and cannot) be shifted from its hold over Hormuz, and that in consolidating its administrative structures there, the reality of Iran’s hold over Hormuz will increasingly be assimilated by states, and reflected in their coming to terms with Iranian-Omani control.
Associated with this core principle is Iran’s implementation of escalated deterrencevis á vis the American naval blockade. Any attempt to intercept or attack Iranian vessels or interfere with the Strait’s administration will be met with increasingly harsher ripostes. Ultimately this policy may lead to Iran imposing increasing levels of damage to US naval vessels – another friction point.
On 3 June, for example, the US fired a hellfire missile at an Iranian oil tanker near the Strait of Hormuz. In response, a US-owned (or partly-owned) ship, The Panaya, was struck with missiles. Additionally Iran launched three waves of cruise missiles at the US air and helicopter base in Kuwait from where the attack had originated. Images have emerged of serious damage at Kuwait international airport too (although the cause of the damage remains disputed).
The second underlying principle affecting this shift simply reflects Iranian disdain for Trump’s continuous inflating of demands, exaggerated threats (which palpably fall short of US capacities), together with his continual zigzagging and contemptuous rhetoric towards Iran.
The Iranian leadership has concluded, it seems, that compromise will likely not be forthcoming, and that it is better to cut the “negotiations” rather “than continue the pointless bad-faith negotiations with a deceitful and decrepit American regime,” as the New York Times has termed the Iran “negotiations” — suggesting that the “deal chaos” is not a singular glitch by Trump confined to the Iran issue, but rather is a consistent pattern of dysfunctionality repeating itself across virtually all of Trump’s “peace” initiatives.
Behind Iran’s decision to suspend talks however, likely lies the gradually dawning clarity, seeping out from Israeli and American statements and analysis, that the true objective of the 28 February US-Israeli sneak attack was never regime change per se — aiming to swap out Iranian “hardliners” for a “Delcy Rodrigues”-style more moderate leader; but was intended rather, to bring about Iran’s complete destruction and fracturing — an insight that was bound to shift Iran’s calculus.
This insight has consolidated public support for the Islamic Republic hugely, and at the same time has turned the war into an existential struggle to preserve the ethical values of the Revolution. Seen from this optic, there is little for Iran to discuss with Trump, bar some future modus vivendi — as and when, Washington understands that it is boxed in, and that new realism takes a hold.
The third principle undergirding this new phase of conflict is the one enunciated by Iran from the outset of the Islamabad talks: “Ceasefire for all; or ceasefire for no one.” This was again re-emphasised in Iran’s latest ultimatum to Trump: “If the Israeli threats from last week to flatten the Beirut southern suburb of Dahiyeh had been executed, then Iran would have stricken northern Israel hard with its missiles. ‘It was a ceasefire for all – or no ceasefire.”
Trump chose the ceasefire, and subsequent to his call with Netanyahu, announced that it was in effect. He told Netanyahu to cancel his planned bombing of Dahiyeh in south Beirut. In Israel, a massive wave of anger from all sides of the political spectrum attacked Netanyahu at the very notion of curbing any Israeli attacks in Lebanon. Former PM Naftali Bennett accused Netanyahu of “losing control over Israeli sovereignty.” And former PM Yair Lapid said Israel had been reduced to a “vassal state” after the strikes were called off.
The US and Israel for some months have been attempting to bring a segment of leaders in Lebanon to accept the task of disarming Hizbullah, as Rubio explained, “so Israel doesn’t have to do it” — something Lebanese leaders clearly cannot do.
Israel has no coherent Lebanon strategy. Former senior Israeli military intelligence officer, Danny Citrinowicz, outlines a new strategic “Iranian achievement”:
Tehran has effectively succeeded in linking the Lebanese front to the broader Iranian-Israeli arena. Any escalation in Lebanon is now increasingly viewed through the prism of the US-Iran dynamic.
Nevertheless, he observes:
The situation in Lebanon remains highly unstable. Israel and Hezbollah continue to interpret the current understandings in fundamentally different ways. [Whilst] Israel maintains that it retains freedom of action across Lebanon except Beirut, Hezbollah [on the other hand] insists that any Israeli military activity – at all – violates the ceasefire framework. These competing interpretations create significant potential for renewed friction and escalation on the ground.
In Israel, the situation in northern towns remains neuralgic for nearly all Israelis. Many towns along the Lebanon border and down into the Galilee are half-empty — “entire swaths of land abandoned by [the] government,” writes Ben Caspit. Local politicians claim that they “are Israelis too” and that the government must respond.
We prefer the language of diplomacy, but we speak other languages far more fluently. Break your commitments, and we’ll switch to what we speak best.
You ride the horse you saddled!
— محمدباقر قالیباف | MB Ghalibaf (@mb_ghalibaf) June 9, 2026
Lebanon is certain to remain a point of contention. It is not a matter of if, but when, the next crisis will strike. Israel will not let the matter stand — even Liberal opposition leaders demand Hizbullah’s destruction and protest Trump’s tying of Netanyahu’s hands in Lebanon.
Iran will not let matters stand either. Mediators have informed the Americans that Iran considers an end to the war on Lebanon, withdrawal of Israeli forces, and a withdrawal from Hormuz, to be binding conditions — before discussing other issues.
So, here we are. The military skirmishes — effectively an abbreviated series of strikes by US forces on Iranian shipping and Strait infrastructure, arising from Trump’s desire to assert its naval blockade to US public opinion — continue. This situation is clearly flammable – just as is the Lebanon context.
Iran effectively is acknowledging the reality that in this new phase — with so many inherent flash points to it — American military escalation at some point likely will become a political necessity for Trump’s domestic and Jewish financers’ needs.
And the negotiations? They will go nowhere so long as Israel and the US Jewish billionaire donors reject any Iran outcome that leaves Iran both intact and stronger and — pari passu in this binary thinking — the “Israel First” project within the US and the region correspondingly weakened.
A deal that doesn’t see Iran irretrievably weakened will be condemned by these latter forces as a “treasonous dereliction” by Trump. He will be attacked mercilessly. Yet, he must see that Iran is anyway on the cusp of throwing off the US shackles.
This phase of the Iranian conflict likely will only end when the West falls off the approaching economic cliff …
NATO Country Halts Arms To Ukraine Under New Eurosceptic Prime Minister
In yet another example of Ukraine war fatigue among European allies, NATO member Bulgaria has newly announce it is halting weapons deliveries to Ukraine, signaling a major shift in the eastern European country’s longtime policy.
The prior government proved itself early out of the gate as an enthusiastic arms backer of Kiev, but new Bulgarian Prime Minister Rumen Radev, whose Progressive Bulgaria party won the April election, is rolling back the prior policy.
The new government has made clear it has a new peace agenda, and its position is that nothing will be resolved by just pouring more heavy arms into the conflict, now in its fifth year. It was given a new mandate, but after reports of low voter turnout in the country.
“What we are witnessing is a war of attrition, and no matter how much weaponry is amassed, its only result is the loss of human lives,” the country’s Defense Minister Dimitar Stoyanov told reporters on Tuesday,
The defense chief stressed it is time to sit down at the negotiating table “to seek a just peace that is defined by both sides.”
“Ukraine needs more people, not more weapons. It has enough weapons, so we do not envisage providing more weapons to the Ukrainian army,” he added.
“Of course, the role of the EU is extremely important,” he said, explaining that “it would be difficult to assign this role to that of a mediator for the simple reason that the EU has also assisted Ukraine in its efforts in this war anyway.”
As for the recently installed in office Radev, he’s a eurosceptic former fighter pilot, who had built his campaign around calls for pragmatic ties with Moscow, resumption of Russian energy supplies and an end to military aid for Ukraine.
He has repeatedly criticized EU overreach on green-energy mandates, sanctions policies and what he describes as moral posturing in a “world without rules.” While analysts note he is unlikely to ultimately jeopardize the flow of EU funds that sustain Bulgaria’s economy, the result installs a distinctly Russia-friendly government at the heart of the EU’s southeastern flank – a shift that will draw close scrutiny in Brussels, Washington and Kyiv.
Radev’s campaign had leaned heavily into criticism of EU overreach – particularly its green-energy obsession, sanctions regime, and moral posturing in a “world without rules.” He has repeatedly called for improved relations with Moscow, resumption of Russian energy flows, and an end to military aid for Ukraine – and now he’s begun to make good on these promises, it appears.
Other Western allies have complained he’s too ‘Russia-sympathetic’ – and have called to keep up the steady flow of arms to Ukraine forces.
The brutal murder of Henry Nowak should have focused public attention on the circumstances surrounding his death and the troubling questions it raises about justice, race, and social cohesion in contemporary Britain.
Yet one need only read one widely publicized headline to know that another story is about to be told: “How Britain’s far right hijacked the murder of Henry Nowak.”
Predictably, the tragedy is being pressed into service as evidence of the supposedly inexorable rise of the “far right” and “white grievance.”
The victim, it seems, is of secondary importance.
What truly concerns much of the legacy media is not the murder itself but the possibility that ordinary citizens might draw conclusions that fall outside the approved narrative. Once again, a deeply disturbing event is filtered through a set of ideological assumptions so familiar that the outcome is known before the reporting has even begun.
The most revealing aspect of this story is not the crime itself, however disturbing, but the legacy media’s inability to imagine it meaning anything beyond its established ideological script. The circumstances may change, but the narrative remains reassuringly familiar: another cautionary tale about the rise of the “far right.” The conclusion is already written before the reporting begins.
Predictably, the legacy media appears determined to interpret the controversy through the now-standard lens of right-wing extremism. Whenever social tensions arise around immigration, crime, identity, or unequal treatment under the law, the first instinct is rarely to assess whether the public’s concerns have any merit. Instead, attention immediately shifts to the alleged dangers posed by those raising concerns. The story ceases to be about the underlying issue and becomes about the people noticing it.
This reflex reveals a profound intellectual exhaustion. The explanatory framework that dominated public discourse twenty years ago remains largely unchanged despite repeated failures to account for social realities that large numbers of ordinary citizens can plainly see.
Every electoral upset, every protest movement, every surge of public dissatisfaction is interpreted as evidence of the same phenomenon: the mysterious emergence of the “far right.” One might be forgiven for thinking that half of Europe has spent the last decade spontaneously transforming into fascists.
Yet a more plausible explanation often presents itself. Perhaps public frustration stems not from an outbreak of extremism but from a growing perception that institutions no longer operate by consistent principles. Is it reasonable to think that people object when standards appear to vary by race, ethnicity, religion, or political ideology? Or maybe they become angry when authorities seem more concerned with managing public perceptions than with addressing legitimate grievances.
In Nowak’s case, the question many people are asking is straightforward. Would the response have been identical had the races of those involved been reversed? Would the media framing have been the same? Would public officials have reacted in precisely the same way? These are not inherently extremist questions. They are questions about fairness, equal treatment, and institutional legitimacy. And we all know the answer.
Yet for many journalists, the possibility that institutions themselves may be engaging in differential treatment is dismissed before it can even be considered. The hypothesis cannot be entertained because it collides with a set of assumptions that have become foundational to institutions throughout the West.
The result is a curious form of myopia. Evidence that might challenge prevailing assumptions is either ignored or reinterpreted until it fits comfortably within the existing narrative framework. The rise in public discontent cannot be attributed to institutional failures; therefore, it must reflect the rise of extremism.
Declining trust in the media cannot result from biased reporting; therefore, it must result from misinformation. Electoral revolts cannot be responses to genuine policy failures; therefore, they can only be reactions driven by fear, prejudice, or ignorance.
This explanatory model is remarkably resilient. Like the medieval physician who attributed every illness to an imbalance of humors, today’s media class has found a single diagnostic tool that explains virtually every social phenomenon. Economic stagnation? Far right. Concerns about immigration? Far right. Questions about crime? Far right. Skepticism toward public institutions? Far right.
At some point, one begins to suspect that the diagnosis may reveal more about the diagnostician than the patient.
The irony, of course, is that this approach increasingly undermines the very institutions that employ it. Public trust in mainstream media has declined sharply across much of the Western world. Journalists often attribute this erosion to social media or partisan manipulation. These factors undoubtedly play a role.
But another explanation suggests itself: people lose confidence in the media when they repeatedly observe a gap between what they see with their own eyes and what they are told to see. One thinks, for example, of the obvious dementia of the former U.S. President Joe Biden, even as the legacy media repeatedly told us to ignore the evidence of our own eyes and propagated the blatant untruth that he was, in fact, better than ever.
The public may not hold advanced degrees in journalism or sociology. They may not speak the language of intersectionality, structural privilege, or critical theory. Yet they retain a stubborn attachment to common sense. When institutions appear unwilling even to entertain obvious questions or obvious explanations, ordinary citizens naturally begin to search elsewhere for answers.
This is the disaster facing much of the legacy media today. The problem is not simply bias. All human beings possess biases. The deeper problem is an inability to recognize alternative explanations. A profession once dedicated to curiosity increasingly shows a remarkable lack of it. Stories are filtered through a set of approved assumptions that have hardened into dogma. Facts are welcomed when they confirm the narrative and treated with suspicion when they complicate it.
Meanwhile, the public grows steadily less willing to accept these interpretations at face value.
The great danger for legacy media is not that the “far right” will triumph. The greater danger is that journalists will continue to mistake every challenge to their assumptions as evidence of what they continue to label “extremism.” In doing so, they become incapable of understanding the societies they claim to describe.
After all, if every criticism of institutional behavior is dismissed as evidence of right-wing radicalism, the term eventually loses all explanatory power. It becomes less a description than a ritual incantation, repeated whenever reality threatens to intrude on the narrative.
And when that happens, people stop listening. And they are right to do so.
The public’s patience with such shibboleths is not infinite. Indeed, one suspects it is already running thin. Nevertheless, the old formulas still appear on cue. The familiar warnings are dutifully repeated. The specter of the far right is once again summoned from its cupboard. Yet with each repetition, the performance becomes less convincing.
The audience has heard the script before. The plot no longer surprises. Increasingly, they suspect that the storytellers may have lost touch with the story itself.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.
Washington has turned to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors in order to determine the fate of Iran’s highly enriched uranium, according to reports by Reutersand other media outlets.
Sources cited by Reuters – which obtained a draft of a resolution being pushed by the US – said that Iran is being called on to “provide the Agency with precise information on nuclear material accountancy and safeguarded nuclear facilities in Iran.”
The US draft also calls on Tehran to grant “all access it requires to verify this information,” adding that Iranian cooperation is “essential and urgent” and must happen “without delay.”
The text does not refer Iran to the UN Security Council, which would have followed up on the IAEA resolution declaring Tehran in breach of its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
That resolution was issued on 12 June 2025, a day before the US-backed 12-day war on Iran last year. Diplomats told Reuters that such a move was “under consideration.”
Al Mayadeen also reported, citing its own draft copy of the resolution, that Washington is lobbying states on the IAEA Board to back its push.
This came as IAEA chief Rafael Grossi called on Tehran to “re-engage” with the IAEA. “I call on Iran to engage the Agency constructively in order to facilitate the full and effective implementation of safeguards in Iran,” he said, adding that “It’s very important that we re-engage.”
Reuters reported earlier in June that the US was preparing a draft resolution to condemn Iran at an upcoming IAEA meeting. Tehran has repeatedly accused the IAEA of passing along sensitive information to Israel.
At the end of the 12-day war last year, the US attacked key Iranian nuclear sites and claimed it “obliterated” Tehran’s entire nuclear program.
Intelligence assessments indicated at the time that Washington’s claims were false. Since then, the IAEA has been demanding access to the targeted nuclear sites, a demand which Foreign Minister Abbas Aragchi referred to last year as “malicious.”
Dr. Trita Parsi (@tparsi) | Middle East Expert | Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft:
The debate inside Iran has shifted dramatically in favor of weaponization – becoming a problem for any deal.
In early April, Washington launched what it said was an effort to rescue a downed pilot over Iran. US forces faced heavy resistance from Iranian troops during the incursion and reportedly lost multiple aircraft.
Iran’s Foreign Ministry made a statement saying that the operation to rescue a downed pilot may have been part of a deception to steal enriched uranium.
Every January, I hear the same regret from friends and colleagues: “I wish I had known about that before the year ended.” Tax planning has a hard deadline, and most of the best strategies expire on December 31 with no extensions, no exceptions, and no do-overs.
I used to be one of those people who did not think about taxes until I sat down with a stack of documents in February. Then I started working with an accountant who taught me that tax planning is a year-round activity, and the moves you make in the final months of the year often have the biggest impact. Last year, the five strategies below saved me a combined $4,800 in taxes. None of them was complicated. All of them required acting before the calendar flipped.
Move One: Max Out Your Retirement Contributions
This is the single most impactful tax move available to most workers, and millions of people leave money on the table every year. For 2026, the 401(k) contribution limit is $23,500, with an additional $7,500 catch-up contribution if you are 50 or older. Every dollar you contribute to a traditional 401(k) reduces your taxable income dollar for dollar.
If you have not been maxing out, check your year-to-date contributions in November, and calculate how much room you have left. Many employers allow you to increase your contribution percentage mid-year, and some let you make additional lump-sum contributions in the final pay periods.
At a 24 percent marginal tax rate, maxing out a 401(k) at $23,500 saves $5,640 in federal income tax alone. Add state taxes if applicable, and the savings can exceed $7,000. That is real money – not deferred or theoretical, but actual tax dollars you do not pay.
If your employer offers a Roth 401(k) option, the contribution does not reduce current-year taxes but grows tax-free forever. The right choice depends on whether you expect your tax rate to be higher or lower in retirement. If you are unsure, splitting contributions between traditional and Roth gives you flexibility later.
IRA contributions have their own limits – $7,000 for 2026, plus $1,000 catch-up if over 50. Traditional IRA contributions may be deductible depending on your income and whether you have a workplace plan. Roth IRA contributions are not deductible but offer tax-free growth. Both have an April 15 deadline, but getting them done before year-end is simpler and ensures you do not forget.
Move Two: Harvest Your Tax Losses
Tax-loss harvesting is one of the most underused strategies in personal investing. The concept is simple: sell investments that have declined in value to realize a capital loss, then use that loss to offset capital gains or up to $3,000 of ordinary income per year.
If you have a stock or fund in your taxable brokerage account that is worth less than what you paid for it, selling it before December 31 creates a tax loss you can use immediately. If your total losses exceed your gains, the excess carries forward to future years indefinitely.
The key rule to know is the wash sale rule: if you buy a “substantially identical” investment within 30 days before or after the sale, the loss is disallowed. So if you sell an S&P 500 index fund at a loss, you cannot buy another S&P 500 index fund within 30 days. You can, however, buy a total stock market fund or a similar, though not identical, investment to maintain your market exposure.
Last year, I harvested about $8,200 in losses from an international fund that had underperformed. I used $5,000 to offset gains from a real estate investment and $3,000 to reduce my ordinary income. At my marginal rate, that saved about $1,980 in taxes. I reinvested in a different international fund the same day, so my portfolio allocation stayed nearly identical.
Move Three: Make Strategic Charitable Contributions
If you itemize deductions, charitable contributions directly reduce your taxable income. But even if you take the standard deduction – which most filers do since it increased in 2018 – there are strategies that can make charitable giving tax-efficient.
Donating appreciated stock instead of cash is one of the most powerful moves available. If you own a stock that has gained value, donating it directly to a charity allows you to deduct the full market value while avoiding capital gains tax on the appreciation. A stock you bought for $2,000 that is now worth $5,000 gives you a $5,000 deduction and eliminates $3,000 in taxable gains.
If your charitable giving in any single year is not large enough to exceed the standard deduction, consider bunching – concentrating two or more years of donations into a single year to exceed the threshold, then taking the standard deduction in the off years. A donor-advised fund makes this easy: you make a large contribution in the bunching year, take the deduction, and then distribute grants to charities over the following years.
Charitable giving tax strategies can transform generosity from a pure expense into a financial planning tool. The charities receive the same benefit, and you receive a meaningful tax reduction.
Move Four: Use Your FSA Before You Lose It
If you have a Flexible Spending Account (FSA) for healthcare or dependent care expenses, the money in it typically must be used by December 31, or you forfeit it. Some plans offer a grace period through March 15 of the following year, and some allow a carryover of up to $640, but these features are not universal.
Check your FSA balance in October or November. If you have unused funds, schedule medical appointments, buy prescription glasses or contacts, stock up on eligible over-the-counter items, or get dental work done before the deadline.
FSA contributions are pre-tax, meaning they reduce your taxable income. But that benefit disappears if the money goes unspent. Forfeiting FSA funds is essentially giving yourself a pay cut, and it happens to millions of Americans every year simply because they lose track of deadlines.
Health Savings Accounts, by contrast, have no use-it-or-lose-it provision – funds roll over indefinitely and can be invested for long-term growth. If your health plan qualifies, maximizing HSA contributions ($4,300 for individuals, $8,550 for families in 2026) provides a triple tax benefit: deductible contributions, tax-free growth, and tax-free withdrawals for medical expenses.
Move Five: Review Your Withholding
If you consistently owe money at tax time or receive a large refund, your withholding is wrong in either direction. Owing a large amount can trigger penalties. Receiving a large refund means you gave the government an interest-free loan all year.
The goal is to match your withholding as closely as possible to your actual tax liability. Use the IRS Tax Withholding Estimator with your most recent pay stub and an estimate of your year-end income. If the estimator shows you are significantly over- or under-withheld, submit a new W-4 to your employer before the final pay periods of the year.
Adjusting withholding in November or December can still make a meaningful difference. If you are under-withheld and heading for a tax bill, increasing withholding in the final paychecks can reduce or eliminate penalties because the IRS treats withholding as if it were paid evenly throughout the year – even if it all came from December paychecks.
If you had a life change during the year – a new job, marriage, divorce, a new child, or a home purchase – your withholding almost certainly needs to be updated. These events significantly change your tax situation, and the default withholding set at the beginning of the year may no longer be appropriate.
The Bonus Moves For Higher Earners
If your income is above $200,000, additional strategies come into play. Qualified business income deductions, backdoor Roth IRA contributions, mega backdoor Roth strategies through employer plans, and net investment income tax planning all have year-end components that require attention.
For self-employed individuals, establishing and funding a SEP IRA or Solo 401(k) before year-end can shelter significant income from taxes. A Solo 401(k) allows combined contributions of up to $69,000 in 2026 for those over 50 – a massive tax deduction for business owners with strong income years.
Do Not Wait Until December 28
The biggest mistake I see is procrastination. People know these strategies exist, but push them too late – to December – when brokerages are processing high volumes, employer payroll departments have limited bandwidth, and charitable organizations may not process gifts in time.
Start your year-end tax review in October. Run the numbers in November. Execute the moves by mid-December. That timeline gives you enough room to handle complications without missing deadlines.
Tax planning is not about gaming the system. It is about using the provisions Congress created specifically to encourage saving, investing, and giving. Every dollar you save in taxes is a dollar you can put to work building your financial future. The rules are there for you – but they only work if you act before the clock runs out.
The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors. They are meant for general informational purposes only and should not be construed or interpreted as a recommendation or solicitation. ZeroHedge does not provide investment, tax, legal, financial planning, estate planning, or any other personal finance advice. ZeroHedge holds no liability for the accuracy or timeliness of the information provided.
China Unveils Nuclear-Powered Floating Hub For Green Shipping
China has proposed a large offshore logistics platform powered by nuclear energy that would function as both a cargo transfer hub and a refuelling/charging centre for ships,according to the South China Morning Post.
The concept, unveiled by Jiangnan Shipyard, combines port infrastructure, energy generation, and cargo handling into a single floating facility aimed at reducing emissions in maritime transport.
The project was presented at the Posidonia International Shipping Exhibition in Greece.
The SCMP writes that the platform would rely on a molten salt reactor as its primary energy source, supplemented by renewable technologies including solar and wind power. It would also feature systems for hydrogen production, synthetic green fuels, and electricity distribution. According to the company, the facility could generate clean power and fuels such as ammonia for both terminal operations and electric support vessels.
Jiangnan argues that molten salt reactor technology offers significant safety benefits because it is resistant to conventional meltdown scenarios and the coolant solidifies quickly if released, limiting the potential impact of leaks.
Designed to support international shipping lanes, coastal transport links, and cargo transshipment, the floating hub could also be replicated at other strategic ports thanks to its modular design.
The proposal builds on Jiangnan’s ongoing work in nuclear-powered shipping. In 2024, the company revealed plans for a large container vessel powered by a thorium-based molten salt reactor. Meanwhile, Chinese scientists have continued advancing the technology, recently demonstrating a successful conversion of thorium into uranium fuel within a molten salt reactor system. Thorium is widely viewed as a more abundant alternative to conventional uranium fuel.
