US President Donald Trump

TOI correspondent from Washington: In a sudden turn that pulled the world back from the brink of apocalyptic attack, the United States and Iran have entered into a fragile two-week ceasefire after days of escalating attacks and threats, providing a narrow window for diplomacy to achieve Middle East peace amid residual mistrust and suspicion. Ceasefire declared by US President donald trump Just two hours before his 8pm deadline to “annihilate Iranian civilization”, the move marks a welcome – if chaotic – deceleration in a months-long conflict that has seen global oil prices surge 60% and the world economy boom. However, questions remain about whether the ceasefire, put together through a mix of public signaling and backchannel contacts, is a genuine turning point or merely an intervention in the volatile confrontation.As can be understood from official statements and diplomatic sources, the framework of the ceasefire is limited but significant. Based on a 10-point proposal drafted by Tehran, which Trump initially dismissed as inadequate but now says forms a “viable basis” for talks to be held in Islamabad on Friday, it would involve both sides halting direct military attacks and demobilizing allied or proxy forces for a period of 14 days. Maritime activity in and around the Strait of Hormuz is expected to continue under close monitoring, with informal assurances against interference with commercial shipping. However, no formal written agreement has been released publicly, and key details – including enforcement mechanisms and verification – remain opaque.The breakthrough came not from the United Nations or traditional European mediators, but through intense backchannel negotiations by Pakistan, whose Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and army chief Asim Munir reportedly engaged US Vice President JD Vance and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi to end the temporary ceasefire.“On the basis of conversations with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif of Pakistan and Field Marshal Asim Munir, and in which they requested that I stop the destructive force being sent into Iran tonight, and subject to the Islamic Republic of Iran agreeing to the full, immediate and safe opening of the Strait of Hormuz, I agree to suspend the bombing and attack on Iran for a period of two weeks. This will be a two-way ceasefire!” Trump said in a social media post, presenting himself as a liberal winner. Although he claimed that the reason for agreeing to the ceasefire was because “we have already met and exceeded all military objectives, and are very far from a definitive agreement related to long-term peace with Iran and peace in the Middle East,” Trump acknowledged receiving a 10-point proposal from Iran, which he said “is a practical basis for negotiating.” “Almost all of the various points of previous dispute between the United States and Iran have been agreed upon, but in a two-week period the agreement will be finalized and completed,” he wrote. But that spin was contradicted by an Iranian statement issued through the Tasnim news agency (the semi-official voice of the IRGC), the authenticity of which Trump disputed. The statement congratulated the Iranian people for “forcing the criminal US to accept its 10-point plan”, calling the ceasefire conditional and reversible, while warning that any violations would be met with a “decisive response”.” Trump pointed to a statement by Iran’s foreign minister, dismissing the statement as a “hoax” and “fake news spread by CNN.” Part of the confusion appears to have arisen from overlapping and potentially divergent signals within Iran’s own leadership. Statements attributed to its Foreign Ministry struck a somewhat conciliatory tone, stressing the importance of dialogue and indicating readiness for structured talks. This has fueled speculation about a possible rift between Iran’s diplomatic apparatus and the more radical clerical and security establishment that ultimately holds authority. The diplomatic center of gravity of the ceasefire has now shifted to Islamabad, where talks are scheduled to take place on Friday. However, Pakistan’s role has also not been without controversy. Some commentators have suggested that Sharif and Munir effectively acted as “wingmen” for Trump, helping to bring about a pause that allows the US President to back down from earlier threats without having to back down under pressure. Critics point to the president’s past warnings about excessive force – including rhetoric calling for the destruction of Iranian civilization – as evidence of an overreach that requires a diplomatic off-ramp. In this reading, the ceasefire serves as a face-saving mechanism rather than a negotiated settlement. The social media post showed an edited history of Sharif’s statement to show that he was posting messages directed at her, prompting the day’s events.Trump surrogates reject such characterizations, insisting that the pause reflects strength and strategic discipline rather than a concession. Yet the optics remain controversial, especially in light of growing commentary in political and media circles around the so-called “TACO” label – “Trump Always Chickens Out”. Although such satires are not part of the formal policy discussion, they underscore the domestic dimension of the narrative battle surrounding the ceasefire.

The situation in Israel adds another layer of complexity. Officials in Israel have not publicly opposed the ceasefire, but nor have they explicitly endorsed it, while indicating cautious acceptance as long as it does not hinder their ability to take action against perceived threats. At the heart of the upcoming talks in Pakistan are several unresolved issues that will determine whether the ceasefire can turn into something more durable. These include the scope of sanctions relief, the future of Iran’s nuclear program, the role of a regional proxy, and security guarantees for maritime traffic. Diplomats will be watching for signs of coherence in Iran’s negotiating position, particularly whether the State Department’s tone is in line with broader leadership.

Lakes are often thought of as calm bodies of water with clear inflows and outflows, part of a continuous cycle that eventually connects back to the ocean. Some lakes are located in closed valleys where water enters but never leaves through rivers or streams. These are known as endorheic lakes. Water simply collects, then slowly disappears through evaporation. It sounds simple, yet the behavior of these lakes is quite different from normal freshwater systems. Many of them are large, highly saline, and shaped by climate more than anything else. Some are famous across continents, and each tells a slightly different story about geography, isolation and environmental balance.

From Caspian Sea to Lake Chad: endorheic lakes of the world who never reach the ocean

Caspian Sea

The Caspian Sea is reputed to be the largest endorheic lake on Earth. Despite its name, it is landlocked and has no direct connection to the sea.It is bordered by several countries including Kazakhstan, Russia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Iran. It extends for hundreds of miles and reaches great depths in some areas. The lake receives large inflows from rivers such as the Volga. This constant supply helps maintain its volume, even though evaporation remains a strong opposing force.Its ecosystem is diverse. Fish species, seals and migratory birds all depend on it. Additionally, pressures such as pollution, fishing and changing river flows continue to affect its condition.

Balkhash Lake

Lake Balkhash is another major endorheic lake located in Kazakhstan. Its structure is quite unusual. One side has fresh water, while the other side is more salty.This difference comes from geography. The lake is divided by a narrow expanse of land, and the flow of the Ili River mainly nourishes one section. The second section experiences more evaporation and less replenishment. Over time, human activity has affected its balance. Water diversion and upstream use have reduced flow levels. Reports suggest that this has contributed to increased salinity in some parts of the lake.It freezes during the colder months, which adds another layer to its seasonal behavior. The lake is not at all stable but varies with rainfall, river flow and temperature cycles.

lake chad

When talking about shrinking lakes, Lake Chad is often discussed. It is located in Central Africa and serves as an important water source for surrounding communities.In earlier decades, the lake covered a much larger area. Today, its size fluctuates greatly depending on rainfall and the flow of rivers such as Chari. Experts say a combination of low rainfall, water use and population pressure has contributed to the decline. Agriculture and irrigation utilize huge amounts of its resources. Also, climate variability affects its recharge.

Lake Titicaca

Lake Titicaca is located high in the Andes Mountains between Bolivia and Peru. It is one of the highest navigable lakes in the world. Its rise is remarkable and so is its cultural importance. Indigenous communities have lived around it for centuries. The lake supports agriculture, fishing and tourism.Although a small outflow is present, the system behaves largely like an endorheic basin. Much of its water balance depends on rainfall, river flow and evaporation.The environment around it is relatively stable compared to some other endorheic lakes. Nevertheless, there remain continuing demands on resource use and tourism in the area.

Great Salt Lake

The Great Salt Lake in the United States is known for its high salt concentration. It is one of the saltiest large bodies of water in the world. It was formed as the remains of a very large prehistoric lake. Over time, the climate changed and the water body reduced to its present size. What remains is shallow and highly mineralized.Due to the salinity level no fish can survive in its waters. Instead, special microorganisms and some bird species thrive around it. The islands within the lake support wildlife such as bison and antelope.Water flows from many rivers, but evaporation dominates. The size of the lake varies depending on seasonal conditions, although its salty nature remains constant.

What makes endorheic lakes different from other lakes?

An endorheic lake forms in a drainage basin that has no outlet to the sea. Water flows from rivers, rain or melting snow, but it has nowhere else to go. It remains stored until it evaporates. This process leaves behind minerals and salts. Over time, these build up. This appears to be one of the main reasons why many endorheic lakes are saltier than normal freshwater lakes.

The Salar de Uyuni – the contiguous remains of an ancient lake that covered an area of ​​more than 10,000 square kilometers in the Andes of Bolivia, South America – is now a vast and flat white salt pan. During the rainy season, when water collects on the impermeable crystalline layer of the salt pan and forms a large shallow pool, a natural mirror is formed. The resulting natural mirror reflects the sky below as if it were flat – almost perfectly; Thus, space agencies use these flats/pools to test their satellite altimeters. Besides being beautiful, this natural mirror is also located right above a large salt water body with high levels of lithium; Therefore, the Salar de Uyuni symbolizes a unique intersection of a geological phenomenon, an atmospheric phenomenon and today’s technology.

How the Salar de Uyuni in Bolivia became the world’s largest natural mirror

The extreme flatness of the Salar de Uyuni, which has an elevation change of less than 1 meter over its 10,582 square kilometer area, enables it to turn into a completely flat surface. During the rainy season (December to April) the surrounding mountain runoff floods the area, creating a thin layer of uniform water due to the impermeability of the salt layer and the completely flat ground. That is, the water layer is very shallow (a few centimeters thick), forming a liquid lens that reflects the sky and clouds, creating a uniform horizon.

Why are NASA and ESA looking to Bolivia to fix their satellites?

The natural mirror of the Salar de Uyuni is additionally very large and chemically stable. As a result, it is essential to the science of space-based observations of the Earth. For example, NASA and ESA satellite vehicles use the flooded Salar de Uyuni to calibrate the satellite’s radar and laser altimeters. Additionally, because the water surface is an ideal ‘level’, and is highly reflective, scientists can compare satellite measurements against accurately surveyed terrestrial elevations of the flat to verify data accuracy; Therefore, the Bolivian Desert is a very important geologic benchmark for satellite sensors in measuring sea level changes and Earth’s ice sheet changes.

40,000 years of change: how ancient lakes became modern mirrors

The mirror effect is the culmination of 40,000 years of geological history. The Salar de Uyuni was formed by the evaporation of several ancient lakes such as Lake Minchin and Lake Tauca. As these lakes dried up from the high-altitude Andean sun, they left behind large amounts of sodium chloride and other minerals. Beneath this white layer is a huge deposit of lithium-rich salty water. During the rainy season the high concentration of minerals in the water increases the density of the salty water, which suppresses the waves creating a still reflection for visitors today.

Why is thin air ideal for reflection?

Located 3,656 meters above sea level, the dry air of the Altiplano has remarkably low humidity, and this is the key to the mirror’s clarity. With minimal water vapor and pollution in the atmosphere, light can pass through with little scattering due to the absence of aerosols and moisture. When the water is completely calm, a whitening effect emerges, blurring the line between earth and sky.This phenomenon is caused by the specular reflection of sunlight from the smooth surface of water, which is reflected at a consistent angle, creating a celestial dome directly beneath the observer’s feet.

Candace Owens sparked controversy after making claims, questioning the narrative and receiving strong reactions online, related to the murder of Charlie Kirk. His comments drew a sharp response from critics, who accused him of spreading unverified theories. The debate quickly escalated, exposing deep political divisions and focusing renewed attention on the circumstances surrounding Kirk’s death.

The war of words over rising US-Iran tensions has taken a sharp and personal turn. As the deadline on the Strait of Hormuz approaches, political rhetoric is no longer limited to official statements. Voices from outside government circles are emerging and some are going further than measured criticism. Among them, Candace Owens has sparked fresh controversy with comments directly aimed at donald trump.His comments come at a moment of high global concern. With Iran refusing to back down and threats increasing, the story is rapidly changing. Public figures are now shaping policy as well as perception. Owens’s statements have not only raised questions about leadership but also sparked broader debate about loyalty, influence and the costs of political decisions.

Backlash over Candace Owens’ comments as Donald Trump toughens Iran stance

Owens responded strongly to the evolving situation and drew strong comparisons between Iran’s leadership and Donald Trump’s approach. “The Iranian President tweets that he is willing to sacrifice his life for his people,” he wrote, citing statements by Iranian President Massoud Pezeshkian. He then compared his view of Trump’s priorities, saying, “Donald Trump was willing to sacrifice charlie kirk And is willing to sacrifice every American life and livelihood for Greater Israel,” before ending with the sharp question, “Who then is the beast?”The comments immediately caught fire and sparked sharp reactions across political parties. Trump’s supporters strongly objected, arguing that Owens’ claims lacked evidence and crossed a line. Among the most vocal critics was Laura Loomer, who accused Owens of being against American interests. Loomer wrote, “Candace Owens is defending the Iranian regime over the United States. She said with zero evidence that President Trump killed Charlie Kirk and said Trump is an animal,” while also raising concerns about possible foreign influence.This underlines the fragmented nature of conflict discourse. On the one hand, opponents are raising doubts about the dangers associated with an aggressive foreign policy. On the other hand, supporters are calling such criticism dangerous and misleading. As tensions in the Middle East continue to worsen, the volume of such accounts will continue to increase.So far, the political backlash continues to grow. What started as a geopolitical standoff is also becoming a war of perception and words are as powerful as actions.