Author: alaskaadmin

With the war in Iran a topic on everyone’s lips, you might have noticed an inconsistency in the way that nation’s name is said, varying between a more native-like “Ih-ron” pronunciation and a more Americanized “Ih-ran” one.

An everyday listener might just chalk this up as being the result of regional differences or the version we learned growing up, like the alternate ways Americans have of saying “data” or “roof.”

But as a linguist who studies what our accents reveal about our histories and social identities, I know that the way we pronounce things often gives off clues about who we are and what we believe in.

That appears to be the case with these two distinct pronunciations.

The sound of politics

It’s probably not a big surprise to learn that listeners often hear certain words or accents as indicating someone’s political inclinations.

That’s because people are primed to notice patterns that mark group membership – be it a style of clothes or pronouncing “fire” more like “far.” Once they notice these patterns, people then tend to assign whatever traits are believed to characterize that group to the sounds of their speech.

For instance, researchers examined how people perceived potential political candidates with a Southern vs. non-Southern American accent. They wrote in 2018 that they discovered listeners perceived Southern-sounding politicians as more likely to be conservative and to hold right-leaning views on issues such as gun rights and abortion. All that from hearing someone pronounce “pin” like “pen” or say “bah bah” for “bye.”

This suggests that even a small difference in the way a vowel is pronounced can suggest a lot more about political ideology than you might imagine, even if that suggestion is not always accurate.

Nationalism and names

Going back to the question of what drives variation in the pronunciation of Iran, a linguistic study examining politics and pronunciation during the Iraq War offers some insight.

In analyzing 2007 House of Representatives debates about sending more U.S. troops to Iraq, linguists found that a congress member’s political party affiliation was the strongest predictor of how the “a” vowel in Iraq was pronounced.

Republicans preferred the anglicized short “a” pronunciation closer to “ear-RACK,” while Democrats preferred a more “ah”-like one, as in “ear-ROCK.” The authors suggest that the Democratic preference, approximating a more native pronunciation, was motivated by greater multicultural sensitivity.

The pronunciation of the “i” vowel also exhibited a more anglicized option, as in “EYE-rack/rock,” which was also examined. Unlike the “a” vowel, a more “eye”-like pronunciation by itself did not significantly correlate with partisanship.

Two later studies, in 2011 and 2018, of everyday speakers who were asked to pronounce Iraq in nonpolitical contexts discovered no significant difference by political affiliation. The biggest predictor favoring an “ear-ROCK” pronunciation was that a person spoke multiple languages, as the “ah” vowel sound is more frequent in languages commonly spoken in the U.S., such as Spanish, French and Italian.

Despite not directly patterning with politics, when people in the 2018 study were questioned explicitly about how saying “ear-RACK” or “ear-ROCK” tied into political views, the “ah” pronunciation of the vowel was indeed heard as linked with liberalism, an association particularly strong for those who used “ah” and were liberal themselves.

This suggests that people might have picked up on this pattern from hearing politicians. They were aware of the fact that this vowel variation had become, in relevant contexts, symbolic of liberal vs. conservative stances.

Respect and pronunciation

In looking more generally at the pronunciation of borrowed words written with the letter “a,” like that of “pasta” or “tobacco,” linguist Charles Boberg suggests that Americans generally follow two possible paths, either pronouncing it with the short “a” like in “bat” or with the “ah” like in “father.”

Boberg suggests that attitudinal factors play a role in the choice between the two. Since many Americans associate the “ah” pronunciation with more education and sophistication, given its connection to upper-crust British use in words like “bath” or “aunt,” there has been an increasing tendency for Americans to use “ah” in words borrowed since World War II, as with “origami” or “nacho.”

But in looking at variability in the pronunciation of Iraq, other linguists hypothesized that the “ah” vowel is only heard as more sophisticated when a source language is held in high esteem – as with the British-derived “ah” in “aunt” – or when those speaking foreign languages are well regarded.

In contrast, when there is less respect for a people or a place, the choice of an Americanized vowel rather than the more accurate native one might be preferred. This attitude difference may well explain much of the variation in politicians’ pronunciation of Iraq – and possibly Iran.

Not surprisingly, in their study of congressional variation in pronunciation of Iraq, these researchers found that, beyond party affiliation, the politician’s war stance – for or against sending additional troops – was a significant determinant of which vowel was used. If they used the “ear-RACK” pronunciation, they were more likely to favor sending more troops to the country.

Trump and ‘I-ran’

While there is, as of yet, no similar study comparing politicians and their pronunciation of Iran, it is interesting to note that both President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance say the name in the more anglicized fashion, using the same vowel as in “ear-RACK” – that is, as “Ih-RAN” not “Ih-RON.”

Considering the highly contested nature of this war, this presidential preference for the anglicized version of the name may be driven by a similar politicized positioning to that found for the pronunciation of Iraq. Trump and Vance may be underscoring their “pro-America” focus by creating a linguistic and ideological distance with the named nation and its speakers.

A similar linguistic contrast was made during the Vietnam War, when “VietNAM” was commonly pronounced as having the same short “a” sound as in “bat,” including from the lips of President Lyndon B. Johnson. Now, years later, the “VietNOM” pronunciation dominates, and the “NAM” version is virtually absent in those born in more recent eras.

In the same way, Americans might eventually find a linguistic middle ground in the current pronunciation debate over Iran. But it might be a while before peace in the Middle East prevails long enough to give the next generation a linguistic clean slate.

Valerie M. Fridland does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

Three weeks into the U.S. war with Iran, it seems increasingly evident that President Donald Trump and his administration miscalculated how Iran would respond to attacks.

Besides appearing unprepared by the escalation of war, the president has offered contradictory statements on the U.S. rationale for bombing Iran, including that Iranian missiles could “soon” rain down on American cities.

The administration’s inconsistent rationale for waging war was laid bare on March 18, 2026, when Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee and declined to say whether her agency had made an estimate of if and when Iran would threaten the U.S. mainland.

“It is not the intelligence community’s responsibility to determine what is and is not an imminent threat,” Gabbard said.

The statement was especially odd given that the briefing’s subject was the U.S. intelligence community’s latest global threat assessment. It’s clear to me that neither Gabbard nor other members of the intelligence community were part of Trump’s decision-making about going to war.

Besides serving as chair of the National Intelligence Council in the Barack Obama administration, I was a staff member of the National Security Council in the Jimmy Carter administration. I know that this apparent lack of a coordinated policy on Iran is a far cry from the war preparation and planning done during previous presidential administrations.

National Security Council

Typically, the National Security Council, which consists of the Cabinet secretaries of the national security agencies, does its work through its committees, including the Deputies Committee, which is made up of the top deputies in those departments. The Deputies Committee reviews plans and assesses options, usually presenting a recommendation to the principals, including the president.

In that sense, the National Security Council is seen within an administration as the honest broker, especially in balancing the roles of the two main foreign affairs departments: the State Department and the Defense Department.

To be sure, different administrations have used the National Security Council in different ways.

President Dwight Eisenhower created the modern National Security Council. His was an elaborate structure, with groups for both assessing options and overseeing implementation. It reflected his wartime experience, with careful staffing from a general staff whose responsibilities ranged from operations and logistics to intelligence and plans.

Other administrations have favored less formal arrangements. John F. Kennedy, for instance, kept discussions with the National Security Council secret during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. But all the National Security Council stakeholders were represented, and Kennedy reached out to consult outside expertise on the Soviet Union.

Lyndon Johnson made Tuesday lunches his forum for debating decisions about U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Beginning with just his secretaries of state and defense, the lunches became a National Security Council meeting but in less formal circumstances. The CIA director, the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the press secretary were later added to the group.

In other administrations at war, including the George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush administrations in Iraq, the Deputies Committees would meet daily to assess progress and review options for what came next.

In the Obama administration, the National Intelligence Council I chaired supplied the intelligence support to the Deputies Committee. We provided a steady stream of intelligence assessments across various subjects. Those included pro-democracy protests during the Arab Spring in the 2010s to Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.

The intelligence assessments provided the information – about where wars stood and what may come next – used for discussion among the deputies. They were discussions informed by experts on the Deputies Committee and from staff on the National Security Council who specialized in the region or military affairs.

This was nowhere better illustrated than in negotiating the Obama administration’s nuclear agreement with Iran. The deal required bringing together experts on Iran and regional dynamics in the Middle East with experts on nuclear fuel cycles and the making of nuclear weapons.

Hardly seen

The Trump administration cut the National Security Council staff in half in May 2025, to around 150. The plan was to streamline and restructure national intelligence under Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Since White Houses always want to pretend they are cheaper than they are, most staff with the National Security Council are seconded – or loaned for free – from one of the agencies. The process saves the White House money. But it also provides it with invaluable in-house expertise and exposes those seconded officials to presidential policymaking.

A friend and colleague who served as under secretary of defense quipped that every time he saw a State Department counterpart coming to a Deputies Committee meeting, he knew what was coming in substance: a request for a military solution to a geopolitical problem.

His stock answer: “Yes, we can do that, but it’ll require 100,000 soldiers and cost US$10 billion.” That answer was his quip, but the Deputies Committee provided a forum for arguing about the merits of the case.

The Trump administration in January 2025 outlined the National Security Council structure in familiar terms. But the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman and director of national intelligence, both a regular presence in debates in previous administrations, were made situational rather than regular members. They would attend as needed, not automatically.

But the National Security Council has hardly been seen since, unlike Trump’s Cabinet, which gathers occasionally at meetings that often begin with Cabinet members lavishing praise on the president.

Brian Kilmeade of Fox News Radio asked Trump on March 13, 2026, about that inner circle.

“In your Cabinet with the vice president, secretary of state, what is it like, what are the dynamics when you have a big decision like Iran or Venezuela?” Kilmeade asked. “Are people speaking up and speaking their minds?”

Trump’s answer spoke volumes.

“They do,” the president said. “I let them speak their mind, and they do. And we have some differences, but they, they never end up being much. I convince them all to, let’s do it my way.”

Perhaps this casual approach to national security from the Trump administration should not surprise Americans after “Signalgate” – when administration officials in 2025 used the messaging app Signal rather than secure government modes to discuss U.S. military strikes on Yemen and inadvertently included a journalist in the communications.

But when lives are at stake, not to mention Americans’ pocketbooks and the global economy, I think the nation deserves better. Conducting a war requires a hard-headed process for assessing progress and evaluating next steps. In other administrations, the National Security Council would have provided that.

Gregory F. Treverton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

Imagine you’re a server at a busy restaurant that requires you to wear a form-fitting, polyester shirt as part of the uniform. When a hot flash hits, you are a sweaty mess. You really wish your employer would let you wear a cotton T-shirt instead.

If you live in Philadelphia, relief is on the way.

Beginning Jan. 1, 2027, the city of Philadelphia will prohibit discrimination on the basis of menstruation, perimenopause and menopause, and it will require employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees for needs related to these conditions.

Perimenopause is the transitional period before menopause, marked by fluctuations in the hormones estrogen and progesterone. Menopause marks the end of the reproductive years, defined by not having a period for 12 consecutive months.

Both life stages are having a moment.

Social media is rife with influencers and life coaches selling supplements to relieve night sweats, clear brain fog and sustain libido. Many encourage strength training, walking with weighted vests, hormone replacement therapy and creatine, a compound that works to add muscle mass.

As a law professor at Villanova University, I teach and write about employment law and gender discrimination. I often focus on solutions to real-world problems for women and girls in the workplace.

Recently, I’ve taken up strength training, protein shakes and needlepoint. I’m clearly leaning into my identity as a woman over 50.

I believe the Philadelphia ordinance is a model for other cities and states to provide relief for workers suffering from symptoms of hormonal cycles and changes while balancing the needs of employers.

Following Rhode Island’s lead

Women’s health advocates have brought attention to the lack of training for medical professionals on the issues girls and women face resulting from menstruation, perimenopause and menopause.

In 2022, for example, a national survey of 145 OB-GYN residency program directors found that fewer than one-third of programs included curriculum on menopause. This is despite the fact that every single woman, if she lives long enough, will go through it.

While some progress has been made in the medical field, there has been even less when it comes to workplace protections.

To address this gap, in July 2025 Rhode Island became the first state to prohibit discrimination on the basis of menopause. Rhode Island also requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees experiencing menopause-related symptoms.

The Philadelphia City Council said: “Hold my weighted vest.”

In December 2025, the council amended the Philadelphia Code to prohibit discrimination on the basis of menstruation, perimenopause and menopause. For example, if an employer fires an employee because of heavy menstrual bleeding resulting in leaking, that would violate the new law.

In addition, the City Council amended Section 9-1128, which requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for needs related to pregnancy, childbirth or a related medical condition. That list now also includes “symptoms of menstruation, perimenopause or menopause” – provided the employee requests the accommodation and it does not cause an undue hardship for the employer.

Experts in medicine and public health and described the physical and emotional symptoms women and girls may face during these life stages. These symptoms include abdominal or pelvic cramping, fatigue, mood changes, headaches, irregular menstrual cycles, hot flashes, sleep disturbances and cognitive changes.

One expert noted that 23% of women who are experiencing perimenopause have symptoms severe enough to “.”

Employers will not have to accommodate every symptom, only those that “substantially interfere with an employee’s ability to perform one or more job functions.” Although the new ordinance does not define “susbtantially interfere,” the intent is to require accommodations when a worker cannot perform some part of her job – for instance, if period pain is so high that a retail worker cannot stand for their shift, or if hot flashes prevent a food service worker from staying in the kitchen.

Clear and explicit protections

In light of existing antidiscrimination laws, why is such a targeted law necessary?

Federal, state and local laws already prohibit employers in Philadelphia from discriminating because of sex. They also require employers with 15 or more employees to provide reasonable accommodations for pregnancy, childbirth and related medical conditions.

Federal, state and local laws also prohibit employers from discriminating against people with disabilities and require reasonable accommodations to allow them to perform the essential functions of the job.

But menopause and menstruation protections do not clearly fall within these protections.

There are a few cases across the country in which an employee successfully challenged their firing for a condition related to menstruation. But other employees have lost cases under federal law when courts ruled that menstruation is not covered by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act or Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

Further, people seeking protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act for menstruation complications such as endometriosis, which occurs when tissue grows outside of the uterus and often causes severe pain during menstrual cycles, face an uphill battle. Instead of requiring employees who experience these sorts of symptoms to fit their cases into other statutes, Philadelphia’s new ordinance makes protection clear and explicit.

Reasonable accommodations

During a hearing on the proposed legislation, council member Nina Ahmad, who introduced the bill, noted that the accommodations envisioned are not costly. She and other council members gave : access to bathrooms and drinking water, brief flexible breaks, breathable uniforms, temperature control to manage hot flashes, fans or ventilation, ability to layer clothing, stocked period products and brief scheduling flexibility.

The type of accommodations necessary will change depending on the employee’s industry. Many women who experience symptoms already can decide what they wear to work, when they take a bathroom break and maybe even whether to work remotely. However, for workers in retail and service, or other workplaces with strict break policies, the ability to request a bathroom break or to drink water during a shift could significantly ease symptoms.

Just as the accommodations required will differ by job and industry, the employer’s ability to demonstrate undue hardship will also differ. Under the Philadelphia Code, undue hardship is an individualized assessment that considers such factors as the cost of the accommodations, the size of the workforce and the employer’s financial resources.

The devil is in the details, of course, but come January 2027, relief should be on the way for workers who are just trying to do their jobs while suffering from symptoms caused by menstruation, perimenopause and menopause.

Read more of our stories about Philadelphia and Pennsylvania, or sign up for our Philadelphia newsletter on Substack.

Ann Juliano does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation