Everywhere Insiders 65: U.S.-Iran Escalation, Ukraine Diplomacy, UN World Map Reform, and Gloria Steinem’s Feminist Legacy

Irina Tsukerman is a New York-registered human rights and national security lawyer, geopolitical analyst, and journalist. She earned a B.A. in International/Intercultural Studies and Middle East Studies from Fordham University in 2006 and a J.D. from Fordham University School of Law in 2009. She is president of Scarab Rising, Inc., editor-in-chief of The Washington Outsider, and fellow of the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs and the Arabian Peninsula Institute. Her work focuses on foreign policy, information warfare, security, and Middle Eastern affairs. She serves as Written Content Vice Chair of the American Bar Association’s Science and Technology Committee.

In this interview, Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Irina Tsukerman discuss escalating U.S.-Iran tensions, threats to American warships, Iranian oil tankers, and growing regional instability. They examine U.S. diplomacy with Russia over Ukraine, sanctions, air defence, and Russia’s shadow fleet. The conversation also addresses the UN’s shift toward the Equal Earth projection, Africa’s geographic representation, and Gloria Steinem’s legacy, including contemporary feminism, women’s rights, political polarization, and international challenges confronting women worldwide today.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Anyways, let’s get started. Welcome back to Everywhere Insiders with Irina Tsukerman and Scott Jacobsen. Today, our sources are AP News. Starting from the top of the world news, the U.S. has struck three Iranian oil tankers after saying American warships were targeted with ballistic missiles. So, essentially, the American military has its naval infrastructure, and Iran has ballistic-missile capabilities in terms of the weapons that they are using. The tanker escalation obviously also involves the Strait of Hormuz.

In addition, Mr. Putin met with U.S. envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner at the Kremlin for talks on ending the war in Ukraine, where I am currently. Strikes on Kyiv and Moscow paused temporarily during the talks. We will see where that goes. This is happening around the time of those talks and will be released afterward; we will see how that goes. The U.S. representatives also travelled to Kyiv for discussions with the Ukrainian side.

There was one major escalation where the SBU, the Security Service of Ukraine, had its headquarters in central Kyiv targeted and struck by a Russian drone. Twelve people were reported wounded. President Zelenskyy said the drone was deliberately aimed at the office of the head of the SBU. Russia, more broadly, has continued to deny deliberately targeting civilians and has framed its strikes as attacks on military-related targets.

There is also news about the UN General Assembly map moving away from the Mercator projection toward the Equal Earth projection, which represents the relative sizes of continents more accurately. As far as I know, the Mercator projection was developed for navigation because of the navigational needs and tools of the time. In a contemporary context, though, it doesn’t make as much sense to rely on it as a general-purpose world map. So adopting a projection that gives everyone a more accurate picture of the relative size of landmasses makes sense.

Ukraine objected and ultimately abstained from the resolution. One concern was how it represented Crimea. That objection is legitimate, in that Crimea should not be shown as Russian sovereign territory. It is internationally recognized as part of Ukraine and has been under Russian occupation since 2014. The international community has also adopted multiple resolutions affirming Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.

So, if the map doesn’t align with those prior resolutions, that creates an obvious issue, but these things happen. If anyone has taken part in any Model United Nations, you will know it is a complicated negotiated process, and not all of history will necessarily be taken into account in any particular resolution, vote, or focus.

The United States was actually the only country to vote against the resolution. It reasoned that, in general, the UN has more important and substantial issues. The emphasis on getting an accurate picture of the world on a map is fair game. The objection that there are more substantial issues, including several major conflicts, climate issues, hunger, and so on, is also legitimate. That is a fair concern.

Both have good points, but I am more in line with the view that we should get the map accurate, while also not showing Crimea as Russian territory. It is internationally recognized as sovereign Ukrainian territory.

So these are some of the top news stories for today. What are your thoughts on some of these? Could you share the articles so we can keep track of the order and address them one by one?

And I could probably also add that Gloria Steinem died, and so that is a significant loss of one of the foundational figures of second-wave feminism. She died at 92. I am aware there is some infighting between different branches of feminism right now, but it is usually on very selective issues, like trans issues, free speech, pornography, or something like this, rather than on all of the core fundamentals that Ms. Steinem was really key in advancing.

She had an easier time and a harder time at the same time. In one sense, she had an easier time defining what we mean by feminism because she helped advance a movement while many of its modern institutions were still being built. There were obviously earlier feminist thinkers and movements, including Wollstonecraft and the first-wave suffrage movement, but in Steinem’s generation many of the institutions associated with second-wave feminism were relatively new.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was also still relatively recent historically. So she was working from much less established ground than people do today. But breaking that ground made defining things easier, in one sense. At the same time, the blowback she received, because there were fewer established institutions of support to work from, also made her life a lot harder.

But she lived a long, substantial life, and a lot of women and men owe a great deal of the higher ground on which they stand to her and others. She was one of the major figures in creating that.

Irina Tsukerman: You know, it is interesting that there are not huge figures like her right now. I see a bunch of medium-sized figures. So they do have their influence, but it is very interesting. We do not see a lot of sort of Betty Friedan or Gloria Steinem types floating around, where when they say something, people pay attention and quote them for generations. You know, like the famous quote, “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle,” right? Everyone quotes it. And they quote it for completely different topics they find analogous.

So it is interesting that when you are that foundational, people will quote you for generations, even if they do not necessarily agree with everything you stand for. That is also notable.

All right, so I will start with the Iranian tanker story. A couple of things are going on here. First, clearly Iran is escalating because now it is aiming specifically at U.S. warships, and it is aiming to sink them.

Just because it is not aiming with 100 percent accuracy does not mean it is not serious about its intentions, and it does not mean that, in time, it cannot improve its capabilities and actually sink a ship. This means that the U.S., which already has a limited number of warships, limited but still substantial, is facing a fairly serious threat. It cannot afford to lose any.

And simply striking tankers may not be enough of a deterrent, because the situation doesn’t really clarify whether those tankers are sinking completely or whether they are recoverable. Sinking those tankers matters because they carry oil Iran desperately needs to sustain its economy, its trade, and its obligations to partners that rely on Iran for those supplies, such as China.

If these tankers are actually sunk, that will make a significant contribution toward deteriorating Iran’s economy, which is already under severe pressure from sanctions and the blockade. But still, destroying its potential and destroying the actual product is a more serious step than merely detaining it temporarily.

As I mentioned earlier, Iran could use alternative maritime routes to avoid the blockade and ship this oil farther into Asia or overland to other clients, for instance, through Qatar.

This suggests the U.S. is trying to manage escalation. It is concerned about Iran’s growing capabilities, but it also wants to show that it will answer force with force.

It is also concerning that Iran is acting in a very controlled manner despite its seeming economic desperation. So it is not doing stupid, random things. It is doing things in a highly calculated, escalating manner, but in a way that shows that it is willing to take higher risks while, at the same time, protecting its own assets.

So the question is: what is the next step in this game of chicken? Will Iran succeed in severely damaging or sinking a U.S. warship? Does the U.S. have the capacity to continue indefinitely protecting those ships from ballistic missiles? And if it does happen, and the U.S. suffers that kind of injury, what kind of response should we expect?

Will it be the sinking of a bunch of tankers? Are we talking about a ground operation? Are we talking about a Kharg Island takeover, which Trump has threatened in the past? Or are we talking about more empty noise with some symbolic deterrence gestures amounting to nothing?

This is exactly the boundary that Iran is very carefully testing.

This growing escalation means countries in the region cannot count on stability and quiet anytime soon. I expect things to get worse before they start to get better.

Regarding the Putin meeting with Kushner and Witkoff, frankly, I don’t expect much, again, other than more empty noise. Putin has not shown much interest in meaningful talks on terms acceptable to Ukraine. Does anyone really need intermediaries to negotiate an agreement? I do not think so. I think if Putin were genuinely interested in talks, he could have reached out directly and arranged a diplomatic rapprochement with any number of actors, from Trump and Zelenskyy directly to other potential intermediaries considered relatively neutral on this issue.

So I think this is more about a show of diplomatic muscle, the fact that the U.S. has not given up on trying to return to talks, and the fact that the U.S. is trying to signal that it is taking warnings about a potential escalation, both in Ukraine and in Europe overall, seriously and is trying to prevent a bigger disaster.

The tools being used are completely wrong for this purpose. I think more dialogue alone is not going to put an end to attacks either in Ukraine or in Europe. I think the only thing that would send a strong enough message is, first, reinstating sanctions that the administration has lifted or eased. Second, immediately giving Ukraine serious air-defence capabilities. And third, joining European efforts against Russia’s shadow fleet and essentially detaining vessels where there is a lawful basis to do so, while intensifying sanctions and enforcement against ships contributing to the financing of Russia’s war.

Those are initial steps that could show this administration’s seriousness and commitment to negotiations. However, I do not expect much. It is a positive step of sorts that Kushner and Witkoff finally bothered to visit Ukraine, although I do not expect much to come out of that either. Their recent trip was their first visit to Kyiv in this diplomatic role.

I do not think Zelenskyy, anyone in his government, or even those critical of Zelenskyy’s handling of the war, are particularly open to the real-estate-like suggestions Kushner and Witkoff have been recycling since the start of their involvement in the process. And I do not think they will be open to giving up land for prospects of a ceasefire or other symbolic gestures at this point in the game.

They will expect to hear whether the U.S. has something real to offer. So far, we have not seen enough materialize. Zelenskyy has described some recent American proposals as “decent ideas,” but has also emphasized the need for tangible results and further military support, including air defence. So I think any outcome of these talks will depend on the U.S. willingness to put its money where its mouth is and commit to something concrete for Ukraine’s defences.

Regarding the new world map, I find it interesting that we have had significant geospatial capabilities for many years, yet we’re only now seeing this UN-backed shift toward a map projection that shows the relative sizes of landmasses more accurately.

Africa is a very large continent. Why it has been so visually undersized on widely used Mercator maps up until now beats me. Of course, that distortion comes from the geometry of the Mercator projection rather than from the actual size of Africa. But if, for no reason other than general geographic understanding, you want to be able to see the real relative sizes of the continents and landmasses that you are navigating around or travelling over, including in the case of airplanes.

This is a positive step toward resolving some of these representational issues. As a political point, it could finally start the process of ending the visual underrepresentation of Africa in terms of geopolitical, political, and geographic significance. I certainly would hope that.

The fact that we have relied on geographically distorting projections for so long, unfortunately, points to a strange legacy in international academic and policy circles that, despite all the noise about the importance of every actor in the international community, has sometimes indicated exactly the opposite. I am glad it has been corrected.

Regarding Gloria Steinem, honestly, I find it hard to imagine we’ll find a saintly major contributor to international movements, be they feminism or anything else, who has never said or done anything controversial, questionable, ironic, or deliberately provocative. I don’t believe such people exist, and I haven’t met one of any significance.

Probably because mid-level people tend to say mid-level things that don’t attract much attention.

I think Steinem’s accomplishments contributed significantly to advancing women’s rights. Do I agree with everything she ever did or said? Of course not. But I also think that she had a significantly greater grasp of what feminism means, or should mean, than a lot of the people who claim that label among my contemporaries, people who are alive and well and under 50.

I think a lot of these people care more about personal branding and visibility than about any substantial movement that would advance specific objectives. I have not seen many contemporary feminists actually advance specific targets or even announce particular objectives in their engagement. Instead, parts of the movement appear to have become far more insular and academic than anyone cares to admit.

Certainly, I think this has done a great deal of disservice to international feminist issues, whether we are talking about women in Afghanistan, Israeli women, or, frankly, even women in Gaza who have to deal with the reality of Hamas, an Islamist organization with deeply conservative positions on women’s rights, on the ground. For all the talk about Israelis, I have not seen enough of these people criticize violent Islamist movements that have been a terror to women’s rights.

So I hope Gloria Steinem’s passing, and the discussion of her life and legacy, will spark the internal conversations contemporary feminist movements badly need today.

I think that, to some extent, when many of the initial objectives have been accomplished in highly developed Western societies, that does not mean it is the end of the conversation about what women’s role in society should be, what motivates women, or what concerns they have about their lives in society, politics, and the economy. It is certainly not the end of women’s-rights movements in less developed and less politically liberal places.

This is a great opportunity for a good-faith conversation. But in today’s politically polarized and intolerant climate, in the context of a lot of grandstanding, virtue signalling, cancel culture, and the general shouting down of disagreeable perspectives, I think it would be extremely difficult to evaluate that legacy in its proper context and to deal with it not anachronistically, but in terms of what lessons can be learned constructively for moving forward.

Jacobsen: Thank you very much for the opportunity and your time, Irina.

—

Scott Douglas Jacobsen is a Writer and Editor for The Good Men Project with more than 2,000 publications on the platform. He is the Founder and Publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978-1-0692343; 978-1-0673505) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369-6885). He writes for International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332–9416), The Humanist (Print: ISSN, 0018-7399; Online: ISSN, 2163-3576), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), Humanist Perspectives (ISSN: 1719-6337), A Further Inquiry (SubStack), Vocal, Medium, The New Enlightenment Project, The Washington Outsider, rabble.ca, and other media. His bibliography index can be found via the Jacobsen Bank at In-Sight Publishing comprised of more than 10,000 articles, interviews, and republications, in more than 200 outlets. He has served in national and international leadership roles within humanist and media organizations, held several academic, media, and research institution fellowships, and currently serves on numerous international boards. He is a member in good standing in numerous media organizations, including the Canadian Association of Journalists, PEN Canada (CRA: 88916 2541 RR0001), and Reporters Without Borders (SIREN: 343 684 221/SIRET: 343 684 221 00041/EIN: 20-0708028), and others.