Donald Trump and Iranian president Masoud Pezeshkian signed an interim agreement to end the war in the Middle East yesterday. The 14-point memo includes an end to fighting in Lebanon, the creation of a $300bn fund for Iran’s reconstruction, the termination of US sanctions on Iran and the toll-free reopening of the Strait of Hormuz for 60 days while talks to reach a final agreement continue. Polls have opened in Makerfield as the by-election that could “decide the future of British politics” gets under way, says Politico. Andy Burnham said yesterday that “change is coming”, and allies have suggested that if the Manchester mayor were to win, he would reject Keir Starmer’s offer of a big cabinet position to launch a leadership challenge. School-age girls vaccinated against HPV now have a “close to zero” chance of dying from cervical cancer before the age of 30. Deaths have dropped sharply since 12-to-13-year-olds started being offered the jab in 2008, with no cervical cancer deaths recorded in 20-to-24-year-old women between 2020 and 2024.

The Iran deal depends on a simple premise, says The Wall Street Journal. As JD Vance puts it: “If the Iranians behave like a normal country, then we want to treat them like a normal country.” But for the past 47 years Iran has shown no interest in being a normal country. Every president since Jimmy Carter (with the noble exception of George W Bush) has tried to welcome Iran into the world economy, and been roundly rebuffed. Donald Trump is hoping the lure of gleaming hotels and $300bn in investment is enough for the regime to abandon its revolutionary cause. But Tehran could have had those hotels years ago and “always chose revolution and terror” instead. If Iran really was committed to a new dawn, it wouldn’t need another 60 days to decide.

It’s worth noting just how badly Iran has been damaged by the war, says Menahem Merhavy in Foreign Policy. One of the keystones of Tehran’s regional policy was that siphoning billions to its proxies in Hezbollah, Hamas, Iraqi militias, the Houthis and others would keep war away from Iranian soil. That defence has been annihilated. Not only are the proxies in tatters, but Iran itself has been attacked directly and deeply – a “severe strategic failure”. And as effective as it has been to close the Strait of Hormuz, doing so has deepened Iran’s isolation, damaged the interests of neighbouring states, pushed those relying on the Strait to pursue alternatives and shown the US that a counter-blockade of Iranian ports works well. Iran came to the negotiating table not because it had found a magic weapon, but because its best weapon had reached a point of diminishing returns. True, the regime has survived. But its survival has only postponed a “deeper reckoning”. After all the bloodshed and sacrifice, can the same system that led Iran into disaster now be trusted to rebuild it?

Some of Keir Starmer’s allies have been quietly pushing an intriguing idea, says Anne McElvoy in The i Paper: in the event that Andy Burnham takes over as prime minister, Starmer could stay on in government as foreign secretary. The PM has always had a better time on the international stage than he has at home, and one of the hardest things for an incoming prime minister is getting to know the other world leaders. Burnham, for his part, has never shown much interest in foreign affairs, beyond a vague liking for the EU. Keeping Starmer as top diplomat could be a win-win.

The dating website Illicit Encounters, specifically aimed at adulterers, has conducted its annual poll of “Britain’s sexiest MPs”, says Jack Blackburn in The Times. And it turns out the nation’s “least loyal lovers” lust after Reform UK’s Richard Tice, who dethroned his boss Nigel Farage to take the top spot for men, and Kemi Badenoch, who won among the women. “I am deeply honoured to receive such a prestigious award from such a discerning publication,” said Tice, before inviting the Tory leader out to dinner to celebrate. Farage, bumped down to second, said: “I am clearly ravaged by leadership responsibilities and accept defeat.”

The new social media ban for under-16s is enormously popular with the public, but there’s been no shortage of scepticism among the “politically engaged class”, says Iain Mansfield on Substack. Those who loathe the nanny state say it’s government overreach and that it should be up to parents to decide whether their children access TikTok, Snapchat and the like. Others say most children will find ways to get around it anyway, that it might stop children accessing social media’s “good material”, or that it distracts from more important goals like tackling misinformation and removing harmful content. The reality is, social media needs reining in, and even if an all-out ban isn’t a silver bullet, it’s a hell of a good place to start.

In Australia, where such a ban already exists, 40% of 12-to-15-year-olds who previously used social media no longer do – a significant drop, which will only increase in future cohorts who don’t pick up the habit in the first place. It’s important to remember, too, that culture change and legislation are “mutually reinforcing”. Attitudes towards drink-driving and smoking, for example, shifted because of legislation. And those concerned about excessive nannying should look to the many products we already sensibly age-gate: alcohol, tobacco, films. The case for state intervention in social media is particularly strong because of collective pressure. If 95% of children are online, keeping your child off has real downsides; if only 20% are, these greatly diminish. It’s also worth remembering that a social media ban isn’t a ban on the internet. Kids will still be able to access most websites, play games, and whatever else. But if it stops most young people being exposed to an endless stream of vile, harmful content, that will be a triumph.

🚀🙄 Elon Musk, whose website X (formerly Twitter) will certainly be affected by the new rules, posted this week that the UK is now “a police state”, continuing that “this censorship law is a wolf in sheep’s clothing...the real goal is to enable the UK government to track everyone.” This is not only wrong, says Hugo Rifkind in The Times, but also a bit rich from a guy who runs a website that does, “literally, try to track everyone”.

Tennis balls used to be white, says Messy Nessy. But in the 1960s, David Attenborough – then head of BBC2 – sent a camera crew to Wimbledon to film some games in colour. It was a hit, but viewers struggled to follow the white ball, especially near the white painted lines on the court. So he suggested to the International Tennis Federation that they change the ball to neon yellow so it would be easier to see. Five years later, they made the switch to “Optic Yellow” official, and so it remains.

Last week’s SpaceX IPO didn’t just turn Elon Musk into the world’s first trillionaire, says Suzy Weiss in The Free Press. It also made more than 4,000 new millionaires. Many others will join the seven-figure club in the forthcoming IPOs of AI firms Anthropic and OpenAI. “My phone has been ringing off the hook,” says Monica Pauli, a veteran estate agent in San Francisco. And over the years, she’s noticed a trend. “The dot-com buyer wanted a view. The crypto buyer wanted a trophy.” The AI pros? Scared of anti-AI radicals, like the one who threw a Molotov cocktail at the home of OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, they’re buying “compounds”.

It’s a yoga event put on by Lululemon, says Thomas Hale in the FT, which faced an intense backlash – including calls for a boycott – after staging the occasion on China’s Great Wall and using a culturally incongruous Japanese drum. The Canadian athleisure company, which hired Chinese actor Zhu Yilong to perform the stunt, apologised for the oversight, blaming “limitations in our professional knowledge”.