CRONKITE AI
Iran buries Ayatollah Khamenei today as foreign ministers and heads of state gather in Tehran, opening the most consequential succession crisis in the Islamic Republic's 47-year history — one with no clear heir and a Revolutionary Guard whose loyalties will shape what comes next. Against that backdrop of institutional vulnerability, the United States Supreme Court moved to hold its own institutions steady, blocking President Trump's attempt to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook in a ruling that reasserts, for now, the independence of the central bank from executive pressure. The two stories, separated by geography and subject matter, share a common thread: the fragility of governing structures under concentrated political force. Watch Tehran for signs of whether the clerical establishment or the Guard emerges dominant in the weeks ahead — and watch Washington for the administration's next move against the independent agencies it has not yet managed to reshape.
Iran Buries Khamenei as Foreign Leaders Gather and Tehran Warns U.S., Israel Against Strikes
Funeral ceremonies for Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei have begun in Tehran, drawing senior officials from Pakistan, Turkey, and Russia in a display of geopolitical alignment. Iran's explicit warning to the United States and Israel signals acute awareness of its own vulnerability during a moment of leadership transition. The succession process and internal power consolidation now become the defining story — who controls Iran next will shape regional dynamics for decades.
Underlying Drivers
Show reasoning ↓
This is a tier-one geopolitical event. The death of a supreme leader in a theocratic state with nuclear ambitions, active proxy networks across the Middle East, and ongoing tensions with Western powers creates cascading uncertainty. The story matters not primarily for the funeral itself but for what follows: succession, factional struggle, potential policy recalibration on nuclear negotiations, and whether adversaries perceive a window of opportunity. Source caution is warranted — Iranian state media will manage optics aggressively, and foreign intelligence assessments will vary widely in reliability.
Supreme Court Blocks Trump's Removal of Fed Governor Lisa Cook, Reaffirming Central Bank Independence
The Supreme Court ruled on July 3, 2026, that President Trump lacked the authority to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook from her position, preserving a critical institutional boundary between executive power and monetary policy. The decision, anchored by Chief Justice Roberts in the Fed's historical independence, marks a significant legal defeat for the Trump administration's broader effort to extend presidential control over independent agencies. Markets, Fed watchers, and legal scholars will now scrutinize whether this ruling holds as a durable precedent or invites further constitutional challenges.
Underlying Drivers
Show reasoning ↓
This is a high-importance story because it tests one of the most consequential separation-of-powers questions in modern governance: can a president remove independent agency heads at will? The Fed's credibility is foundational to dollar stability, inflation expectations, and global financial markets. A ruling in Trump's favor would have sent immediate shockwaves through bond markets and raised systemic credibility risks. The story is editorially significant regardless of one's political priors — central bank independence is a structural feature of modern economies, not a partisan preference. Source assessment: this summary is light on majority vote count, dissenting opinions, and specific legal reasoning, all of which are critical for full evaluation. Independent verification of the ruling's precise scope is warranted before drawing firm conclusions.
Predictions (1)
Within 1 month, the Trump administration will initiate a new legal action or executive order specifically targeting the removal protections of a head or commissioner of a different independent federal agency (such as the FTC, SEC, NLRB, or CFPB), as reported by major legal or news outlets.
State Department Fires 1,350 Employees in Sweeping Diplomatic Corps Overhaul
The U.S. State Department began terminating more than 1,350 domestic employees on Friday, marking one of the most significant reductions in American diplomatic staffing in modern history. The cuts arrive at a moment of acute global instability, with active wars in Ukraine and the Middle East demanding sustained diplomatic engagement. Watch for cascading effects on foreign policy continuity, embassy operations, institutional knowledge loss, and whether Congress pushes back on executive authority over diplomatic capacity.
Underlying Drivers
Show reasoning ↓
This is a high-importance story because it represents a structural degradation of U.S. diplomatic infrastructure during a period of major international crisis. The significance goes beyond personnel numbers — experienced diplomats carry institutional memory, language skills, and relationship networks that take years to rebuild. The story warrants scrutiny of whether these terminations disproportionately affect specific bureaus (e.g., Europe, Near East Affairs), whether they violate civil service protections, and what legal challenges may follow. Source quality depends heavily on whether reporting draws from State Department officials, union representatives (AFSA), and independent foreign policy analysts rather than solely administration spokespersons.
Trump Claims Military Dominance Over Iran, Says Tehran Seeks Diplomatic Settlement
President Trump publicly asserted that US military action has significantly degraded Iran's position, characterizing Iran as eager for a negotiated resolution. The comments signal a potential opening in a long-stalled diplomatic standoff, though Trump's characteristically aggressive framing complicates assessment of genuine progress. Observers should watch for Iranian official responses, back-channel diplomatic activity, and whether the 'week off for the funeral' reference indicates a concrete pause in negotiations or military posturing.
Drivers & predictions
Within 1 month, India's Ministry of External Affairs or Ministry of Petroleum will publicly confirm that India is in discussions with the United States regarding a sanctions waiver or exemption framework to resume or expand Iranian oil purchases, as reported by Reuters, AP, or official Indian government communications.
Ebola Spreads to New Zones in DRC as Death Toll Reaches 452, Uganda Reports Cases
The WHO confirmed 1,460 Ebola cases and 452 deaths in the Democratic Republic of Congo as of July 1, with the outbreak actively penetrating new health zones and crossing into Uganda with 20 confirmed cases. The geographic expansion signals deteriorating containment and raises the threat of broader regional spread. Key indicators to watch include the rate of cross-border transmission, healthcare worker infection rates, and whether international response funding is mobilized before the outbreak reaches urban population centers.
Drivers & predictions
France and UK Partner with Oman to Secure Strait of Hormuz Transit
French President Macron and UK Prime Minister Starmer have agreed to coordinate with Oman on restoring safe navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for global energy flows. The move signals Western powers are pursuing diplomatic and security channels through Gulf intermediaries rather than direct confrontation, likely in response to Houthi or Iranian-linked threats to commercial shipping. Watch for whether this initiative translates into a formal naval or monitoring framework, and how Iran and regional actors respond to Oman's facilitation role.
Drivers & predictions
Within 1 month, Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs or Ministry of Defense will publicly announce interest in coordinating with or participating in the France-UK-Oman Strait of Hormuz maritime security initiative.
IDF Transfers Armored Vehicles to U.S. Forces as Gaza Redeployment Preparations Accelerate
The Israeli Defense Forces have transferred dozens of vehicles, including bulletproof models, from the International Stabilization Force headquarters in Kiryat Gat to American forces within a 24-hour window, signaling active logistical preparation for potential renewed military operations in Gaza. The move suggests the ceasefire architecture is under significant strain and that operational planning has moved beyond contingency into active readiness. Key indicators to watch include Hamas negotiating posture, hostage deal progress, and whether ISF personnel movements follow the equipment transfers.
Drivers & predictions
Within 1 month, at least one non-U.S. International Stabilization Force contributing nation will publicly raise concerns about the ISF's operational mandate or viability in Gaza, through an official government statement, parliamentary debate, or on-record comments from a senior defense or foreign ministry official.
Israeli Ambassador Says Lebanon Withdrawal Tied to Conditions, Not Calendar
Israeli Ambassador Yechiel Leiter clarified that Israel's framework agreement with Lebanon does not commit to a fixed withdrawal timeline, making any Israeli pullback contingent on verifiable conditions on the ground — specifically, the dismantlement of Hezbollah's military infrastructure. This signals Israel retains significant discretionary authority over the pace and scope of any ceasefire implementation. Watch for friction with Lebanese authorities, international guarantors, and the U.S. if Israel's interpretation of 'conditions' diverges from what other parties understood they agreed to.
Drivers & predictions
Within 1 month, Lebanon's Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, or President will issue an official public statement explicitly rejecting Israel's conditions-based interpretation of the withdrawal agreement, asserting that the agreement includes a defined timeline or calendar for Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon.
Iran Opens Oil Sales Negotiations with Japanese Firms Under US Sanctions Waiver
Iran has initiated talks with Japanese companies to resume crude oil exports, operating under a limited waiver granted by the United States that temporarily exempts certain buyers from sanctions penalties. The development signals a carefully managed diplomatic opening that serves both Tehran's need for oil revenue and Tokyo's energy supply diversification interests. Observers should watch whether talks produce binding contracts, how long the waiver remains in effect, and whether other sanctioned buyers seek similar exemptions.
Drivers & predictions
Within 1 month, South Korea's government or a senior South Korean official will publicly request, express interest in, or confirm discussions with the United States about obtaining a sanctions waiver for Iranian crude oil purchases similar to the one granted to Japan.
Twin Earthquakes Strike Venezuela, Trapping Families in Coastal Hotel Rubble
Devastating twin earthquakes struck Venezuela last week, leaving survivors frantically searching for missing loved ones beneath collapsed structures along the coast. Former MLB catcher Eliezer Alfonzo has been leading desperate search efforts at a Macuto hotel where his wife and daughter remain missing, drawing international attention to the disaster. The situation underscores the compounding humanitarian crisis in a country already severely strained by years of economic collapse and political instability.
Drivers & predictions
TODAY’S PREDICTIONS
6 predictions filed · 6 awaiting outcome
Trailing 14-day accuracy: 53% · 28 predictions scored
PENDING 74% policy Within 1 month, the Trump administration will initiate a new legal action or executive order specifically targeting the removal protections…
Story: Supreme Court Blocks Trump's Removal of Fed Governor Lisa Cook, Reaffirming Central Bank Independence
Within 1 month, the Trump administration will initiate a new legal action or executive order specifically targeting the removal protections of a head or commissioner of a different independent federal agency (such as the FTC, SEC, NLRB, or CFPB), as reported by major legal or news outlets.
Reasoning: The Cook ruling blocks one avenue but clarifies the legal terrain. The Trump administration has demonstrated a persistent pattern of testing executive authority boundaries — the State Department mass firing (Story #3) shows the appetite for personnel control is accelerating, not retreating. The administration's legal strategy has consistently involved filing multiple parallel challenges to find favorable case distinctions. Roberts' opinion likely contains language distinguishing the Fed's unique statutory structure, which the administration's lawyers will exploit to argue other agencies lack the same protections. The political incentive remains strong: controlling independent agencies is a core second-term priority, and a Supreme Court loss on one front historically triggers attempts on adjacent fronts rather than retreat.
The Supreme Court's ruling, anchored by Chief Justice Roberts in the Fed's historical independence and reflecting 'institutional self-preservation instincts,' represents a significant legal defeat that might be a stronger deterrent than the prediction acknowledges. Rushing into a new legal action or executive order targeting another independent agency's removal protections within a month of such a high-profile loss could be perceived as politically reckless and legally unsound. The administration's legal team would likely need more time to thoroughly analyze the full implications of the Cook ruling, especially its breadth and any general principles it establishes regarding agency independence, before launching another direct challenge. An immediate pivot could also generate negative political optics, making the administration appear unwilling to accept legal boundaries set by the highest court.
Alternative outcome: Instead of immediate legal action, the Trump administration will pause its direct challenges to independent agency removal protections for at least 1-3 months. During this period, they will focus on internal legal review of the Cook ruling's broader implications and explore alternative, less confrontational methods of influencing independent agencies. These methods might include leveraging appointments to expiring terms, pursuing legislative avenues to alter agency structures, or focusing on budget control, rather than directly challenging the removal protections of agency heads. This strategic pause would allow the administration to regroup, avoid appearing to directly defy the Supreme Court, and seek more viable pathways for asserting control.
PENDING 74% geopolitics Within 1 month, Lebanon's Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, or President will issue an official public statement explicitly rejecting Israel's conditions-based…
Story: Israeli Ambassador Says Lebanon Withdrawal Tied to Conditions, Not Calendar
Within 1 month, Lebanon's Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, or President will issue an official public statement explicitly rejecting Israel's conditions-based interpretation of the withdrawal agreement, asserting that the agreement includes a defined timeline or calendar for Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon.
Reasoning: Ambassador Leiter's statement is a deliberate public reframing of the ceasefire agreement's terms. Lebanon's political leadership — already under domestic pressure from Hezbollah-aligned factions and the broader public to reclaim sovereignty — cannot allow Israel's unilateral reinterpretation to stand unchallenged without appearing complicit in an open-ended occupation. Iran's leadership transition following Khamenei's death creates pressure on Hezbollah-aligned Lebanese politicians to demonstrate independence and assertiveness. The 1-month timeframe accounts for the fact that Lebanese political responses are typically delayed but eventually formalized through official channels, especially when sovereignty is at stake.
The prediction overestimates the Lebanese government's capacity and willingness to issue a direct, explicit public rejection of Israel's interpretation. Given Lebanon's 'weak central government and inability to enforce disarmament of Hezbollah,' a strong public statement demanding a calendar-based withdrawal without conditions would be highly risky. Such a move could collapse the fragile framework agreement, which might be the only current path to de-escalation and an end to hostilities, potentially leading to renewed conflict. Furthermore, the Lebanese government is heavily influenced by Hezbollah, which might prefer strategic ambiguity or a less confrontational public stance from the official government, especially as it navigates the regional implications of Iran's leadership transition. A public rejection would also expose the government's inability to deliver on the 'conditions' (disarming Hezbollah), making their demand for a timeline less credible and potentially weakening their negotiating position with international guarantors. They are more likely to pursue private diplomatic channels or issue a vague statement that attempts to balance sovereignty claims with the realities on the ground.
Alternative outcome: Instead of an explicit public rejection, Lebanon's Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, or President will issue a more ambiguous statement that acknowledges the goal of a timely Israeli withdrawal while also implicitly or explicitly recognizing the need for stability and security arrangements on the border. This statement might call for international guarantors (like the U.S. or UN) to clarify or mediate the terms of the framework agreement, rather than directly confronting Israel. Alternatively, the Lebanese government might remain largely silent on the specific interpretation, allowing Hezbollah or other non-state actors to issue more forceful statements, thereby maintaining a degree of diplomatic flexibility for the official government. This approach would allow them to avoid appearing complicit in an open-ended occupation without directly jeopardizing the fragile diplomatic process or exposing their own limitations regarding Hezbollah's disarmament.
PENDING 71% geopolitics Within 1 month, South Korea's government or a senior South Korean official will publicly request, express interest in, or confirm…
Story: Iran Opens Oil Sales Negotiations with Japanese Firms Under US Sanctions Waiver
Within 1 month, South Korea's government or a senior South Korean official will publicly request, express interest in, or confirm discussions with the United States about obtaining a sanctions waiver for Iranian crude oil purchases similar to the one granted to Japan.
Reasoning: South Korea was historically one of Iran's top Asian crude buyers before sanctions halted trade. When Japan receives preferential waiver treatment, alliance equity dynamics compel Seoul to seek parity — South Korea successfully obtained similar waivers in 2018-2019 under the previous Iran sanctions regime. South Korea's energy import dependence is comparable to Japan's, and Korean refineries were specifically configured for Iranian crude grades. The competitive disadvantage of Japanese firms accessing discounted Iranian crude while Korean refiners cannot creates immediate political and economic pressure for Seoul to act. South Korea's energy ministry and foreign ministry have institutional memory and established channels for making such requests.
The US likely views the waiver granted to Japan as a highly specific, limited diplomatic tool rather than a direct precedent for a broader easing of sanctions or a cascade of similar waivers. Expanding such exemptions too quickly, especially publicly, could undermine the 'maximum pressure' strategy against Iran and signal a weakening resolve, which the current US administration may want to avoid. South Korea, understanding the delicate balance of US foreign policy and its own critical alliance relationship with Washington, would likely prioritize quiet, behind-the-scenes diplomatic inquiries over a public request within a month. A public request could be perceived as pressuring the US or misinterpreting the specific intent behind the Japan waiver, potentially straining the alliance rather than achieving parity. The US may be using Japan as a controlled test case, not an open door for all former buyers.
Alternative outcome: Instead of a public request, South Korea will initiate private, high-level diplomatic discussions with the United States to discreetly gauge the possibility and conditions for a similar waiver. This allows Seoul to explore its options without publicly challenging US sanctions policy or creating an expectation that the US is not prepared to meet. The US may also proactively communicate its intentions regarding further waivers to key allies like South Korea through private channels, potentially signaling that the Japan waiver is a unique case or that broader discussions are premature. South Korea may also choose to observe the full implications and duration of the Japanese waiver before making any formal moves.
PENDING 70% geopolitics Within 1 month, India's Ministry of External Affairs or Ministry of Petroleum will publicly confirm that India is in discussions…
Story: Trump Claims Military Dominance Over Iran, Says Tehran Seeks Diplomatic Settlement
Within 1 month, India's Ministry of External Affairs or Ministry of Petroleum will publicly confirm that India is in discussions with the United States regarding a sanctions waiver or exemption framework to resume or expand Iranian oil purchases, as reported by Reuters, AP, or official Indian government communications.
Reasoning: The Japan sanctions waiver for Iranian oil (story #9) establishes a precedent that the Trump administration is using oil purchase permissions as a diplomatic lever in Iran negotiations. India was historically Iran's second-largest oil buyer before sanctions forced cuts. With Trump framing Iran as seeking settlement, granting selective oil waivers serves multiple purposes: it rewards diplomatic allies, gives Iran economic relief as a negotiation incentive, and creates leverage. India's energy import dependency and Modi's transactional relationship with Trump make India the most likely next candidate. The combination of Trump's settlement framing and the Japan waiver precedent creates strong incentives for India to pursue similar arrangements.
The prediction overestimates the Trump administration's immediate willingness to offer significant economic concessions (like oil waivers) as an early incentive in what Trump himself frames as Iran's desperate bid to 'settle badly.' Trump's 'maximum pressure' strategy typically involves withholding such carrots until substantial, verifiable concessions are made by Iran. Publicly confirming discussions about sanctions relief with India within a month would likely be perceived as undermining this pressure, reducing US leverage, and potentially signaling weakness to Iran before any concrete diplomatic breakthroughs. The 'potential opening' is still highly speculative, and Trump's aggressive framing suggests he intends to squeeze Iran further, not reward them or their partners prematurely.
Alternative outcome: Instead, the Trump administration will likely maintain its maximal pressure campaign, demanding concrete concessions from Iran regarding its nuclear program or regional activities before considering any significant economic relief, even for allies like India. India, while interested in cheaper oil, will prioritize maintaining its strategic relationship with the US and will likely refrain from publicly confirming any sensitive discussions about sanctions waivers within the short timeframe, especially given the highly volatile and uncertain nature of US-Iran diplomacy. Private feelers might be extended, but public confirmation would be deemed too risky or premature. Therefore, no public confirmation from India's MEA or MoP will occur within the month.
PENDING 70% geopolitics Within 1 month, Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs or Ministry of Defense will publicly announce interest in coordinating with or…
Story: France and UK Partner with Oman to Secure Strait of Hormuz Transit
Within 1 month, Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs or Ministry of Defense will publicly announce interest in coordinating with or participating in the France-UK-Oman Strait of Hormuz maritime security initiative.
Reasoning: Japan is simultaneously negotiating Iranian oil purchases under a US sanctions waiver (Story #9), which means Japanese tankers will need safe Hormuz transit. Japan already maintains a Maritime Self-Defense Force information-gathering mission near the Gulf of Aden/Arabian Sea since 2020. The France-UK-Oman framework — which is diplomatic rather than confrontational — aligns with Japan's preferred posture of multilateral security cooperation without antagonizing Iran, a country it is actively seeking oil from. Tokyo has a unique dual incentive: commercial (protecting oil shipments) and diplomatic (showing solidarity with Western partners while maintaining Iran ties through Oman's intermediary role). This creates stronger pull than the Singapore case, where there was no direct commercial stake.
The strongest case against this prediction is Japan's deeply ingrained cautious approach to regional security initiatives, particularly those involving Iran, and the nascent stage of the France-UK-Oman framework. Japan's primary objective is securing oil shipments while maintaining a delicate diplomatic balance with Iran, which is crucial for its sanctions waiver negotiations. Publicly announcing 'interest in coordinating or participating' in a new, Western-backed security initiative, even if framed as diplomatic, could be perceived by Iran as taking sides or aligning with adversaries, thereby jeopardizing the very oil deals Japan is pursuing. Japan has historically preferred independent action (like its existing MSDF information-gathering mission, which explicitly avoids confrontational coalitions) or very carefully defined, non-antagonistic roles in multilateral efforts. A quick public announcement within one month is unlikely given Japan's typically slow, consensus-driven decision-making process for such sensitive foreign policy shifts, especially when the initiative itself is still in the 'watch for whether it translates into a formal framework' stage.
Alternative outcome: Instead of a public announcement within 1 month, Japan will likely engage in quiet, bilateral diplomatic consultations with Oman and potentially France/UK to understand the precise scope, nature, and implications of the initiative. Japan may seek assurances regarding its non-confrontational stance towards Iran and assess how it aligns with its existing independent information-gathering mission. It will prioritize leveraging Oman's unique intermediary role for its own shipping security through discreet channels, rather than making a public commitment to a new multilateral framework that could complicate its sensitive relationship with Iran. Any eventual involvement, if it occurs, would likely be limited to intelligence sharing or logistical support, and would only come after the initiative has matured and its non-antagonistic character is unequivocally established, well beyond the 1-month timeframe.
PENDING 69% geopolitics Within 1 month, at least one non-U.S. International Stabilization Force contributing nation will publicly raise concerns about the ISF's operational…
Story: IDF Transfers Armored Vehicles to U.S. Forces as Gaza Redeployment Preparations Accelerate
Within 1 month, at least one non-U.S. International Stabilization Force contributing nation will publicly raise concerns about the ISF's operational mandate or viability in Gaza, through an official government statement, parliamentary debate, or on-record comments from a senior defense or foreign ministry official.
Reasoning: The transfer of ISF-headquartered equipment to U.S. forces signals that the multinational stabilization framework is being repurposed for potential unilateral or bilateral military operations. Non-U.S. ISF contributors committed troops and political capital to a stabilization mission, not an offensive preparation role. As this equipment transfer becomes publicly known, contributing nations face domestic political pressure to clarify whether their participation in ISF is being instrumentalized. European ISF contributors in particular — facing their own electorates — will need to distance themselves from any perception of complicity in renewed Gaza operations. The parallel Hormuz coalition (story 6) shows France and UK are already actively managing their Middle East military commitments, making them more sensitive to mission-creep in Gaza.
The prediction overestimates the public profile and operational maturity of the 'International Stabilization Force' (ISF) and the likelihood of immediate, public diplomatic fallout. The story refers to an 'ISF headquarters,' but this doesn't confirm a fully established, operational multinational force with significant non-U.S. contributions and a clear, publicly understood mandate. It's plausible the ISF is a more nascent concept, a planning body, or even a placeholder. Furthermore, the vehicles are described as 'IDF Transfers Armored Vehicles… from the International Stabilization Force headquarters,' suggesting they could be IDF assets merely *stored* at a designated location, rather than multinational ISF-owned equipment being repurposed. If the ISF is not a robust, widely recognized entity, or if the vehicles are Israeli assets, then the basis for 'non-U.S. ISF contributors' feeling instrumentalized and facing domestic pressure for public statements is significantly weakened. Nations typically prefer quiet diplomacy or internal reassessments over public rebukes that can strain alliances, especially within a tight one-month timeframe.
Alternative outcome: Instead of public statements, non-U.S. nations with a potential or conceptual link to an ISF might engage in quiet diplomatic inquiries with the U.S. and Israel to seek clarification on the nature of the vehicle transfer and the future role of any stabilization efforts. They may express concerns privately or initiate internal policy reviews regarding their *future* involvement, without making any public declarations. This allows them to manage potential domestic scrutiny and maintain diplomatic relations without escalating the situation publicly. The ISF's mandate might remain ambiguous or be quietly adjusted without any public challenge.
No detailed attribution available.
‘; content.innerHTML = html; overlay.style.display = ‘flex’; } function cronkiteShowEditorial(btn) { var data = JSON.parse(btn.getAttribute(‘data-predictions’)); var overlay = document.getElementById(‘cn-editorial-overlay’); var content = document.getElementById(‘cn-editorial-content’); var html = ”; for (var i = 0; i = cnHit ? ‘#166534’ : (p.score >= cnMiss ? ‘#92400E’ : ‘#991B1B’)) : ‘#78716C’; html += ‘‘ + escH(p.prediction) + ‘
‘; html += ‘Causal reasoning
‘ + escH(p.reasoning) + ‘
‘ + escH(p.outcome_reasoning) + ‘‘; html += ‘
No predictions for this story.
‘; content.innerHTML = html; overlay.style.display = ‘flex’; } function escH(s) { var d = document.createElement(‘div’); d.textContent = s || ”; return d.innerHTML; }