endgame

My Life With the Walter Boys fans were left in a frenzy after spotting a clue that could suggest Jackie Howard and Cole Walter are endgame in the Netflix drama.

WARNING: This article contains spoilers from My Life With the Walter Boys.

My Life With the Walter Boys fans were absolutely thrilled to hear a Gracie Abrams hit featured during a pivotal scene between Jackie Howard and Cole Walter.

The second series of the Netflix teen romantic drama dropped today, Thursday, August 28, 18 months after that cliff-hanger ending.

Despite being in a relationship with Alex Walter (played by Ashby Gentry), Jackie Howard (Nikki Rodriguez) shared a steamy kiss with his brother Cole Walter (Noah LaLonde) in the barn.

This led her to abandon Silver Falls and head back to New York but following some words of wisdom from Katherine Walter (Sarah Rafferty), Jackie makes her way back to the ranch.

During the opening episode, Jackie did everything possible to steer clear of Cole, determined not to create drama once more but it’s the closing scene where he corners her alone in the barn.

Following an uncomfortable initial meeting, she attempts to leave when he pleads: “Can you please stop running away from me? Don’t go.”

Whilst this scene unfolds, Gracie Abrams’ 2024 smash Let It Happen soundtrack the moment with the tune intensifying until she spins round and they gaze at each other with burning intensity.

Delighted viewers flocked to social media to share their thoughts on this scene, with one posting: “Not them playing Let It Happen for Jackie and Cole OMG. The buzz.

“Let It Happen playing during the Jackie and Cole scene? Gracie OMG? I might change team,” another declared, alluding to supporters’ Team Cole and Team Alex split.

One fan hailed it as “Gracie world domination” as another of the singer’s tracks featured in the latest episode of Prime Video’s The Summer I Turned Pretty.

Another viewer chimed in: “Cole and Jackie…Let It Happen…OMFG…Baby that’s endgame right there.”

But does this hint at a future for Jackie and Cole, or could a reignited flame with Alex throw a monkey wrench into their plans?

Regardless of how this series concludes, there’s plenty more drama to unravel, with the show already securing a third season set to premiere in 2026.

My Life With the Walter Boys is currently streaming on Netflix.

Washington, DC – Over the past week, United States President Donald Trump has been issuing statements on Iran that appear to be contradictory.

He has called for ending the war and hinted at peace coming “soon”, only to then suggest that assassinating Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei could be an option for the US along with joining Israel’s bombing campaign.

In the latest turn, the White House said on Thursday that Trump will make a decision on whether to join the war within two weeks.

These changes in the president’s stance have some observers thinking that Trump may not have a clear strategy or endgame; rather he is being dragged to war by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been seeking US attacks on Iran for decades.

Alternatively, could Trump be using his increasingly bellicose rhetoric against Iran to compel Tehran to agree to entirely give up its nuclear programme?

If so, experts warn that brinkmanship could turn into an all-out war between the US and Iran.

Jamal Abdi, president of the National Iranian American Council, said Trump could be attempting to build leverage with threats to strongarm Iran into accepting his demands of “total surrender”.

“I think he’s trying to present himself as this madman who is unpredictable, and in so doing, he can then insist on this very hard line that Iran has refused to accept for decades of full dismantlement of its enrichment programme,” Abdi told Al Jazeera.

Another possible explanation of Trump’s latest statements, Abdi added, is that he is “being taken for a ride by Bibi Netanyahu to commit the United States to a full-on war with Iran”.

‘He says one thing. He does another’

Iranian American analyst Negar Mortazavi also said that Trump is being “outmaneuvered” by Netanyahu.

“I don’t even know if President Trump knows what he wants,” Mortazavi told Al Jazeera.

“He campaigned as the president of peace … he promised he’s going to end conflicts. Russia-Ukraine hasn’t ended. Gaza has escalated, and he just let the third big Middle East war – which looks like a regime-change war – start under his watch. So, he says one thing. He does another.”

Israel launched its bombing campaign against Iran last week, two days before US and Iranian officials were set to meet for a sixth round of talks in Oman.

Hours before the Israeli assault began, Trump renewed his commitment to diplomacy. And the initial US response to the Israeli strikes was to stress that Washington is not involved in the attacks.

In subsequent days, however, Trump appeared to take credit for the Israeli bombing campaign.

“We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran,” he wrote in a social media post on Tuesday, without elaborating on who the “we” was.

“Iran had good sky trackers and other defensive equipment, and plenty of it, but it doesn’t compare to American made, conceived, and manufactured ‘stuff.’ Nobody does it better than the good ol’ USA.”

Israel’s strikes have targeted Iran’s air defences, military and nuclear facilities, oil infrastructure and residential buildings, killing hundreds of people, including top military and political officials as well as many civilians. Iran has responded with hundreds of ballistic missiles that have killed at least 24 Israelis and left widespread destruction across the country.

Israeli officials claim they are trying to destroy Iran’s nuclear and missile programmes, but also note that their military campaign could lead to the collapse of the Iranian governing system, which they say would be a welcome development.

However, it is widely believed that Israel would need US help to destroy Iran’s main uranium enrichment facility, Fordow, which is buried inside a mountain.

Mortazavi said war hawks and Israeli officials appear to be making the case to Trump that bombing Fordow will be an easy task.

“Instead of a regime change war – a devastating, unnecessary war with Iran, which he has been warning everyone and running against in his campaigns, they’re just making this look like, ‘Oh, you just use your bunker busters once and done.’”

But Iran has promised to retaliate harshly against any US attack.

Thousands of US troops in the region could come under Iranian missile strikes. If the war escalates, Iran could also disrupt shipping lanes in the Gulf – a major lifeline for global energy.

Iranian lawmakers have already suggested that Iran could close the Strait of Hormuz that connects the Gulf to the Indian Ocean and through which 20 percent of the world’s oil flows.

‘Catastrophic’ war

Mortazavi said escalating the conflict will have “catastrophic” consequences for the region.

“It will look like Iraq and Afghanistan combined, if not worse. Iran is a big country,” she said.

In Iraq, Bush’s regime-change war led to years of sectarian bloodshed and the rise of groups like ISIL (ISIS). In Afghanistan, US forces fought for 20 years after deposing the Taliban from the capital Kabul, only to see the group swiftly return to power as US troops withdrew.

Even if Iran’s governing system is toppled under US and Israeli blows, experts warn that US war hawks should be careful what they wish for.

Iran is a country of more than 90 million people. The fall of the government could lead to internal conflict, displacement crises and regional – if not global – instability, analysts say.

“This is not a colour revolution. This is going to be war and chaos, potentially civil war, and unrest,” Mortazavi said.

Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of the rights group DAWN, said that even if Trump is trying to gain leverage with his threats and is not seeking war or regime change in Iran, it’s a risky strategy.

“The possibilities of the assaults on Iran escalating into not just a broader regional war, but potentially a global war, are extremely high,” Whitson told Al Jazeera.

“And so, continued belligerence and hostile rhetoric from President Trump is only throwing fuel on the fire.”

The Moroccan autonomy proposal, which has been advanced as a “realistic” solution to the Western Sahara conflict, reflects a deeply flawed understanding of international law, decolonization, and regional stability. Far from offering a genuine path to peace, the autonomy plan is a strategic repackaging of occupation that violates the Sahrawi people’s right to self-determination and undermines the very foundations of international order.

The Moroccan autonomy proposal is premised on denying the Sahrawi people their inalienable right to self-determination. This right is not aspirational—it is enshrined in international law, including the UN Charter, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and UNGA Resolution 1514 (XV), which mandates the immediate and unconditional end of colonialism. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), in its 1975 advisory opinion, found no legal ties of sovereignty between Morocco and Western Sahara, reinforcing the principle that sovereignty must be decided by the people of the territory, not imposed by external actors.

Even on its own terms, Morocco’s proposed autonomy lacks credibility. In Morocco the king rules, and in the Moroccan constitution there are red lines (especially concerning the monarchy and Western Sahara) that cannot be crossed. The idea that such a system could guarantee democratic freedoms, autonomy, and political rights to Sahrawis is implausible.

Moreover, Rabat has not implemented meaningful decentralization within Morocco itself, making the Western Sahara “autonomy” claim look more like a political smokescreen than a genuine offer. How can Morocco offer regional autonomy while denying it in other regions in Morocco?

The 1991 UN-brokered peace agreement was based on a clear premise: a referendum allowing Sahrawis to choose between independence, integration with Morocco, or autonomy. Morocco initially agreed to this but has since blocked all efforts to hold a credible vote. Now it seeks to erase independence as an option entirely. This is not negotiation—it is blackmail. The Sahrawi people, through their recognized representative, the Frente POLISARIO, continue to demand the referendum they were promised.

The Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara since 1975 constitutes a textbook case of colonial acquisition of territory by force. Supporting Morocco’s autonomy plan is not a neutral act—it legitimizes the notion that military occupation can eventually be sanitized through diplomatic delay and political rebranding. This directly undermines international norms established after World War II to prevent wars of conquest.

If the international community endorses this model in Western Sahara, what prevents other states from using similar tactics? The implications for global peace and conflict resolution are deeply concerning.

Perhaps most troubling is the erasure of Sahrawi voices from the autonomy discourse. The overwhelming majority of Sahrawis, both in the occupied territories and in refugee camps in Algeria, reject Morocco’s proposal. They see it not as compromise, but as capitulation. Peace cannot be imposed through coercion; it must be built on consent. To impose autonomy without a referendum is to deny Sahrawis their most basic political agency.

The European Union, which has long presented itself as a defender of international law and multilateralism, is uniquely placed to play a constructive role in resolving this conflict. A just and lasting solution in Western Sahara would not only align with the EU’s normative values—it would serve its strategic interests.

First, stability in the Maghreb is essential for European security. The region is geographically close, interconnected via migration routes, and strategically situated near Europe’s southern flank. Instability in Western Sahara, if left unresolved, continues to fuel regional tensions and prevents effective regional cooperation.

Second, Western Sahara is rich in resources that are important to the EU, including fisheries, phosphates, agriculture, and renewable energy (especially solar and wind potential). The EU has been embroiled in repeated legal disputes over trade and fisheries agreements involving Western Sahara, which European courts have ruled cannot be applied to the territory without the consent of its people. A political resolution grounded in international law would finally end these legal and ethical challenges.

Third, resolving the Western Sahara issue would create a foundation for genuine regional integration. A stable, cooperative Maghreb—encompassing an independent Sahrawi Republic, Algeria, Tunisia, Mauritania, Libya, and Morocco—could emerge as a reliable partner to the EU, offering a bloc of stability, trade, and renewable energy cooperation. Such a development would support the EU’s ambitions for a sustainable, secure, and diversified energy transition.

Fourth, a lasting resolution would also help the EU manage migration more humanely and effectively. Stability and economic development in the Maghreb reduce the drivers of irregular migration. Yet the continued occupation and marginalization of the Sahrawi people contribute to regional insecurity, frustration, and radicalization risks—pressures that ultimately impact Europe.

Finally, the EU must protect its credibility. Supporting Morocco’s autonomy plan while ignoring UN resolutions and EU court decisions undermines the Union’s claims to be a values-based global actor. If Europe allows geopolitical convenience to trump principle, it erodes trust in its foreign policy and emboldens others to disregard international norms.

Rather than doubling down on flawed frameworks, the international community—especially the European Union—should explore innovative, justice-based solutions that prioritize regional cooperation and free association. A revived Maghreb Union could serve as a model of post-colonial regional integration. But such a vision can only be realized once the colonial injustice in Western Sahara is addressed through genuine decolonization, not disguised through autonomy.

The autonomy proposal is not a step toward peace—it is a sophisticated attempt to entrench occupation and delay justice. It is rooted in imperial logic, not international law. It ignores the clear legal, moral, and political rights of the Sahrawi people to choose their own future.

If the world truly believes in justice, peace, and the rules-based international order, it must stop rewarding colonial conquest. It must uphold its commitment to decolonization and demand a fair, credible referendum that includes independence as an option.

To accept anything less is to betray the Sahrawi people—and the principles on which global peace and European credibility depend.