What shoves history onwards? That question could keep a room full of high-falutin academics distracted for a month. Many would say “structure”, meaning some abstract forces acting on an anarchical world. A few might champion “agency”, the idea that human choices really shape what happens. Only if you believe in agency, after all, can you blame or praise Binyamin Netanyahu, Ayatollah Khamenei, Donald Trump or whomever you wish, for decisions they make.

Perhaps journalists have to speak up for agency. If we didn’t, why bother to interview leaders and focus on their actions? Individuals do make meaningful decisions. “Realist” thinkers are wrong to claim, for example, that Russia was somehow pulled into confrontation with the West. No one else compelled Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine. Twice. In the same way, Iran’s theocratic and military leaders have chosen to impoverish and isolate their people for the sake of trying to obtain a nuclear weapon. It is individuals’ decisions, cumulatively, that propel world affairs.

Here’s a small example. The Dalai Lama has shown remarkable agency. His most striking decision was in 1959 when he decided, dramatically, to flee Tibet. That helped to shape geopolitics for decades to come—influencing relations between the West and China, and between India and China. He became a voice against repression inside China. In 2013 I travelled with James Miles, a colleague who knows an immense amount about Chinese affairs, to chat at length with the Tibetan Buddhist about his life, and plans upon his death. I count it as one of the best hours I’ve spent in nearly three decades as a journalist. The three of us giggled and laughed throughout it. At one point the Dalai Lama also posed, fingers crooked above his head, as a horned devil—you can see my photo of him in a blog post—after telling us how the Chinese loved to call him a “demon”. Somehow, I can’t imagine chortles bursting from Xi Jinping. 

Back then, the Dalai Lama said he’d reincarnate—the process by which his successor is chosen—in the “free world”, but would set out his plans around the time he turns 90. That particular birthday is next week. He may say he is emanating—in effect nominating another adult to be recognised as the Tibetans’ leader. Or he could go for rebirth and have monks identify a child as the next Dalai Lama. When we asked 12 years ago about China hijacking the process, he joked that China’s communists must first declare how Mao and Deng will also burst back to life. But in a new article, we explain how his reincarnation creates a moment of some peril. Could his decision, and China’s reaction to it, provoke a bust-up with India, with the West, or beyond? To see how this particular bit of history gets propelled forward, I only have one bit of advice. Go and ask the demon Dalai Lama.

In more down-to-earth news, but still important for us, I’d like to point you to the new Economist app. We’ve sharpened its design, made it faster and easier for you to find the articles, the weekly edition, videos, podcasts, games and other goodies you are hunting for. We are also adjusting how it looks on weekends: our longer narrative reads and biggest pieces of analysis are more prominent on Saturdays and Sundays. You’ll find the sharp, shorter and newsier pieces high on the app on weekdays. If you haven’t downloaded the app to your phone or tablet yet, this is a great time to do so. Visit the App Store if you use an Apple device or Google Play on Android.

Last week I asked for your views about the effects of America’s bombing of Iran. Thanks, once again, for the many messages. We read and appreciate them all—including those where we evidently disagree. Note that the International Atomic Energy Agency has just estimated that the American bombing only set back Iran’s nuclear programme by months. That should surprise no one, whatever Donald Trump and others tried to claim.

Clare, in Britain, speculates that Mr Trump, fired up after striking Iran, could decide next to “wake up to Putin’s bluff” and confront Russia over Ukraine. Clare, I hope you are right. My hunch, however, is that Mr Trump remains dangerously in awe of Russia’s president. There’ll be no such confrontation any time soon. David Peduto, from Maryland, is one of several who wonders if some stronger Iranian retaliation is yet to come, perhaps in the form of cyber or terror attacks on America. Hamid Farzaneh, born in Iran but now living in California, foresees only worse misery for people in the Islamic Republic: more repression from the regime. Hamid, that’s sadly all too likely. For next week, I’d welcome your views on what Americans, and indeed the rest of the world, should make of America’s 249th birthday on July 4th. Write to me at economisttoday@economist.com.