Netflix’s Diego Ávalos used a Málaga Talent appearance on Tuesday not only to explain how the streamer sources, develops and finances projects in Spain, but also to send a broader message to the local business: Netflix wants to be seen as accessible, flexible and closely connected to the creative community it hopes to work with.

Speaking to a packed room at the UNIA Puerto venue in conversation with Silvia Iturbe, an executive at Mafiz – Málaga Festival Industry Zone, Ávalos — Netflix’s VP of Content for Spain, Portugal and Turkey — offered a public snapshot of the company’s Spanish commissioning logic: multiple entry points for projects, varied deal structures and a strategy driven less by algorithm than by audience connection.

What gave the session its edge, however, was the way Ávalos handled the room. Relaxed and articulate, he moved easily between broad strategy and the practical mechanics of development. For a room full of emerging creators, many of whom likely view streamers as distant gatekeepers, the presentation suggested something more open, more personal and more plugged into the day-to-day realities of Spain’s production sector.

“There is no single moment to speak with us,” Ávalos said, stressing that projects can reach Netflix in many forms — as a bible, a script package, a rights-based pitch or a more advanced production already carrying broadcaster support or public funding.

He cited TV3 series “Génesis” as one example of a title where Netflix came in after regional financing had already been assembled, taking the series for Spain, Latin America, the U.S., Canada and much of the EU. “The Asunta Case,” by contrast, was described as a project that grew out of Netflix’s prior relationship with Madrid-based Bambú Producciones, moving from an initial idea into bible, pilot and eventual greenlight.

That contrast underlined one of Ávalos’ key points: Netflix is not operating with a single development template. Some projects arrive highly packaged. Others begin with an idea, a rights hook or an early creative conversation. The priority, he said, is less the format than whether the material clearly communicates the story, its creative vision and its audience potential.

The session also offered a revealing glimpse into the scale of Netflix’s Spanish pipeline. Ávalos said the company receives between 1,500 and 2,500 projects a year and reads all of them, adding that the team aims to respond to every submission. He also stressed the breadth of Netflix’s production relationships, noting that over the last seven years the company has worked with more than 60 Spanish production companies.

Netflix, he suggested, is not operating through a narrow circle of repeat suppliers or a single model of engagement. The company can work directly with producers, writers and directors and, when needed, help connect emerging creators with more established production partners if a project requires stronger industrial packaging.

Ávalos also praised the strength of Spain’s production sector, told the young audience that the future of the industry rests with them and treated the session less as a formal corporate appearance than as a genuine exchange. His rapport with the room reinforced the image of a Netflix executive closely plugged into the local business and alert to the ambitions of rising talent.

He also pushed back firmly on the notion that Netflix commissions by algorithm, describing data instead as a compass rather than a blueprint. That distinction sits at the center of Netflix’s local pitch. Ávalos pointed to broad local comedies, thrillers, character-driven dramas and action titles as categories that have worked especially well for the company in Spain, while acknowledging that breakout exceptions such as “Nowhere” and “The Platform” show the limits of rigid rule-making.

One of the session’s most notable clarifications concerned ownership. Of the more than 1,000 Spanish titles Netflix has launched over the last seven years, Ávalos said, the company holds the IP on less than 25%, with the vast majority structured as acquisitions or other partner-led models in which rights remain with producers, creators or writers.

That point fed into a wider argument about Netflix’s role. In Ávalos’ telling, the streamer does not replace the independent sector so much as work through it. Netflix executives do not take producer credits, he said, because the creative and industrial heavy lifting belongs to third-party producers, writers and directors.

Festivals, meanwhile, remain an important part of that system, both as launchpads for titles and as spaces where executives can identify new voices, fresh formats and shifts in creative energy. Ávalos also noted that short films remain a useful talent-discovery tool, even if short-form distribution is not central to Netflix’s local strategy. For the Málaga Talent audience, Ávalos made the case that Netflix wants to be seen not just as a buyer or commissioner, but as a partner that listens on Spain’s broader creative landscape.

China’s top legislature on Thursday passed an “Ethnic Unity and Progress Promotion Law,” formalizing Beijing’s long-running push to strengthen national identity and ethnic integration.

The legislation was approved at the closing meeting of the fourth session of the 14th National People’s Congress during its annual parliamentary gathering in Beijing.

State-affiliated media Xinhua previously reported that the law would seek to codify “fostering a strong sense of community for the Chinese nation” into state policy. 

It would also bolster high-quality development in areas with large ethnic minority populations and promote what officials describe as common prosperity among China’s 56 ethnic groups.

CHINESE UNDERGROUND CHURCH PASTOR, FATHER OF US CITIZENS, DETAINED BY AUTHORITIES, FAMILY SAYS

Li Hongzhong, vice chairman of the NPC Standing Committee, said the measure was aimed at advancing the governance of ethnic affairs under the rule of law.

“The people of each ethnic group, all organizations and groups of the country, armed forces, every Party and social organization, every company, must forge a common consciousness of the Chinese nation according to law and the constitution, and take the responsibility of building this consciousness,” the proposed law reads, according to a translation from The Associated Press.

Academics and outside observers say the provision could undermine the cultural identity of ethnic minorities by requiring the use of Mandarin in compulsory education and establishing a legal basis to pursue individuals or organizations outside China whose actions are deemed to undermine “ethnic unity,” the AP reported.

TRUMP SAYS IT’S AN ‘HONOR’ TO KEEP STRAIT OF HORMUZ OPEN FOR CHINA AND OTHER COUNTRIES

China’s population stands at 1.44 billion as of November 2020, according to the Seventh National Population Census released in 2021 by the National Bureau of Statistics.

Of that total, 91.11% were Han Chinese and 8.89% belonged to ethnic minority groups.

CRUZ LEADS SENATE PUSH TO HOLD CHINA ACCOUNTABLE FOR BEIJING CHURCH CRACKDOWN

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

James Leibold, a professor at Australia’s La Trobe University, told the AP the new measure “puts a death nail in the party’s original promise of meaningful autonomy.”

Rayhan Asat, a legal scholar at Harvard University, also criticized the law, saying it “serves as a strategic tool and gives the pretext to government to commit all sorts of human rights violations.”

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has laid out terms for ending the war with the United States and Israel in what analysts say is a possible sign of de-escalation from Tehran as the US-Israel war on Iran entered its 13th day on Thursday.

In a post on Wednesday on social site X, Pezeshkian said he had spoken to his counterparts in Russia and Pakistan, and that he had confirmed “Iran’s commitment to peace”.

“The only way to end this war – ignited by the Zionist regime & US – is recognizing Iran’s legitimate rights, payment of reparations, and firm int’l guarantees against future aggression,” Pezeshkian wrote.

This is a rare posture from Tehran, which has maintained a defiant stance and initially rejected any possibility of negotiations or a ceasefire when war broke out nearly two weeks ago.

Pezeshkian’s statement comes as pressure mounts on the US to halt what has become a very costly mission. Analysts say speculation from Washington that Iran would quickly submit after the killing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei were misguided.

Tehran is likely going to determine the end of this war, not the US or Israel, because of its ability to inflict economic pain broadly, they say.

Amid a military pummelling by the US and Israel, Iran has launched heavy retaliatory strikes at US assets and other critical infrastructure in Gulf countries, upsetting global supplies. It has also adopted what analysts call “asymmetric” tactics – such as disrupting the critical Strait of Hormuz and threatening US banking-linked entities – to inflict as much economic pain on the region and wider world as it can.

This is what we know about Pezeshkian’s stance and what the pressures are on both sides to draw the conflict to a close, quickly.

What has the war cost so far?

Economically, both sides have weaponised energy. Israel first targeted Iran’s oil facilities in Tehran on March 8, prompting an outcry from global health experts over the potential risk of air and water pollution.

Iran has, meanwhile, tightened its chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz shipping route – the only route to open sea for oil producers in the Gulf – with its military promising on Wednesday that it has the capabilities to wage a long war that could “destroy” the world economy.

Attacks on ships in the strait, through which about 20 percent of global oil and gas traffic normally passes, have effectively closed the route.

Oil prices rocketed above $100 per barrel late last week, up from around $65 before the war, with ordinary buyers feeling the increases at pumps in the US, Europe and parts of Africa.

On Wednesday, Iran upped the ante, saying it would not allow “a litre of oil” to pass through the strait and warned the world to expect a $200-per-barrel price tag.

“We don’t know how quickly it’ll revert back,” Freya Beamish, chief economist at GlobalData TS Lombard, told Al Jazeera. “We do think it’ll revert back to $80 in due course, but the ball is to some degree in Iran’s court,” she said, adding that because Iran needs oil revenue, the price hikes are expected to be time-limited.

The International Energy Agency agreed on Wednesday to release 400 million barrels from the emergency reserves of several member states but it is not yet clear what impact that will have, nor how quickly this quantity of oil can be released.

Tehran has also been accused of directly attacking oil facilities in neighbouring countries this week. Iraq shut all its oil port operations on Thursday after explosive-laden Iranian “drone” boats appeared to have attacked two fuel tankers in Iraqi waters, setting them ablaze and killing one crew member.

A drone was filmed striking Oman’s Salalah oil port on Wednesday, although Tehran has denied involvement.

What are Iranian officials saying about ending the war?

There has been conflicting messaging from the Iranian leadership.

Iran’s elite army unit and parallel armed force, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), continues to show defiance, issuing threats and launching attacks on Israel and US military assets and infrastructure in neighbouring Gulf countries.

However, the political leadership has appeared more inclined towards diplomacy, analysts say. On Wednesday, President Pezeshkian said that ending the war would take the US and Israel recognising Iran’s rights, paying Iran reparations – although it’s unclear how much is being asked for – and providing strong guarantees that a future war will not be waged.

In a video recording last week, he also apologised to neighbouring countries for the strikes and promised that Iran would stop hitting its neighbours as long as they do not allow the US to launch attacks from their territory.

“I personally apologise to the neighbouring countries that were affected by Iran’s actions,” the president said, adding that Tehran was not looking for confrontations with its neighbours.

However, it is not known how much sway the political leadership has over the IRGC. Hours after the president’s apology last week, air defence sirens went off in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE and Bahrain, as strikes continued on the Gulf.

So, what is Iran’s actual position?

“Iran wants to go to the end to make sure that the United States and Israel never attack Iran again … so this has to be the final battle,” Al Jazeera’s Resul Serdar Atas explained.

Indeed, the IRGC sees this as an existential war, but the timing of Pezeshkian’s statement about ending the conflict also shows Tehran is pressured economically, politically and militarily, Zeidon Alkinani of Qatar’s Georgetown University told Al Jazeera.

“These differences and divisions [between IRGC and political leaders] always existed even prior to this war but we may notice it now more, given the fact that the IRGC believes that it has the right to take the front seat in leading this regional war, which is why a lot of the statements and positions are contradicting with the official ones from Pezeshkian,” he said.

The IRGC reports directly to Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) and not to the country’s political leadership. That council is led by Ali Larijani, a top politician and close aide to the late supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, who analysts describe as a “hardliner”.

In a post on X on Tuesday, Larijani responded to threats from Trump about attacks on the Strait of Hormuz, saying: “Iranian people do not fear your hollow threats; for those greater than you have failed to erase it … So beware lest you be the ones to vanish.”

The newly elected supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, was once in the IRGC and was put forward by the unit as the next ayatollah after his father was killed on the first day of the war, analysts say. He is thus not expected to follow the reformist, diplomatic ideals of President Pezeshkian and other political leaders which his father managed to marry with the IRGC militarised stance, they say.

What do the US and Israel say about ending the war?

There have also been conflicting messages from the Trump administration and Israel regarding when the war mission on Iran, codenamed Operation Epic Fury, is likely to end.

Trump told US publication Axios on Wednesday that the war on Iran would end “soon” because there’s “practically nothing left to target”.

“Anytime I want it to end, it will end,” he added. He had said earlier on Monday that “we’re way ahead of our schedule” and that the US had achieved its goals, even as speculation mounts about a possible US ground mission.

On the other hand, Israel’s Defence Minister Israel Katz said on Wednesday that the war would go on “without any time limit, for as long as necessary, until we achieve all the objectives and decisively win the campaign”.

Analysts say Trump’s stance that the conflict will be quick reflects increasing pressure on his administration ahead of upcoming mid-term elections in November.

Trump’s advisers privately told him this week to find a quick end to the war and avoid political backlash, according to reporting by The Wall Street Journal. That came as polls from Quinnipiac University and The Washington Post suggested that most Americans are opposed to the war in Iran.

In his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump promised to lower prices, and inflation had stabilised at 2.4 percent ahead of the war, according to government data released on Wednesday. Analysts speculate the conflict will likely push it back up.

The US spent more than $11.3bn in the first six days of the war, Pentagon officials told lawmakers in a classified briefing on Tuesday, Reuters reported this week – nearly $2bn a day.

The Washington-based think tank, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), estimated that the war cost Washington $3.7bn in its first 100 hours alone, or nearly $900m a day, largely due to its expenditure on costly munitions.

“It’s quite ironic that [Trump] chose a war that would make affordability worse, not better,” Rebecca Christie, a senior fellow at the Bruegel think tank, told Al Jazeera’s Counting the Cost.

“Every time the US loses even one object, air defence or a plane or something like that, that represents an awful lot of money that could have been used on some of these issues that have an impact on people’s day-to-day lives in the United States.”