Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

The Trump‑Merz Clash Over Iran’s ConflictPresident Donald Trump used his Thursday social‑media post to rebuke German Chancellor Friedrich Merz for commenting on the war in Iran, telling the German leader to concentrate on "German and European affairs" instead of Middle‑East geopolitics.Escalating Diplomatic Spat Between Washington and BerlinThe exchange follows Merz’s recent remarks questioning the United States’ strategy in the Iran war, a stance that diverges from his traditionally hawkish alignment with the US and Israel. Trump dismissed Merz as “not knowing what he’s talking about,” while Berlin’s foreign minister Johann Wadephul emphasized Germany’s continued commitment to NATO and the transatlantic partnership.Merz warned that the conflict risks “overplaying” Iran’s hand.Trump framed the war as a necessary step to keep the world, including Germany, safer.Potential Troop Reductions and Their Financial ImplicationsAmid the diplomatic flare‑up, Trump hinted that the United States is reviewing the size of its force in Germany, where roughly 35,000 troops are stationed. A reduction could save an estimated $1.2 billion annually in operational costs, but would also require reallocating resources to other theaters.Current US presence: ~35,000 personnel, $3.5 billion yearly budget.Projected cut scenario: 10‑15% reduction, saving $1‑1.5 billion.Broader Strain on the Transatlantic AllianceThe feud underscores growing tensions over the Iran war, with the US accusing NATO allies of “refusing to directly participate” while Germany balances its role as a top arms supplier to Israel and its domestic crackdown on Palestinian activism. Both sides stress the importance of NATO, yet the disagreement reveals cracks in the post‑Cold‑War security architecture.What Lies Ahead for US‑German Relations?Analysts predict a cautious diplomatic dance: Berlin is likely to maintain its NATO commitments while quietly preparing for a possible downsizing of US forces. Meanwhile, Trump’s public skepticism of NATO may push the United States to demand greater burden‑sharing from European partners, potentially reshaping the transatlantic security bargain in the coming months.

The Palantir Manifesto ControversyJust weeks after publishing a manifesto on X that implied some cultures are inferior to others, described by one UK MP as the "ramblings of a supervillain," the US spy tech company Palantir faces growing calls for a ban in Australia. The company, which has significant government contracts in Australia, now claims it is "just a software company" amid mounting public and political backlash.Cultural Statements Spark Global ConcernEarlier this month, Palantir published a manifesto on X, arguing the benefits of American power and stating: "Some cultures have produced vital advances; others remain dysfunctional and regressive." This public pronouncement, combined with concern over Palantir's software being used by ICE immigration enforcement in the United States and the Israeli military, has led to calls in Australia and the UK for governments to cease using Palantir in their operations.Financial Footprint in Australian GovernmentState and federal contracts with Palantir in Australia have reached nearly $80m, with federal investment in the company reportedly more than $160m. Federal agencies including the financial intelligence agency Austrac and the defense department have spent an estimated $60m in contracts with Palantir. Australia's sovereign wealth fund, the Future Fund, holds $100m worth of shares in the company. In Victoria, the prison system has spent nearly $20m on Palantir contracts since 2012, with a current contract valued at $9m and not due to expire until 2028.Government Response and Company DefenseAustralian Greens senator David Shoebridge has called for a "blanket ban on all new contracts with Palantir, pending a comprehensive public audit of their existing Government agreements." In response, a Palantir spokesperson emphasized that the company is "proud its software supports the Australian defense force and other government agencies" and claimed, "We don't collect or monetize data – we simply provide the tools to help customers organize and understand their own information."Regulatory Scrutiny and Future ImplicationsPalantir has identified Australia as a lucrative market for its surveillance software, achieving "protected level" in the Australian Signals Directorate's information security program. However, questions remain about compliance with the Commonwealth supplier code of conduct, which requires suppliers to avoid bringing the federal government into disrepute. With the recent termination of its lobbying relationship with Cmax Advisory and growing public concern, Palantir's future in Australia's government sector faces significant uncertainty as political pressure mounts for greater transparency and accountability.

The LeadDespite US Secretary of Defense boasting of rapid military success against Iran, the Pentagon has suffered significant losses with military equipment worth between $2.3bn and $2.8bn destroyed in the ongoing conflict. The most notable incidents include the destruction of a $700m radar aircraft and multiple missile defense systems.The Event DetailsThe conflict began on February 28, with US officials initially claiming rapid success. However, Iran's response has been more effective than anticipated. On March 26, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth made a bold claim at a televised Cabinet meeting: "Never in recorded history has a nation's military been so quickly and so effectively neutralised."The very next day, Iran retaliated by firing missiles and drones that struck a US base in Saudi Arabia, wounding several US soldiers and destroying a $700m E-3 AWACS/E7 radar surveillance aircraft. This airborne command center, capable of detecting aircraft and missiles hundreds of kilometers away, was destroyed at Prince Sultan airbase in eastern Saudi Arabia.Additional losses include at least one THAAD missile defense radar system worth between $485m and $970m, and three F-15 jets lost to friendly fire in Kuwait in early March.The Data AnalysisThe Washington, DC-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) has conducted the first detailed tabulation of US military losses in the conflict. Senior adviser Mark Cancian, a retired US Marine colonel with over three decades of military experience, calculated the losses at between $2.3bn and $2.8bn.Notably, this estimate does not include losses incurred at US bases in the region or specialized equipment and naval assets. Cancian noted that assessing damages to bases has been challenging due to US government restrictions on satellite imagery from Planet Labs since February 28.The CSIS analysis reveals that while the US has achieved some operational victories, the financial cost has been substantial. The most expensive single loss was the E-3 AWACS/E7 aircraft at $700m, followed by the THAAD radar systems.The Impact AnalysisThe losses have significant strategic implications for US military posture in the Middle East. Omar Ashour, professor of security and military studies at the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies, suggests that while the US has disclosed some figures, it cannot afford full transparency for political reasons."At this point, I don't think the Trump administration would want to be looking like losing equipment [and] personnel," Ashour told Al Jazeera, adding that there might be a "price" to pay "at the [midterm] elections in November."The conflict has also affected US relations with Gulf nations. Iran's decision to strike Gulf nations, not just US bases, backfired by driving them closer to the United States, according to Cancian. Additionally, the US failure to keep the Strait of Hormuz open has been a humbling reminder of naval unpreparedness.Despite these losses, Ashour notes that Iran has also suffered severe damage to its military. The US-Israeli operation has degraded Iran's conventional military architecture but has not eliminated its missiles, munitions, and drones.The PredictionLooking ahead, experts suggest that the US may need to reassess its strategy in the region. The current US troop deployment constitutes less than a tenth of the force used to invade Iraq in 2003, and the US lacks the number of aircraft carriers previously deployed.Cancian, reflecting on his military experience, noted that the US has been planning for potential conflicts with Iran for 45 years, including amphibious operations to capture Qeshm Island. However, "when the US launched the current war, they didn't have the forces in place."The conflict may ultimately follow historical patterns where operational victories do not translate to strategic success. As Ashour points out, "In Vietnam, they did a series of operational victories. In Afghanistan, they did. But then [they suffered] the strategic loss in the end."With midterm elections approaching, the Trump administration faces pressure to demonstrate progress toward its proclaimed goals of regime change and denuclearizing Iran, even as the financial and strategic costs continue to mount.

The UAE’s abrupt departure from OPEC on Tuesday, 28 April 2026 threatens to unravel decades of coordinated oil‑market management, raising the risk of a Saudi‑UAE price war that could reverberate across global energy markets.The UAE’s Unexpected Withdrawal from OPECThe Gulf state announced its exit after 60 years of membership, signalling a shift in the power balance that has long been anchored by Saudi Arabia. The move is largely symbolic for now, as Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz limits the UAE’s ability to increase output.UAE cites desire to ignore OPEC production quotas.Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil exporter, is expected to respond aggressively.Both nations have some of the lowest production costs globally.Price Surge to $126/Barrel and Production FiguresGlobal oil prices hit their highest level in four years, climbing above $126 a barrel. Production data highlights the stakes:UAE held production at below 3 million barrels per day in 2024 under OPEC guidance.Potential to raise output to 4.5‑6 million barrels per day once Hormuz reopens.Historical cuts: In 2020 OPEC cut 9.7 million barrels per day (≈10% of global demand).Geopolitical Ripple Effects and Market VolatilityExperts warn that the loss of a core Gulf member weakens OPEC’s credibility. Michael Tamvakis, commodities professor, predicts Saudi Arabia will “fight back with a vengeance.” Dieter Helm likens the scenario to the 1980s and 2014 price crashes that caused massive job losses and political instability in oil‑dependent economies.Meanwhile, prolonged disruptions in Gulf exports could open market share to non‑Middle‑East producers such as the United States, Brazil and Guyana, reshaping the global supply landscape.Potential Trajectory of a Gulf‑Driven Price WarIf Saudi Arabia launches discounting campaigns to Asian buyers while the UAE seeks to protect its refined‑product market in Europe, a competitive over‑production cycle may ensue. The likely outcomes include:Accelerated price declines as both nations chase market share.Short‑term revenue spikes for Gulf states, followed by longer‑term price erosion.Increased urgency for oil‑dependent economies to accelerate low‑carbon transitions.Analysts anticipate that without a unified OPEC response, price management will become increasingly difficult, setting the stage for a protracted period of volatility in the world oil market.

Supreme Court Decision Reshapes Voting Rights LandscapeThe United States Supreme Court has voided a key provision of a landmark civil rights law by ruling that the electoral map of Louisiana had been drawn up unconstitutionally to create two Black-majority districts. The decision represents a major reinterpretation of the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 – in particular, its provision designed to protect minority voters from having their political power diluted.Wednesday's Supreme Court ruling is seen as a major win for Louisiana Republicans and President Donald Trump's administration and is expected to make it harder for minorities to challenge electoral maps as racially discriminatory under the 1965 law. It is unclear how much of that provision – Section 2 of the act – remains in force following this decision.The Louisiana Redistricting RulingThe court held that a map that created two Black-majority congressional districts in Louisiana was unconstitutional. The 6-3 ruling by justices blocks an electoral map that had given Louisiana a second Black-majority US congressional district.The court's conservative majority found that the Louisiana district represented by Democrat Cleo Fields relied too heavily on race. Chief Justice John Roberts described the 6th Congressional District as a "snake" that stretches more than 320km (200 miles) to link parts of Shreveport, Alexandria, Lafayette and Baton Rouge.The ruling was authored by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by his five fellow conservative justices. The dissenting justices are liberals."That map is an unconstitutional gerrymander," Alito wrote on behalf of the six conservatives.Understanding the Voting Rights ActThe Voting Rights Act was a piece of follow-up legislation to the Civil Rights Act, signed into law by President Lyndon B Johnson in 1964. It bans discrimination on the basis of race, colour, religion, sex or national origin.The 1965 law primarily ended common discriminatory practices against Black voters that were prevalent in many states, including literacy tests, that were designed to prevent them from voting.Section 2 of the act prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, colour or membership of a language-minority group. The section has long been understood to bar electoral maps that dilute the voting strength of minority communities, even when there is no direct evidence of racist intent.How the Court Weakened the Voting Rights ActSection 2 of the act was amended by Congress in 1982 to prohibit electoral maps that would result in undermining the clout of minority voters, even without direct proof of racist intent.For more than four decades, plaintiffs could win a Section 2 claim by showing that a voting map had a racially discriminatory impact under this legal standard, known as the "results test".The Supreme Court's ruling on Wednesday, however, has in effect applied an "intent test" to Section 2, experts said. In the ruling, Alito wrote that the focus of Section 2 must now be to enforce the US Constitution's prohibition on intentional racial discrimination under its 15th Amendment.Interpreting Section 2 to "outlaw a map solely because it fails to provide a sufficient number of majority-minority districts would create a right that the amendment does not protect", Alito concluded.Political Power Shifts in CongressThe effect of the ruling may be felt more strongly in 2028 because most filing deadlines for this year's congressional races have already passed. Louisiana, though, may have to redraw its congressional districts now to comply with the decision.Republicans currently hold 217 seats in the House while Democrats hold 212. There is one independent and five vacancies in the House. In the Senate, Republicans hold 53 seats and Democrats hold 45. Two independents caucus with the Democrats.The state has primary elections set for May 16. Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry told Republican candidates for the House of Representatives that he planned to suspend next month's primary elections to allow state lawmakers time to approve a new congressional map.Erosion of Civil Rights ProtectionsReactions to the ruling have been sharply divided along political lines."I love it," Trump told reporters after hearing of the decision, adding that he believes Republican-led states will now want to reconfigure their voting maps. In a social media post, Trump praised Alito as "brilliant" and called the ruling "a BIG WIN for Equal Protection under the Law, as it returns the Voting Rights Act to its Original Intent, which was to protect against intentional Racial Discrimination".Former President Barack Obama, a Democrat, warned that the ruling will free state legislatures to reconfigure electoral districts to "systematically dilute and weaken the voting power of racial minorities – so long as they do it under the guise of 'partisanship' rather than explicit 'racial bias'"."This is a devastating and profound step backwards for American Democracy," Democratic Senator Raphael Warnock wrote on social media.Justice Elena Kagan, in a dissent joined by the two other liberal justices on the Supreme Court, said the ruling rendered the Voting Rights Act "all but a dead letter" and predicted "grave" consequences.Redistricting Battles Ahead of 2026 MidtermsWith November's congressional elections looming, the court's decision could prompt Republican-led states to seek to redraw electoral maps to weaken US House seats considered safely Democratic.The ruling comes during a wider battle over congressional redistricting before midterm elections in November. The Congressional Black Caucus, a group of African American US lawmakers, condemned the ruling."Without the protections of the VRA [Voting Rights Act], Republicans now have the ability to move forward with a nationwide scheme to rig congressional maps in their favor – to manufacture more districts for themselves by eliminating majority-Black districts, while stripping away the ability to challenge those racist, anti-Black maps in court," it said in a statement.Warnock, a member of the caucus, said the ruling gutted the protections that civil rights champion Martin Luther King Jr "marched for [and] the protections made possible by civil rights protesters who spilled blood in pursuit of a more perfect union".

The Lead: A New Maritime Flashpoint EmergesThe Panama Canal has emerged as the latest maritime flashpoint, with the United States and China exchanging barbs in recent weeks over influence in what is one of the world's most important shipping routes. This dispute comes amid broader tensions over the Strait of Hormuz, raising concerns about disruptions to global trade and the potential erosion of international maritime laws.The Event Details: Accusations and Denials Over Canal ControlIn a joint statement with Bolivia, Costa Rica, Guyana, Paraguay, Trinidad and Tobago, the US condemned what it called "China's targeted economic pressure" and actions that have "affected Panama-flagged vessels." The countries accused China of detaining Panama-flagged ships in its own ports, claiming these actions are "a blatant attempt to politicise maritime trade and infringe on the sovereignty of the nations of our hemisphere."China strongly denied the allegations, calling them "hypocritical" and accusing the US of politicizing global commerce and undermining sovereignty. Lin Jian, a spokesperson for China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, asked rhetorically: "Who occupied the Panama Canal for a long time, invaded Panama with its military, and arbitrarily trampled on its sovereignty and dignity?"The crisis stems from Panama's Supreme Court scrapping in January a longstanding concession held by a Hong Kong-linked company to operate the Balboa and Cristobal ports. This decision came amid sustained US pressure on Panama to curb Chinese influence around the canal.The Data Analysis: Global Trade at RiskAnalysts have warned that any disruption to the canal, even temporarily, could "disrupt global trade significantly." According to Ferdinand Rauch, a professor of economics at the University of St Gallen in Switzerland, "It would lead to temporary supply bottlenecks, stock market volatility, inflationary upward pressure and could dampen global GDP measurably if prolonged."The Panama Canal accounts for about six percent of global trade, while the Strait of Hormuz, through which one-fifth of the world's oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies are shipped during peacetime, has been effectively closed since the US and Israel started bombing Iran on February 28. Currently, some 2,000 vessels are stranded at either end of the strait, while others have been rerouted, come under fire or even been seized.The Impact Analysis: Erosion of Maritime NormsThese frictions point to a broader shift in international shipping, demonstrating that major powers are increasingly willing to contest control of global shipping lanes. Abdul Khalique, a professor at Liverpool John Moores University in the UK, said "rising geopolitical rivalry" is increasingly "spilling into maritime chokepoints, from the Panama Canal to the Strait of Hormuz."The situation has raised questions over whether longstanding international laws governing the world's seas are beginning to unravel. James Kraska, Charles H Stockton Chair of International Law at the US Naval War College, noted that while the ongoing maritime crisis between the US and Iran is unlikely to become a permanent feature, strong international opposition to the unilateral closure of major sea lanes will be a key factor driving a resolution.The Prediction: Adapting to a Volatile Maritime FutureWhile experts disagree on whether this represents a "new normal" for global shipping, there are signs that governments and firms are "already adapting pragmatically: diversifying supply chains, revising risk premiums, increasing naval coordination, and investing in alternative routes," according to Khalique.UPF Barcelona School of Management professor Stephan Maurer warned that the consequences of disruption to or even closure of the Panama Canal for global trade "could be very grave, depending on the degree of disruption." Trade would adapt, but alternatives would greatly increase distances to be covered, with South American countries being most impacted, while the US and Canada would also be "severely affected."

The Lead: Vancouver Protests Challenge FIFA's World Cup Narrative Community groups have planned "multiple events" across Vancouver on Thursday to coincide with the FIFA Congress being held in the city ahead of this summer's World Cup. The protests aim to "interrupt the narrative that the World Cup is a celebration" and highlight the real impact on residents, workers, and tenants. The Event Details: FIFA Congress and Vancouver's World Cup Hosting The Congress, being held at the downtown Vancouver Convention Centre on Thursday, is expected to include representatives from all 211 of FIFA's member associations, apart from the Iranian delegation, who were denied entry to Canada on Tuesday night. Vancouver will host seven World Cup games in June and July, starting with Australia v Turkey on June 13 followed by Canada playing Qatar five days later. The city will also host a round of 16 game on July 7. The Data Analysis: Economic Claims vs. Community Concerns The Canadian government claims the World Cup will generate lasting economic and social benefits, stating it will create thousands of jobs, add $2bn to the Canadian economy, and attract more than one million visitors. However, community groups point to the housing crisis, with increased pressures on tenants already facing affordability issues and potential evictions. The Impact Analysis: Disruption of Community Life Unlike World Cup stadiums in the United States, which are often located at great distances outside host cities, Vancouver's BC Place venue is in the city's downtown. Community groups are particularly concerned about the impact on the Downtown Eastside, which is close to BC Place and within a 2km radius of increased bylaws and police presence. The event has also led to the cancellation of numerous historical regular community events that residents look forward to. The Prediction: Long-Term Legacy of World Cup Hosting As Vancouver hosts the FIFA Congress and prepares for the World Cup, the city faces questions about the long-term legacy of such major sporting events. While officials tout economic benefits, community groups are demanding that their voices be heard not just during the tournament but in planning for its aftermath. The protests represent a growing movement questioning whether the costs of hosting mega-events truly outweigh the benefits for host cities and their residents.

The Stark Divide in War Cost EstimatesUnited States Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has clashed with American lawmakers over the cost of war on Iran in his first appearance on Capitol Hill since the conflict – now into its third month – broke out. The Pentagon told a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee that the US had spent $25bn on its war on Iran, largely on munitions and equipment maintenance. But Democratic leaders and several economists believe that number to be a significant underestimate, with actual costs potentially reaching between $630bn and $1 trillion.The Pentagon's Limited Financial DisclosureThe Pentagon's acting comptroller, Jay Hurst, who testified alongside Hegseth and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Dan Caine, presented the estimated figure of $25bn to the committee. "We will formulate a supplemental [on additional funding], through the White House, that will come to Congress once we have a full assessment of the cost of the conflict," Hurst said, promising to provide a cost breakdown later.The estimated figure only reflects "the costs of the war," Hurst explained, factoring in "munitions expended in that total and other operational costs." This figure is significantly smaller than the $200bn initially requested by the Trump administration for the war and the $11.3bn reported for just the first six days of fighting in March.The Economic Ripple Effects Beyond Direct Military SpendingAs the US continues with its blockade of Iranian ports and Tehran controls the Strait of Hormuz, gas prices in the US have hit a new high at $4.23 a gallon – the highest since 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine. The Brent crude benchmark has been trading above $120, leading to a 40 percent rise in gas prices compared to pre-war levels.Representative Ro Khanna claimed the war would cost about $631bn – or some $5,000 per household – to the US economy due to increased gas and food prices. "Your $25bn number is totally off," Khanna told Hegseth, highlighting the administration's failure to account for broader economic impacts.The rising cost of living has also affected Trump's approval rating, hitting a record low in his second term with only 22 percent of Americans approving of his handling of cost of living, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.Hidden Costs of War: Infrastructure and Long-term ImplicationsThe US claimed earlier that it struck more than 13,000 targets over the first 39 days of fighting with Iran. For context, the US fired more Patriot missiles in the first four days of the Iran war than it supplied to Ukraine over the past four years, with each missile costing $4m.However, the economics and impact of the war extend far beyond the worth of bombs and missiles. One major expense is reconstructing and repairing damaged assets. After the US-Israeli strikes assassinated former Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Iranian strikes caused damage to US military camps in Kuwait, alongside other military bases in the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Bahrain.Earlier this month, NBC News quoted six US officials noting that Iran damaged US military bases and equipment in the Middle East far worse than publicly acknowledged. The damages alone could lead to billions of dollars in repairs, with one report estimating that repairs to the US Navy Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain could cost $200m alone.Historical Precedents and Future ProjectionsHarvard economist Linda Bilmes had estimated in February 2006 that the Iraq war would cost the US $3 trillion, when the George Bush administration was telling the public that fighting would cost $50bn. Twenty years later, Bilmes ended up with among the most accurate predictions, as the Iraq war's total cost is now estimated at $2 trillion."Wars always cost more than expected. Throughout history, those who get into wars tend to be optimistic about the cost and about the length of time it will take," Bilmes noted. "It is hard to measure the exact cost. But based on what we know now, it [the current Iran war] is costing about $2bn a day in short-term, upfront costs, which is the tip of the iceberg."Beyond immediate expenses, Bilmes highlighted long-term costs including veterans' care and restocking weapons inventory. "I am certain we will reach one trillion dollars for the Iran war," she concluded. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has asked for a $1.5 trillion defense budget for next year – a 42 percent increase, or the largest expansion in military spending since World War II.

The LeadIsrael's attacks on southern Lebanon have killed at least nine people, according to the country's National News Agency (NNA), despite a three-week extension to the United States-mediated "ceasefire" announced last week.Escalating Violence in Southern LebanonIn the municipality of Jebchit, three people were killed and seven wounded in an attack that destroyed a residential building. In the municipality of Toul, four people were killed and six wounded. While in the municipality of Harouf, two people were killed, and the attack also destroyed a house.Israeli forces have intensified their attacks in southern Lebanon over recent days, with artillery shelling reported in the towns of Zawtar al-Sharqiyah, Yohmor al-Shaqif, and Bayt al-Sayyad.In the past 24 hours alone, Israeli air attacks have killed more than 20 people, including two families, two Lebanese army soldiers, and three paramedics. More than 70 others, including children, were injured in the attacks.Rising Casualties and Displacement ThreatsThe Israeli army has also issued more forced displacement threats for 15 southern Lebanese towns and villages, including Jebchit, Toul, al-Samanieh, Sahel al-Hnieh, Qlailah, Wadi Jilo, al-Kanisa, Kafr Jouz, Majdal Zoun, and Seddiqine.Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz promised that southern Lebanon's fate will be like Gaza's, despite a temporary US-mediated "ceasefire" deal agreed between Israel and Hezbollah almost two weeks ago that was extended by three weeks last week.International Response and Regional ImplicationsLebanese President Joseph Aoun denounced the "continuing Israeli violations" in southern Lebanon on Thursday, saying they were occurring "despite the ceasefire, as do demolitions of homes and places of worship, while the number of killed and wounded rises day by day"."Pressure must be exerted on Israel to ensure it respects international laws and conventions and ceases targeting civilians, paramedics, civil defence, and humanitarian health and relief organisations," the Lebanese president added.Meanwhile, Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri called for "the swift formation of an international fact-finding committee on the crimes of the Israeli occupation".Future Outlook and Diplomatic ChallengesReporting from Beirut, Al Jazeera's Malcolm Webb said "Lebanon's President Aoun has asked the US for a date for negotiations to restart but has also said that Israel must fully implement the ceasefire."The Lebanese government, Israel and the US have sought to distance the talks from the US talks with Iran. But with the fighting continuing to escalate, it seems the only thing that would slow it down is further pressure from Trump on Israel to stop," he said.Israeli attacks since March 2 have killed at least 2,576 people in Lebanon, with 7,962 wounded, according to the latest figures from the Lebanese Ministry of Public Health.