Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

President Donald Trump issued a stark warning that the United States would eradicate Iran’s “civilisation” unless the regime reopens the Strait of Hormuz and complies with his demands. The statement, posted on his Truth Social account less than twelve hours before the self‑imposed deadline, declared that a whole civilisation could die “tonight, never to be brought back again.” Trump set the cutoff for compliance at 8 p.m. Washington time (00:00 GMT) on Tuesday, framing the moment as a decisive point in what he called a long‑standing struggle against Iranian extortion and corruption. For more than two weeks, the president has threatened to strike Iran’s civilian infrastructure—bridges, power stations, roads and other non‑military assets—if his terms are not met. Legal analysts have warned that such actions would constitute a war crime under international law. “It’s horrific. It’s pure evil. It’s disqualifying,” said Yasmine Taeb, legislative and political director of MPower Change Action Fund, condemning the president’s rhetoric as that of “a deranged, unstable madman.” She called for a stronger response from both U.S. lawmakers and the global community. Democratic leaders reacted forcefully. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer labeled Trump “an extremely sick person,” while House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries urged Republican colleagues to “put patriotic duty over party and stop the madness,” warning that the conflict could spiral into a world war. Representative Rashida Tlaib suggested invoking the 25th Amendment to remove Trump, citing the recent bombing of a school in Minab that killed over 170 children. Congressional attempts to curb the president’s war powers have stalled; a recent resolution to limit his authority failed to pass, leaving the legal basis for the campaign in question. Critics argue that launching a military operation without congressional approval violates the U.S. Constitution, which reserves the declaration of war to Congress. Republican reactions were muted. Representative Mike Lawler downplayed the threat, stating that any strikes would target only Iran’s energy and civilian infrastructure to cripple the regime’s economy, and affirmed that Trump is acting within his constitutional authority as commander‑in‑chief. The conflict, which began on February 28 when the United States and Israel allegedly killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and other senior officials, has already claimed more than 2,000 lives, including civilians in schools, residential blocks and medical facilities. Iran’s retaliatory rocket and drone attacks have hit Israeli and U.S. assets across the Middle East, while Iranian forces have blocked the Strait of Hormuz, driving global energy prices higher. Despite the heavy toll, Iran’s governing structure appears intact, bolstered by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, designated by the United States as a terrorist organization. No major defections or anti‑government protests have emerged, and Khamenei’s son, Mojtaba Khamenei, has assumed a leading role. Trump, while maintaining a hardline stance, left a narrow window for diplomacy, suggesting that “maybe something revolutionary wonderful can happen.” He framed the deadline as “one of the most important moments in the long and complex history of the world,” promising that “47 years of extortion, corruption, and death will finally end.” Vice President J.D. Vance echoed the president’s message, warning Iran that the United States possesses additional, undisclosed tools and will employ them if Tehran does not alter its conduct, emphasizing the U.S. desire for free flow of oil and gas.

The question of whether Iran would agree to a ceasefire has sparked debate, particularly in light of the track record of the US and Israel in the region. The underlying issue seems to revolve around trust and the reliability of commitments made by these countries. Iran's stance on a ceasefire is influenced by past experiences with the US and Israel, which have significant implications for the country's national security and regional dynamics. The skepticism surrounding a potential ceasefire agreement stems from concerns about the credibility of assurances from these nations. Given the complex geopolitical landscape of the Middle East, any agreement involving Iran, the US, and Israel would require robust guarantees and a framework for enforcement to ensure its sustainability. The situation remains a critical point of discussion among international observers and policymakers.

Israel’s armed forces posted a stark warning on X, urging Iranians to refrain from using trains or approaching railway lines until 21:00 Iran time (17:30 GMT). The message, issued on the military’s Persian‑language account, framed the advisory as a safety measure, hinting at imminent strikes on civilian rail infrastructure before U.S. President Donald Trump’s deadline to reopen the Strait of Hormuz lapses. Trump has publicly threatened to bomb Iran’s bridges and power plants if the strategic waterway remains closed, setting a deadline of Tuesday 8 p.m. EST (01:00 GMT Wednesday). In response, Tehran has pledged “devastating” retaliation against any attacks on its civilian targets. Recent Israeli air operations have intensified. New strikes hit Tehran’s residential districts and a nearby synagogue, and a petrochemical facility on Iran’s side of the South Pars gasfield—shared with Qatar—was also targeted. According to Iran’s Ministry of Health, the conflict, which began on 28 February, has claimed at least 2,076 Iranian lives over more than five weeks. Amid the escalating rhetoric, the King Fahd Causeway linking Saudi Arabia and Bahrain was suspended as a precaution against potential Iranian attacks on Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province. The 25 km (16 mi) bridge is the sole road link for Bahrain, which hosts the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet. Gulf states report heightened alert levels: alarms sounded in Bahrain and the UAE, and the Saudi Ministry of Defense said it intercepted seven ballistic missiles in its eastern sector. Al Jazeera’s correspondent noted that the Gulf region has borne the brunt of the conflict. On the diplomatic front, the UN Security Council is slated to vote on a watered‑down resolution aimed at unblocking the Strait of Hormuz. The draft, seen by AFP, omits any language authorising force, but Russia and China retain the power to veto. Iran’s blockade has already rattled global energy markets, driving oil and gas prices to record highs and forcing nations to adopt austerity measures. Analysts such as Trita Parsi, vice‑president of the Quincy Institute, argue that President Trump retains the flexibility to extend the deadline without losing credibility, given his historically limited diplomatic leverage. As the deadline looms, the convergence of military warnings, infrastructure closures, and diplomatic maneuvering highlights the fragile balance between coercive pressure and the risk of broader regional escalation.

Researchers at Rothamsted Research in Harpenden, Hertfordshire, have made a groundbreaking discovery in the field of food safety. By utilizing Crispr genome editing, they have successfully developed wheat that can be used to make bread with reduced levels of acrylamide, a toxic compound classified as a probable carcinogen.The innovation lies in the reduction of free asparagine, an amino acid in wheat that converts into acrylamide when bread is toasted, fried, or baked. Field trials over two years demonstrated that gene-edited wheat can have significantly lower concentrations of free asparagine without impacting crop yields. This translates into lower acrylamide formation in food products, making toasted bread safer for consumption.In tests, bread and biscuits made from the edited wheat showed substantially reduced acrylamide levels, with some bread samples having concentrations below detectable limits even after toasting. The Crispr editing targeted the gene responsible for asparagine production, achieving a reduction of up to 93% in free asparagine in dual-edited lines.Compared to conventional methods that achieved a 50% reduction in free asparagine but resulted in a 25% yield penalty, the Crispr-edited wheat offers a more efficient and effective solution. Dr. Navneet Kaur, a lead researcher, highlighted the potential of Crispr technology to deliver precise, beneficial changes in crop genetics, emphasizing the importance of supportive regulatory frameworks to unlock benefits for agriculture and food systems.The UK has become a global hub for gene editing research since Brexit, with the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act of 2023 facilitating the development and marketing of genetically modified crops. However, the future of these advancements may be influenced by negotiations with the EU over sanitary and phytosanitary agreements.Prof. Nigel Halford, who led the study, noted that low-acrylamide wheat could help food businesses meet safety standards without compromising product quality or incurring major costs, ultimately reducing consumers' dietary exposure to acrylamide.

Glass Lewis, a leading proxy adviser, has advised investors to vote against BP's chair Albert Manifold because the board chose to exclude a climate‑strategy resolution from the upcoming annual general meeting.The resolution, put forward by activist shareholder group Follow This, sought a discussion of BP's long‑term strategy under scenarios of declining oil and gas demand.BP, currently pivoting back to oil and gas after a faltering renewable push, appointed Manifold in October with a promise to help the company “reach its full potential”.In a parallel leadership change, the firm named Meg O’Neill, a former ExxonMobil executive, as chief executive – making her the first woman to lead BP and its fourth CEO since 2023.Glass Lewis argued that the board’s decision to drop the climate proposal raises serious questions about transparency, shareholder communication and responsiveness, according to a note first reported by Reuters.Manifold responded on BP’s website, stating that the board concluded the Follow This proposal was invalid and would be ineffective if passed.Another proxy adviser, ISS, also recommended voting against BP’s request to retire two older climate‑impact reporting resolutions, contending that the proposals remain relevant despite newer reporting frameworks.Follow This disclosed that 12 institutional investors plan to oppose BP’s move to scrap its climate disclosures, and its CEO Mark van Baal warned that more than 25% of shareholders could vote against the resolution, enough to block it.O’Neill, addressing staff, highlighted the “significant complexity” of today’s environment – geopolitical tension, rapid technological change, and shifting global energy demand – and reaffirmed BP’s mission to deliver energy safely, reliably and efficiently.

A sharp political row has ignited between the central government in Madrid and the Basque regional authorities over a request to display Picasso’s Guernica at the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao from 1 October to 30 June, coinciding with the 90th anniversary of the town’s devastating aerial attack.The masterpiece has been housed in Madrid’s Reina Sofía museum since 1992, and previous appeals to relocate it to the Basque Country have been consistently rejected.The latest demand has seen Isabel Díaz Ayuso, the outspoken conservative president of the Community of Madrid, and Aitor Esteban, leader of the Basque nationalist party, exchange barbed remarks, each accusing the other of a “provincial” outlook.Ayuso argued that moving the painting “doesn’t make sense” and quipped that, if origin mattered, “all of Picasso’s works should be sent to Málaga,” the artist’s birthplace. She also warned that the Reina Sofía fears the relocation could damage the delicate canvas.Esteban shot back, suggesting that Ayuso’s notion of national identity was reduced to “drinking beer on a terrace bar,” a jab at her stance on keeping Madrid’s bars open during the pandemic.Basque president Imanol Pradales challenged the Spanish government’s resolve, asking whether it could muster the courage to move Guernica after having “dragged Franco out of his tomb.” He framed the decision as a test of political will.The Basque administration proposes to exhibit the work at the Guggenheim for eight months, framing the display as a tribute to the victims of the 1937 bombing of the town of Guernica.The black‑and‑white canvas captures the horror of the attack carried out by the German Condor Legion and the Italian air force on 26 April 1937, an early example of strategic aerial bombardment of civilians during the Spanish Civil War.Casualty estimates for the raid vary widely—from as few as 126 to as many as 1,654 dead—yet the painting has become an enduring global symbol of the atrocities of war.After its debut at the 1937 Paris International Exposition, Guernica toured Europe and the United States. Picasso, who opposed its return to Spain under Franco’s dictatorship, later allowed it to reside at New York’s Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) for several decades.Art historian Francisco Chaparro cautioned that, while the Spanish government cannot entirely rule out a move, the risk of damage must outweigh any political motivations. He likened the situation to the Mona Lisa’s permanent stay at the Louvre and Velázquez’s *Las Meninas* at the Prado, noting that Guernica has been “rolled and unrolled on numerous occasions.”Artist José Manuel Ballester reminded observers that Picasso himself had envisioned the painting hanging in the Prado, a position he never assumed during the civil war.In 2000, the Reina Sofía rejected a request from MoMA to loan Guernica, declaring that the “great icon of our museum must remain, without exception, separate from the policy on lending works to other museums.”Note: The article was amended on 7 April 2026 to include the German Condor Legion alongside the Italian air force in describing the 1937 bombing.

The conflict in Iran has underscored how fragile a world built on fossil fuels truly is, with disruptions to oil, gas and fertilizer shipments adding millions of tonnes of greenhouse‑gas emissions to an already critical climate system.While Saudi Arabia and other petrostates blocked any mention of a fossil‑fuel phase‑out at the UN COP30 summit last November, a new diplomatic effort is gathering momentum outside the UN framework.On 28‑29 April, Colombia will host the First International Conference on the Just Transition Away from Fossil Fuels. Unlike UN negotiations, the summit will be decided by majority vote, preventing a handful of countries from derailing progress.The event is co‑sponsored by Colombia – the world’s fifth‑largest coal exporter – and the Netherlands, home to Royal Dutch Shell. Organisers have invited nations that supported the COP30 roadmap, as well as sub‑national leaders such as California Governor Gavin Newsom, a potential 2028 U.S. presidential contender.Delegates, described as a “coalition of the willing”, will share concrete plans to shift their economies away from fossil fuels while safeguarding workers and communities. Climate activists, Indigenous representatives and trade‑union leaders will also contribute ideas for turning the abstract goal of decarbonisation into actionable policy.One focal point will be the reduction of the $7 trillion per year in global fossil‑fuel subsidies, a figure that the International Energy Agency warns could be trimmed without harming the livelihoods that depend on these funds. UN Secretary‑General António Guterres has urged the International Energy Agency to create a platform that aligns the decline of fossil‑fuel investment with rapid clean‑energy expansion.The real leverage of this coalition lies in its economic weight. The 85 countries that backed the COP30 roadmap together account for a gross national product of $33.3 trillion—surpassing the United States’ $30.6 trillion and far exceeding China’s $19.4 trillion.If the Just Transition conference produces a credible, market‑oriented plan, it could send a clear signal to investors and policymakers that the era of oil, gas and coal is ending, prompting a reallocation of capital away from stranded‑asset risks.Adding California’s $4.1 trillion GDP to the coalition’s total would create an economic bloc of roughly $37.4 trillion, approaching the combined $50 trillion output of the United States and China.Newsom has repeatedly positioned California as a climate leader, noting that two‑thirds of the state’s electricity now comes from non‑carbon sources and that its economy has risen from the world’s sixth to fourth largest. He pledged that California will fill the void left by the United States’ retreat from the Paris Agreement by competing in global green‑technology markets.Public opinion supports such a shift: between 80 % and 89 % of the world’s population wants stronger climate action. The upcoming conference therefore represents a pivotal chance to translate widespread demand into a coordinated, economically powerful push for a fossil‑fuel‑free future.

Israel's newly approved $271 billion budget has sparked concerns over its implications for the occupied West Bank, with a significant portion allocated to settlement expansion and far-right ideological projects. The budget, the largest in Israel's history, was passed early on Monday from a fortified bunker, amid the ongoing conflict with Iran.The ruling coalition has bypassed legal frameworks to direct billions towards these goals, citing national security concerns. A key allocation is $129.5 million to the Ministry of Settlement and National Missions, which authorizes illegal Jewish-only settlements and outposts on Palestinian land.Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, a settler himself, has been granted sweeping powers over the occupied territory and has openly opposed the two-state solution. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has echoed this sentiment, stating there will be no Palestinian state west of the Jordan River.The budget also includes funds for projects such as building bypass roads through Palestinian towns, providing protection for illegal settlement outposts, and incorporating armed settlers into the state's civilian security apparatus. These moves are seen as entrenching the occupation and empowering far-right elements of Netanyahu's government.The allocation comes against a backdrop of surging violence by settlers and Israeli armed forces' raids on Palestinian communities across the West Bank, which have intensified since the onset of Israel's war on Gaza in October 2023. UN data shows nearly 3,000 attacks on Palestinians in the West Bank over the past two years.The budget's passage has highlighted divisions within the Israeli opposition, with Yair Lapid accusing rival parties of being more focused on criticizing his party than uniting against the governing coalition. Analysts warn that the spending bill will have severe long-term consequences, including further destabilizing the region and undermining any future viable Palestinian state.

President Donald Trump told Fox News host Trey Yingst that the United States had dispatched a substantial cache of firearms to Iranian protesters, routing them through Kurdish groups. He said, “We sent them a lot of guns. We sent them to the Kurds,” and added that the Kurds likely kept the weapons. This admission lends weight to Tehran’s long‑standing narrative that the December‑January demonstrations were not spontaneous but were driven by “foreign‑backed terrorists.” Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has repeatedly blamed the United States and Israel for hijacking the economic unrest that began on December 28, when Tehran shopkeepers protested the plunging rial. The protests quickly spread nationwide, drawing hundreds of thousands onto the streets. Rights groups and the United Nations report that at least 5,000 people were killed, with some estimates suggesting the death toll could rise to 20,000. The crackdown also saw thousands arrested and an internet blackout imposed to conceal the violence. As the US‑Israel war on Iran entered its 38th day, official tallies record 2,076 deaths and over 26,000 injuries across the country. Despite Trump’s statements, several Kurdish opposition groups have categorically denied receiving any U.S. weapons. A senior official of the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan (KDPI) told Iraqi broadcaster Rudaw that the claims were “baseless,” noting that their armaments are decades‑old and sourced locally. The Komala Party issued a similar denial. Analysts caution that Trump’s remarks are difficult to verify. Neil Quilliam of the United Kingdom’s Chatham House said the comments “reveal nothing material” and may reflect Trump’s personal rhetoric more than concrete policy. Nonetheless, such statements could undermine the cohesion of Iranian opposition groups and influence international perceptions of the conflict. In the broader geopolitical context, the United States has framed its February 28 strikes—carried out jointly with Israel—as a response to Iran’s nuclear program and as a means to “free” Iranians from the Islamic Republic’s repression. Trump linked the military action directly to the protests, claiming Tehran had “killed tens of thousands of its own citizens on the street as they protested.” While Kurdish factions continue to advocate for peaceful, civil protest methods, the U.S. and Israeli governments have not yet committed to ground operations in Iran. Opposition Democrats in the U.S. Congress remain skeptical of any escalation involving troops. Overall, Trump’s confirmation of arms shipments adds a new layer to the already complex narrative surrounding the Iranian protests, the US‑Israel military campaign, and the broader struggle for influence in the region.