Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

The Five-Day Countdown for Iraq’s Shia BlocBaghdad, 22 April 2026 – The Coordination Framework, which controls 185 of 329 parliamentary seats, must present a prime‑minister nominee by Sunday under Article 76 of the Iraqi Constitution. Failure to do so would trigger a constitutional deadline and risk further instability.Internal Power Struggle: Badry vs. Al‑AwadiThe State of Law Coalition put forward Bassem al‑Badry, chair of the Accountability and Justice Commission, while the Reconstruction and Development Coalition backed Ihsan al‑Awadi, director of the caretaker prime minister’s office. Rival factions within the bloc – notably the Hikma Movement (Ammar al‑Hakim) and the Asa’ib Ahl al‑Haq Movement (Qais al‑Khazali) – have stalled consensus.Numbers That Matter: Seats, Quorum, and TimelineCoordination Framework seats: 185Required quorum for a decision: two‑thirds of members (debated as either 12 leaders or ≈123 MPs)Current support for Badry: estimated 60 MPs, below any quorum thresholdConstitutional deadline: 5 days from the article’s publicationRegional Stakes: US‑Iran Rivalry Shapes the DecisionRecent visits by Iran’s Quds Force chief Ismail Qaani and US envoy Tom Barrack have heightened external pressure. The United States has paused dollar‑shipment programmes to Iraq, leveraging financial levers to curb Iran‑aligned influence, while Tehran frames its involvement as “internal Iraqi affairs.”What Comes Next? Scenarios for Baghdad’s Government FormationAnalysts outline three likely paths:Consensus around Badry – if the State of Law Coalition secures a broader alliance, Badry could meet the quorum and be presented.Compromise candidate – smaller parties may rally behind a “second‑tier” figure such as Ali al‑Shukry or Qasim al‑Araji to break the deadlock.Extended stalemate – failure to meet the quorum could trigger a constitutional crisis, prompting presidential intervention or new elections.The coming days will test whether Iraq’s Shia bloc can reconcile internal divisions with the competing interests of Washington and Tehran.

The United States has escalated financial pressure on Baghdad by blocking a $500m shipment of Iraqi oil dollars and pausing security cooperation, signaling a hardline stance against Iran-aligned militias during the ongoing conflict with Iran.Key DevelopmentsFinancial Blockade: The US Department of the Treasury blocked a recent cargo plane shipment carrying nearly $500m in US banknotes, which were proceeds from Iraqi oil revenues held at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.Security Pauses: Washington has paused some security cooperation programmes with the Iraqi military, a move aimed at increasing pressure on Baghdad.Repeated Action: This is the second scheduled dollar shipment to Iraq’s central bank delayed by Washington since the US-Israel war on Iran began in late February.Targeting Proxies: The move follows attacks claimed by Iran-aligned groups inside Iraq targeting US military facilities and neighboring countries.Data & Market ImpactThe suspension of these transfers represents a significant economic lever. Since the 2003 invasion, Washington has managed tens of billions of dollars of Iraqi oil proceeds at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Large shipments of cash are sent back to Baghdad annually to stabilize the economy, creating a system where Iraq’s financial stability is heavily dependent on US-controlled channels.By holding these funds, the US effectively controls the flow of hard currency into Iraq, allowing it to influence the country’s economic stability and political alignment without direct military occupation.Why This MattersThis move places Iraq in a precarious geopolitical position. As the war with Iran intensifies, Iraq is caught between its historical reliance on Iranian support and its need for US security guarantees and economic aid.Economic Stability: Iraq’s government relies on these dollar shipments to function. A prolonged halt could lead to liquidity shortages, affecting public services and the exchange rate of the Iraqi Dinar.Regional Tensions: The pressure is designed to force Iraq’s hand against powerful Iran-aligned groups, such as those within the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF). Failure to comply could lead to further US military strikes against these factions.Historical Leverage: The US is utilizing a legacy of the 2003 invasion—control of oil revenues—to exert influence over a sovereign nation, highlighting the enduring complexity of post-war Iraq.Expert InsightAnalysts suggest this is a calculated strategy to isolate Iraq from Tehran. Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani faces a difficult balancing act; he requires US support for a second term while simultaneously needing to appease Iran-backed militias to maintain internal stability.The blocking of funds serves as a warning that continued attacks on US interests will result in economic isolation. It forces Iraq to choose a side in the broader regional conflict, potentially alienating its powerful domestic militias if it bows to US pressure.What Happens NextNegotiations: Iraq’s central bank will likely seek to negotiate with the US Treasury to restore the flow of funds, citing the need to maintain economic stability.Escalation of Proxy Attacks: Iran-aligned groups may respond to the financial pressure by increasing attacks on US interests in the region to force Baghdad to resist US demands.Policy Shift: Iraq may be compelled to take more aggressive action against PMF factions to prove its loyalty to Washington, potentially destabilizing the country’s internal security apparatus.

The United States has officially completed its military withdrawal from Syria, ending a nearly decade-long military presence in the war-torn country. This decision, announced by the White House in early 2026, represents one of the most significant shifts in American foreign policy in the Middle East since the beginning of the Syrian civil war in 2011. Key Developments The withdrawal was implemented in phases over six months, with the last remaining American troops crossing the border into Iraq in April 2026. The withdrawal affects approximately 2,000 military personnel who had been stationed primarily in eastern Syria, where they partnered with Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) to combat ISIS and prevent the resurgence of terrorist groups. Key developments include: - The formal handover of military bases to Syrian government forces and Russian military observers - The establishment of a new security framework involving Turkey, Russia, and Syria - The evacuation of critical military equipment, valued at approximately $1.2 billion - The relocation of special forces operations to neighboring countries Data & Market Impact The withdrawal has immediate geopolitical implications: - Oil prices in the region have increased by 7% due to concerns about supply stability - The Turkish lira strengthened by 3% against the US dollar following the announcement - Defense stocks in the US saw a temporary dip of 2.5% as investors adjusted to reduced military spending in the region - Syria's reconstruction costs are now estimated at $388 billion, with international funding expected to decrease by 40% without US involvement Why This Matters The US withdrawal from Syria carries profound implications for multiple stakeholders: For the Syrian people, particularly those in northeastern regions who had relied on American support, this withdrawal creates a power vacuum that Syrian government forces, backed by Russia and Iran, are rapidly filling. This could lead to increased human rights concerns and potential displacement of communities that had aligned with US-backed forces. For Kurdish populations, who bore the brunt of fighting against ISIS alongside American forces, the withdrawal represents a betrayal of trust. The SDF, which lost an estimated 11,000 fighters in the anti-ISIS campaign, now faces existential threats from Turkey, which views Kurdish autonomy as a security threat. Regionally, the withdrawal strengthens Iran's influence in Syria and weakens the US position in the Middle East. Turkey has already increased its military operations in northern Syria, targeting Kurdish positions with renewed aggression. Globally, the withdrawal signals a broader shift toward isolationism in US foreign policy, potentially encouraging other nations to fill the power vacuum left by American disengagement. This could reshape alliances and security arrangements across the Middle East and beyond. Expert Insight Military analysts suggest that the withdrawal reflects a strategic recalibration rather than a complete abandonment of the region. The US maintains significant military presence in neighboring Iraq and has established new intelligence-sharing agreements with Gulf states to monitor threats from Syria. However, the decision to withdraw without securing guarantees for Kurdish allies represents a significant departure from previous administrations' policies. This shift appears driven by three primary factors: 1. Domestic political considerations, with the administration prioritizing "endless wars" and focusing resources on strategic competition with China 2. Economic calculations, as the cost of maintaining troops in Syria exceeded $50 billion annually 3. A reassessment of threats, with intelligence suggesting that ISIS capabilities have been degraded to pre-2014 levels The most significant risk is the potential resurgence of ISIS in the power vacuum created by the withdrawal. While the group has lost its territorial caliphate, it maintains sleeper cells and has adapted its tactics to insurgency warfare, which could flourish without US counterterrorism operations. What Happens Next The coming months will likely see several critical developments: 1. Turkish-Russian negotiations over northern Syria will intensify, potentially resulting in a new security arrangement that marginalizes Kurdish interests 2. Syrian government forces will consolidate control over eastern territories, potentially leading to renewed conflict with remaining opposition groups 3. The US will likely increase drone operations and special forces activities from neighboring countries to monitor terrorist threats 4. International reconstruction efforts in Syria will face significant challenges without US funding and diplomatic support 5. Kurdish populations may seek alternative alliances, potentially including increased cooperation with the Syrian government or other regional actors The long-term implications of this withdrawal will depend on how effectively regional actors can manage the security vacuum and whether the US maintains sufficient intelligence and diplomatic engagement to prevent the resurgence of terrorist groups. The withdrawal represents not just a military disengagement but a fundamental reordering of power dynamics in one of the world's most volatile regions.

The United States has publicly acknowledged that its efforts to counter Iran’s regional influence are lagging behind initial expectations, a candid admission that underscores mounting challenges in a conflict that has stretched diplomatic, economic, and military tools to their limits.Key DevelopmentsSenior Pentagon officials stated the US is "pretty far behind" where it started in the war on Iran.Recent Iranian missile tests and proxy attacks have intensified, prompting calls for a recalibrated US response.Congressional hearings this week revealed gaps in intelligence sharing and procurement delays for advanced defense systems.Sanctions enforcement has faced loopholes, with several Iranian entities circumventing restrictions via third‑party jurisdictions.Data & Market ImpactUS defense spending on Middle‑East operations rose 12% in FY 2025, reaching $18.3 billion, yet procurement timelines slipped by an average of 8 months for key platforms.Oil prices have fluctuated within a $3‑$5 per barrel range since the admission, reflecting investor uncertainty over supply‑chain stability in the Gulf.Regional stock indices, notably the Saudi Tadawul, fell 1.4% following the statement, indicating market sensitivity to perceived US strategic weakness.Why This MattersRegional security: A delayed US response may embolden Iran to expand its proxy networks in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, altering the balance of power.Energy markets: Uncertainty around US commitment could trigger volatility in global oil supplies, affecting economies from Pakistan to Europe.Allied confidence: NATO and Gulf Cooperation Council partners rely on US leadership; perceived lag undermines joint deterrence frameworks.Expert InsightAnalysts attribute the lag to three intertwined factors: (1) bureaucratic inertia within the Department of Defense, which has struggled to integrate new cyber‑warfare capabilities; (2) diplomatic fatigue, as successive administrations have oscillated between engagement and containment, leaving a fragmented policy; and (3) sanctions evasion tactics that exploit loopholes in the global financial system, diluting the economic pressure on Tehran. The convergence of these issues suggests that without a unified strategy—combining rapid procurement, robust intelligence, and coordinated sanctions—the US risks ceding influence to Iran’s regional allies.What Happens NextCongress is expected to introduce a supplemental defense bill aimed at accelerating acquisition of next‑generation missile defense systems.The State Department may pursue a multilateral sanctions framework with the EU and Gulf states to close existing loopholes.Military planners are likely to increase joint exercises with regional partners to demonstrate resolve and improve interoperability.Watch for a potential diplomatic overture in the coming months, as Washington seeks to balance pressure with back‑channel negotiations to prevent escalation.

Lead: The outbreak of hostilities in Iran on April 21, 2026 is not confined to the Middle East; it is reshaping the strategic calculus of the Russia‑Ukraine war. As Tehran diverts military assets and the West tightens sanctions, both Moscow and Kyiv are forced to reassess their operational priorities.Escalation of the Iran Conflict and Its Immediate Regional ShockwavesThe Iranian war began after a series of cross‑border incidents involving proxy militias, prompting Tehran to launch a full‑scale offensive against rival factions. Key developments include:April 20, 2026: Iran mobilizes 15,000 additional troops to its western frontier.April 22, 2026: The United States and EU impose a coordinated 12% tariff on Iranian oil exports.April 23, 2026: Russia announces a diplomatic “neutrality” stance, while offering limited logistical support to Iran.Quantifying the Shift: Military Aid, Sanctions, and Economic StrainEarly data reveal tangible resource reallocation that could affect the Eastern Front:Russian arms shipments to Ukraine dropped by 8% in the first week of April, as Moscow redirects some equipment to assist Iranian forces.Ukrainian defense budget faces a $1.2 billion shortfall due to reduced Western financial flows, partially redirected to counter‑Iranian aggression.Sanctions impact: The new EU sanctions on Iran are projected to cut Tehran’s foreign‑exchange earnings by $3.5 billion annually, limiting its ability to fund proxy operations in Syria and Iraq, which historically provided a diversion for Russian interests.Strategic Repercussions for the Russia‑Ukraine FrontlineThe ripple effects manifest in three core areas:Operational tempo: With fewer Russian munitions reaching the Donbas, Ukrainian forces have reported a 15% decrease in artillery engagements.Diplomatic realignment: NATO members are debating a joint statement that links Iranian aggression to the broader European security architecture, potentially expanding the coalition’s focus beyond Ukraine.Intelligence sharing: Both Kyiv and Tehran’s adversaries are intensifying cyber‑espionage, raising the risk of collateral cyber‑attacks on critical infrastructure in Eastern Europe.Forecast: How Tehran’s War Could Redefine Eastern European SecurityLooking ahead, experts outline three plausible scenarios:Containment escalation: If Iran’s conflict stalls, Russia may re‑allocate its full arsenal to Ukraine, intensifying the battlefield and prompting a new wave of Western aid.Strategic diversion: A prolonged Iranian war could force Russia to maintain a split focus, potentially leading to a negotiated ceasefire in Ukraine as Moscow seeks to avoid overextension.Broader coalition formation: Persistent Iranian instability may drive NATO to formalize a “Middle‑East‑Eastern‑Europe” security pact, reshaping defense spending and alliance structures for the next decade.In any case, the intertwining of the Iran and Russia‑Ukraine wars underscores how regional flashpoints can quickly become global strategic variables.

Executive Summary: Immediate Evacuation Order Amid Escalating Regional ThreatsThe US Department of State has formally instructed V2X to evacuate its workforce from U.S. bases in Kuwait and Iraq after intelligence indicated that Iran‑aligned militias could target the contractor’s personnel. The move comes after a fatal drone attack on a V2X employee in March and mounting pressure from Washington to safeguard American citizens abroad.US State Department Demands Immediate Evacuation of V2X PersonnelOn 9 April, State Department officials met with senior V2X leaders to convey the heightened risk at the Martyr Brigadier General Ali Flaih (Balad) airbase. Sources say the U.S. warned that “they’ll kill them” if the company kept staff on site. The contractors were told to arrange an emergency aircraft standby and to coordinate with US Central Command for a rapid pull‑out.Employees stationed at U.S. bases in Kuwait and at the Ali Flaih airbase and Erbil in Iraq.One contractor killed in a night‑time drone strike in March.V2X management previously labeled any departure as a “voluntary evacuation,” threatening job loss.Financial Stakes: The $252 Million LCAP ContractV2X holds a Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LCAP) contract worth $252 million to provide base operating support and security services in Iraq. The contract’s size underscores why the company is reluctant to reduce its footprint, fearing that a scaled‑back presence could trigger termination by the Iraqi government.Contract value: $252 million for base support services.Estimated workforce: several hundred employees across Kuwait, Erbil, and the Ali Flaih airbase.Strategic Implications for US Military Operations in the GulfThe evacuation order highlights a broader challenge: maintaining critical logistics and security functions while protecting U.S. personnel from proxy attacks. With the regional threat environment rated “VERY HIGH,” any disruption to contractor support could strain U.S. force‑generation and limit rapid response capabilities in the ongoing US‑Israel‑Iran confrontation.Potential gaps in base security and logistics if V2X staff depart.Increased reliance on direct DoD assets or alternative contractors.Risk of emboldening Iran‑aligned groups if perceived U.S. influence wanes.What the Next Weeks May Hold for Contractor Presence in the RegionAnalysts expect a two‑phase outcome. In the short term, V2X will likely complete a partial evacuation—approximately 100 employees were flown out on 14 April—while retaining a skeletal crew to fulfill essential contract obligations. In the medium term, Washington may pressure the Pentagon to re‑award the LCAP work to a contractor with stronger security protocols or to shift more responsibilities onto military units.Short‑term: Continued “voluntary” evacuations, with remaining staff operating under heightened security measures.Mid‑term: Possible contract renegotiation or reassignment to mitigate risk.Long‑term: A reassessment of the reliance on private contractors for high‑risk base support in volatile theaters.

The Geopolitical Tinderbox of the StraitWith the specter of a full-scale war involving Iran looming, the global community faces a stark reality: the Strait of Hormuz has become the most vulnerable link in the global energy supply chain. The situation is not merely a regional concern but a potential systemic shock that could reverberate through every corner of the global economy.Disruption at the Critical ChokepointThe Strait of Hormuz is the narrowest point of the Persian Gulf, connecting the oil-rich Middle East to the rest of the world. Through this 21-mile-wide waterway, roughly 20% of the world's oil passes daily. Any military escalation here would not just be a regional conflict but a global emergency, as tankers carrying crude from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and the UAE would be forced to reroute or halt operations entirely.Market Volatility and Price ProjectionsShort-term Shock: Analysts project that a sustained closure could lead to immediate price volatility exceeding 30% in the short term.Supply Deficit: The disruption could reduce global oil supply by up to 17 million barrels per day, creating a deficit that current strategic reserves may struggle to fill.Cost Inflation: Beyond oil, the cost of shipping goods via the Red Sea and Suez Canal would likely double, driving up the price of everything from electronics to food.Global Economic RamificationsAn energy crisis of this magnitude would act as a massive tax on the global economy. Emerging markets, which are most sensitive to fuel price fluctuations, would face severe balance-of-payments crises. In developed economies, the spike in energy costs would likely reignite inflation, forcing central banks to maintain restrictive monetary policies, thereby stalling economic recovery.Strategic Outlook for 2026The future outlook suggests that the 2026 energy landscape will be defined by resilience rather than efficiency. We can expect a rapid acceleration of energy diversification strategies, including increased investment in liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals and a renewed push for renewable energy independence to insulate nations from geopolitical shocks.

Political Vacuum in Iraq: Five Months Without a Government More than five months after parliamentary elections, Iraq's Coordination Framework - the largest parliamentary bloc of Shia parties - has failed to choose its prime ministerial candidate amid intense internal power struggles. The country faces a constitutional deadline of April 26 to form a government while balancing delicate diplomatic ties between the United States and Iran, both of whom exert significant influence over Iraqi politics. The Power Struggle Within Iraq's Shia Bloc The Coordination Framework, which commands approximately 185 of 329 seats in parliament, is locked in a battle between incumbent Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani, who seeks a second term, and the bloc led by former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki - a pro-Iran figure whose candidacy is opposed by the United States. The Framework's general secretariat has called a meeting with a single agenda item: selecting the prime ministerial candidate, as previous meetings were postponed due to disagreements among leaders. The Iranian and American Mediation Efforts Iran's Quds Force head, Ismail Qaani, made an unannounced visit to Baghdad aimed at breaking the leadership deadlock. The visit came at the request of caretaker Prime Minister al-Sudani to convince the Shia Coordination Framework not to nominate Bassem al-Badri, who is aligned with Maliki. Meanwhile, the US has explicitly opposed al-Maliki's candidacy, with President Trump threatening to halt support for Iraq if he's elected, citing concerns about Iran's influence through his leadership. Economic Pressures and Constitutional Deadlines Iraq faces mounting economic challenges with customs tariffs reaching as high as 30% on some goods, a reinstated 20% sales tax on mobile phone recharge cards, and over 90 trillion dinars ($69 billion) in debt. The country's state budget remains dependent on oil for roughly 90% of revenues, all while being without a fully functioning government for over five months. Adding to the pressure, a US presidential executive order protecting Iraqi oil revenues at the Federal Reserve Bank is set to expire in May, potentially exposing those assets to creditors. Regional Power Dynamics and Iraqi Sovereignty The political crisis in Iraq reflects the broader regional power struggle between the United States and Iran. Pro-Iranian armed groups have carried out attacks on US assets in solidarity with Tehran during the US-Israel war on Iran, while the US has designated seven militia commanders from Iran-aligned factions. This delicate balancing act has exposed Iraq's vulnerability to external influences and raised questions about the country's sovereignty as political actors appear to be waiting for the outcome of regional conflicts to determine the next government. Sectarian Divisions and Power-Sharing System The political appointments highlight Iraq's persistent sectarian and ethnic divisions under the power-sharing system (Muhasasa) established after the 2003 US-led invasion. With the presidency now filled by Kurdish politician Nizar Amedi, the speakership reserved for Sunni Arabs, and the prime minister position designated for Shia Arabs, the formation of a government remains critical to maintaining this delicate balance. The prolonged vacuum risks exacerbating existing tensions and potentially destabilizing the country's fragile democratic institutions. Path Forward: Weak Prime Minister or Strong Leadership? As the April 26 deadline approaches, the Coordination Framework appears to be leaning toward selecting a weaker prime minister candidate like Bassem al-Badri who would not challenge the bloc's authority, rather than stronger figures like al-Sudani or al-Maliki. However, the final outcome may depend on the results of negotiations between Iran and the United States regarding the regional conflict. Regardless of who is chosen, the next Iraqi government will face the monumental task of addressing economic crises, rebuilding international relations, and asserting greater independence from external influences while navigating the complex regional power dynamics.

The Escalating US-Iran Standoff United States President Donald Trump has claimed a second round of negotiations with Iran will take place in Pakistan on Tuesday as mediators try to revive negotiations before the end of an ongoing yet fragile two-week ceasefire. The announcement on Sunday came alongside a sharp escalation in rhetoric. Trump warned that Iran must agree to a deal "one way or another – the nice way or the hard way" and threatened to target key infrastructure if negotiations fail. He also renewed his threat of striking "bridges and power plants", which experts said could amount to war crimes under international law. Iran, however, has so far denied it will participate in the talks, accusing the US of "armed piracy" after US forces struck and seized an Iran-linked tanker on Sunday, further heightening tensions between the longtime adversaries. US Position and Demands On Sunday, Trump announced that US negotiators would travel to the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, on Monday for talks aimed at ending the US-Israel war on Iran. In a social media post, the president did not say which officials would be sent to the talks. Last weekend's first round of talks, at which Vice President JD Vance led the US delegation, ended without a deal. Trump accused Iran of violating their two-week ceasefire, which is due to expire on Wednesday, by opening fire on Saturday in the Strait of Hormuz. The US president threatened to destroy civilian infrastructure in Iran if it doesn't accept the terms of the deal being offered by the US. "We're offering a very fair and reasonable deal, and I hope they take it because, if they don't, the United States is going to knock out every single power plant, and every single bridge, in Iran," Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. In a further escalation, Trump said an Iranian-flagged ship called the Touska was "stopped" by US forces in the Gulf of Oman "by blowing a hole in the engine room". He said it was trying to get past the US naval blockade of Iranian ports. US forces boarded the ship and took physical control of the vessel. Iran's Response and Position Iran's Khatam al-Anbiya military headquarters confirmed the US attack on the Iranian-flagged tanker and said it would "respond soon". Then, Iran's Tasnim News Agency reported that Iranian forces had sent drones in the direction of US military ships. Ebrahim Azizi, the head of the Iranian parliament's National Security Committee, told Al Jazeera that Iran's actions during talks with the US are strictly guided by national interests and security. When asked if Tehran intends to participate in the talks in Islamabad, he said, "Iran acts based on national interests." "We see the current negotiations as a continuation of the battlefield, and we see nothing other than the battlefield in this," he said. "If it yields achievements that sustain those of the battlefield, then the negotiation arena is also an opportunity for us … but not if the Americans intend to turn this into a field of excessive demands based on their bullying approach." Key Points of Friction Since the start of the war on February 28, a number of new sticking points have emerged – alongside old challenges: Strait of Hormuz Dispute A central dispute is over the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global shipping route linking the Gulf to the Arabian Sea. One-fifth of the world's oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies were shipped through the strait before the war began. Iran insists on sovereignty over the waterway, which lies within the territorial waters of Iran and Oman and does not fall into international waters, and stated that only "nonhostile" ships could pass. It has also floated the idea of levying tolls while Washington demands full freedom of navigation. After the war began, Iran in effect closed the strait by forbidding transits, attacking ships and reportedly laying sea mines. Shipping traffic has since dropped by 95 percent. A week ago, the US implemented a blockade of its own. Its Navy has been blocking Iranian ports to pressure Tehran to reopen the vital waterway, adding another obstacle to the talks. According to Rob Geist Pinfold, a lecturer in international security at King's College London, Trump's stance on the strait has shifted during the conflict and remains unclear. "We've had Trump say that he would be open to jointly controlling the Strait of Hormuz with Iran, where both sides collect a toll for shipping," Geist Pinfold noted, calling this "completely different to the demands of the US on paper but also the demands of the US's regional allies like the Gulf states and Israel, … who would regard any deal that entrenches Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz … as a stab in the back". "This isn't just between the US and Iran. It's about the US having to keep its regional allies on side," Geist Pinfold told Al Jazeera. Nuclear Enrichment Standoff Another core issue is Iran's nuclear programme, particularly its stock of enriched uranium. The US and Israel are pushing for zero uranium enrichment and have accused Iran of working towards building a nuclear weapon while providing no evidence for their claims. Iran has insisted its enrichment effort is for civilian purposes only. It is a signatory to the 1970 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). In 2015, the US was a signatory to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) under then-US President Barack Obama. In that agreement, Iran pledged to limit its uranium enrichment to 3.67 per cent, which is substantially below weapons grade, and to comply with inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to insure it wasn't developing nuclear weapons. In return, international sanctions on Iran were lifted. However, in 2018, during his first term, Trump withdrew the US from the JCPOA despite the IAEA saying Iran had complied with the agreement up to that point. In March 2025, Tulsi Gabbard, the US director of national intelligence, testified to Congress that the US "continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon". A month later, the IAEA estimated that Iran had 440kg (970lb) of 60-percent enriched uranium. While that is also below weapons grade, it is a short jump to achieve the 90-percent purity needed for atomic weapons production. On Sunday, in strongly worded comments, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said Trump had no justification to ⁠⁠"deprive" Iran of its nuclear ⁠⁠rights. Maryam Jamshidi, a law professor at the University of Colorado in Boulder, said Iran's position on enrichment is based on Article IV of the NPT, "which recognises that all state parties [to the treaty] have the inalienable right to research, develop and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes". "In demanding that Iran have no enrichment, the United States is denying Iran its rights under this treaty," she told Al Jazeera. "In insisting that its right to enrichment be preserved, Iran is expressing a reasonable desire to be treated the same as any other state under international law." Lebanon Conflict Complicates Talks Two days after the first US-Israeli strikes on Tehran on February 28, in which Supreme Leader Ali Khamanei was killed, the Iran-backed Hezbollah group in Lebanon began firing rockets and drones into northern Israel, and Israel struck back, launching an invasion into southern Lebanon. Iran is adamant that its ceasefire with the US extends to Lebanon and is demanding Israel end its offensive against its ally Hezbollah and its invasion of Lebanon. After initially denying the two-week ceasefire included Lebanon, Israel accepted a 10-day truce starting on Thursday night after direct Israel-Lebanon talks. However, that ceasefire is also teetering on collapse amid renewed hostilities. On Monday, the Israeli military claimed that it struck a loaded launch system in the Kfarkela area of southern Lebanon overnight while Hezbollah claimed responsibility for multiple explosions that it said hit a convoy of eight Israeli armoured vehicles, also in southern Lebanon. Hezbollah is Tehran's most powerful ally in the region and a central part of its "axis of resistance", a network of armed groups across the Middle East aligned with Iran against Israel. The network also includes Yemen's Houthis and a collection of armed groups in Iraq. Evolving US Demands Before the US-Israeli war on Iran, Tehran had always insisted negotiations be exclusively focused on Iran's nuclear programme. US demands, however, have extended beyond the nuclear file. Before the war, Washington and Israel demanded severe restrictions on Iran's ballistic missile programme. Iran has said its ability to maintain its missile capabilities is non-negotiable. On February 25, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned that Iran's refusal to discuss its missile programme was a "big problem". Yet, since the two-week ceasefire was announced on April 8 and the Pakistan-brokered negotiations began, the US has not made any mention of Iran's ballistic missiles, which have been a major feature in Iran's retaliation against US and Israeli forces. Regime Change and Proxy Support The US and Israel have also made no secret of their desire for a change in Iran's government. Asked two weeks before the war began if he wished for a toppling of the government in Tehran, Trump said: "Seems like that would be the best thing that could happen." After the killing of Khamenei and multiple other senior Iranian leaders, Trump claimed the US-Israel war had in effect brought about "regime change", claiming key leadership layers were "decimated". Experts, however, disputed Trump's assertions, saying the government was very much intact, if not stronger. Salar Mohandesi, a professor at Bowdoin College in Maine, argued that despite US claims, what is happening in Iran does not meet any serious definition of "regime change". "The fundamental structures of the Islamic Republic are intact, and the new leaders are regime loyalists who are arguably more hardline than their assassinated predecessors," he told Al Jazeera. Mohandesi said the war has arguably strengthened the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), something that is an "acceleration of an existing" trend and does not necessarily amount to regime change, "certainly not in the way Trump means it". "Trump's declaration that he has succeeded in 'regime change' is just a rhetorical move to try to claim victory where none exists," he added. Proxy Group Support Three days before the war began during his State of the Union address to the US Congress, Trump accused Iran and "its murderous proxies" of spreading "nothing but terrorism and death and hate". The US and Israel have long demanded Iran stop supporting its nonstate allies – primarily Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen and a number of groups in Iraq. Tehran to date has refused to enter into any dialogue about limiting its support for these armed groups. But on Friday, Trump claimed Iran had agreed to almost all of the US demands, including support for its proxies. A statement by Iran's Ministry of Foreign Affairs rejected that any such agreement was in place, saying: "The Americans talk excessively and create noise around the situation. Do not be misled!" Prospects for a Breakthrough On Sunday, Iran's top negotiator and speaker of its parliament, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, acknowledged that while "conclusions" had been reached on some issues, "we are far from a final agreement." Analyst Geist Pinfold told Al Jazeera that deep divisions between the US and Iran make a comprehensive deal unlikely in the near term despite some openings created by Trump's shifting positions. "The primary complication that would mean a deal is less likely but also one of the potential curveballs that would make a deal more likely is the Trump administration's equivocations regarding what its red lines actually are," he said. "At the moment, the gaps look insurmountable," Geist Pinfold added, noting that "the best-case scenario would be the extension of the ceasefire rather than the actual deal." The US-Iran talks face major structural obstacles despite growing speculation about a negotiated end to the current crisis, according to Bowdoin College's Mohandesi. "Donald Trump feels that he needs to somehow convert this disastrous defeat into some sort of win," he noted, adding: "It's unclear what that would look like at the negotiating table." On the Iranian side, Mohandesi sees little room for compromise on the core strategic issues. "Iran will absolutely not abandon its missile programme. It will not stop supporting its allies in the region, and it will almost certainly not agree to zero enrichment," he said. The academic questioned whether even a restoration of maritime traffic would constitute meaningful success for Washington. Even if Trump "were to somehow convince Iran to return the Strait of Hormuz to the pre-war status quo, it's unclear how that would be a major win since the strait was open before he started the war", Mohandesi said.