Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

The LeadThe $2 billion weekly spent on the Iran war could have funded a UN humanitarian plan to save 87 million lives, according to Tom Fletcher, head of the UN's humanitarian agency. Fletcher warned that the normalization of violent language from world leaders encourages "wannabe autocrats" worldwide to use similar threats and tactics.The Humanitarian Funding CrisisFletcher, the undersecretary-general for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief coordinator, described a catastrophic humanitarian aid funding crisis amounting to a 50% cut in his budget. His entire target for a hyper-prioritised plan to save 87 million lives is $23 billion, yet he's about $10 billion short of this target.The Financial Trade-Off"For every day of this conflict, $2bn is being spent," Fletcher stated. "We could have funded that [humanitarian plan] in less than a fortnight of this reckless war. Now, of course, we cannot." The war in Iran is having ripple effects globally, with food and fuel inflation reaching close to 20%, which will push more people into poverty in sub-Saharan Africa and east Africa for years to come.Global Political ImplicationsFletcher criticized the normalization of violent language from leaders like Trump, who threatened to "bomb Iran back to the stone ages." He warned this gives freedom to other autocrats worldwide to use similar language and tactics targeting civilian infrastructure, breaching international law. Fletcher described UN relations with the Trump administration as "an absolute rollercoaster ride" and noted the administration's "real-estatecraft" approach differs significantly from traditional statecraft.The Future of Humanitarian AidFletcher revealed he's struggling with whether to accept US aid funding that comes with new conditions on issues like abortion or transgender rights. "The question is do we take that money under those conditions, knowing that it will save millions of lives or not?" He also criticized the UK for forming a "circular firing squad" for over a decade, leaving the country in a "defensive crouch" and undermining its historical leadership in humanitarian aid.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney told the nation that the country’s long‑standing economic dependence on the United States is now a “weakness” that must be corrected. In a ten‑minute video address he pledged to diversify trade, boost clean‑energy investment and reduce the uncertainty created by recent U.S. tariff hikes. Key Developments Carney labeled the U.S. tariff regime – described as “levels last seen during the Great Depression” – a direct threat to Canada’s auto and steel sectors. He announced a government push to attract new foreign investment and to double Canada’s clean‑energy capacity. A review of the current North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) involving Canada, the U.S. and Mexico is scheduled for July 2026. Carney pledged regular updates on diversification efforts and highlighted increased defence spending, tax reductions and affordable‑housing measures. Data & Market Impact U.S. tariff increases have raised import duties on Canadian steel and autos by an estimated 15‑20%, squeezing profit margins for manufacturers. Industry surveys indicate that 30% of Canadian firms are delaying capital projects due to “the pall of uncertainty” surrounding U.S. trade policy. Carney’s diversification target aims to raise non‑U.S. foreign direct investment (FDI) by US$10 billion over the next three years. Why This Matters Businesses: Auto, steel and resource companies face higher costs and may seek alternative supply chains. Investors: A shift toward diversified trade partners could open new equity and bond opportunities in clean‑energy and infrastructure projects. Consumers: Reduced reliance on U.S. imports may stabilize prices for goods currently affected by tariff spikes. Regional impact: Provinces with heavy manufacturing bases (Ontario, Alberta) are most exposed, while Atlantic provinces could benefit from new trade links with Europe and Asia. Expert Insight Carney’s background as a former governor of both the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England gives him credibility on macro‑economic risk. His warning reflects a broader trend among middle‑power economies to hedge against protectionist shocks. By positioning diversification as a security issue, he aligns economic policy with national defence, signalling to both domestic audiences and foreign partners that Canada is ready to negotiate on more equal terms. What Happens Next The July NAFTA review will test whether the trilateral pact can be re‑balanced to give Canada more bargaining power. Negotiations with the European Union and potential Pacific‑Asia partners are expected to accelerate in the second half of 2026. Monitoring of U.S. tariff policy will remain critical; any further escalation could trigger emergency trade‑adjustment measures. Stakeholders should watch for quarterly government reports on investment inflows and clean‑energy project pipelines, which will indicate the pace of diversification.

The Executive SummaryThe Trump administration has officially opened the floodgates for a massive financial correction, initiating the refund process for over $166 billion in tariffs imposed under emergency powers. This move follows a landmark Supreme Court ruling that struck down the legal basis for these trade barriers, forcing the executive branch to dismantle a trade policy infrastructure built on shaky legal ground.From Legal Void to Digital InfrastructureThe administration launched the 'Cape' digital claims system on Monday, a necessary response to the February Supreme Court decision. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by Justices Gorsuch and Barrett, ruled that the 1977 emergency statute provided no sweeping authority for the tariffs. Consequently, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) had to construct a new processing infrastructure from scratch, including creating mechanisms for direct deposits that did not previously exist.Processing Capacity and Financial VelocityThe Cape system is designed to handle approximately 63% of affected import filings, with the remainder to follow in subsequent phases. Businesses can expect a processing window of 60 to 90 days from submission to receipt of funds. However, the system faces immediate constraints: it currently processes only entries liquidated or unliquidated within the last 80 days, excluding goods currently tied up in legal disputes or anti-dumping investigations.The Corporate vs. Consumer DivideThe impact of this refund is bifurcated. Legally, only importers and large corporations who paid the tariffs directly are eligible to claim refunds. While companies like FedEx have pledged to pass savings back to customers, skepticism remains. Some consumers are already suing retailers like Costco, arguing that vague promises of future price cuts do not constitute immediate restitution for the costs they absorbed.The Future of Trade EnforcementThe successful execution of this refund program will likely set a precedent for how future executive trade actions are scrutinized. With over 3,000 companies already suing for their refunds, the administration faces immense pressure to process these claims efficiently. The outcome will determine whether the legal victory translates into tangible economic relief for the broader market or remains a bureaucratic exercise for large corporations.

The Lead: Roma's European Dream in Jeopardy Once positioned as Champions League contenders, Roma now finds itself fighting to secure even Europa League qualification under manager Gian Piero Gasperini. The experienced Italian coach, who achieved remarkable success with Atalanta, is facing growing uncertainty as his team's form has dramatically declined, raising questions about his future at the club. The Managerial Turmoil at Roma From the outset of Gasperini's tenure at Roma, there has been resistance. Despite his impressive track record, including leading Atalanta to consistent top-four finishes and Europa League glory in 2024, a section of Roma's supporters opposed his appointment. "Respect our history," read one banner outside the Stadio Olimpico last May. "Don't bring that shit Gasperini to [Roma's training ground at] Trigoria." The tension between Gasperini and the club was acknowledged at his presentation last June, where he sat alongside predecessor Claudio Ranieri, who had moved upstairs to serve as a "senior adviser." Ranieri made headlines this month by suggesting Gasperini was the club's fourth choice for the managerial role, stating he had proposed "five or six" names and that "three of those didn't come." The Performance Decline Roma made an encouraging start under Gasperini and were third in the table as recently as February 27, maintaining a four-point advantage over Juventus after a 3-3 draw. However, since then, everything has unraveled. The team went five games without a win across all competitions, resulting in elimination from the Europa League by Bologna. While they secured a 1-0 victory over Lecce, they were subsequently crushed 5-2 by Inter. By the time Roma faced Gasperini's former club, Atalanta, they had fallen to sixth place in the Serie A table, with Juventus, Napoli, and Como all overtaking them. This dramatic decline has placed European qualification in jeopardy and intensified scrutiny on the manager. The Statistical Reality Despite the managerial changes—Roma has had eight different managers in eight years—the club's results have remained remarkably consistent. This season's team has 58 points after 33 games, nearly identical to the 57 points they had at the same stage last season. Looking back further, Roma accumulated 58 points in each of the three preceding years, 56 in 2020-21, 57 in 2019-20, and 55 in 2018-19. This statistical stagnation stands in stark contrast to the 2017-18 season under Eusebio Di Francesco, when Roma finished third and reached the Champions League semi-finals. The current trajectory suggests that despite Gasperini's reputation for developing teams, Roma is struggling to break through to the next level. Impact on Italian Football Roma's struggles reflect broader challenges in Italian football, where even historically significant clubs find it difficult to maintain consistent competitiveness in European competitions. The club's inability to progress despite frequent managerial changes raises questions about the structural and strategic issues at the club. Gasperini's situation also highlights the complex nature of football management, where external factors like ownership changes and internal politics can impact performance. His emotional press conference, where he became emotional discussing his time at Atalanta, revealed the personal investment he has made in this role. The Road Ahead for Gasperini and Roma With the season approaching its conclusion, Gasperini faces a critical period. If Roma fails to secure Champions League qualification, his position will become increasingly untenable. The club's ownership must decide whether to continue with a manager who has brought stability but not the breakthrough they hoped for, or to make another change in pursuit of different results. For Gasperini, this season represents a significant test of his ability to adapt his successful Atalanta formula to a bigger club with different expectations and pressures. Regardless of the outcome, his experience has provided valuable insights into the challenges of managing one of Italy's most prestigious football clubs.

Key Developments Manchester City – Gianluigi Donnarumma recovered from a costly error to keep City’s title chase alive in a 2‑1 win over Arsenal. Liverpool – Midfielder Curtis Jones started the Merseyside derby at right‑back, showcasing the club’s tactical flexibility. Tottenham Hotspur – Manager Roberto De Zerbi placed renewed faith in Xavi Simons after a standout performance against Brighton. Chelsea vs Manchester United – The debate over youth prospect Ayden Heaven’s £1‑1.5m fee versus Alejandro Garnacho’s £40m price tag highlighted contrasting recruitment philosophies. Newcastle United – Eddie Howe faces pressure after a £220m summer spend fails to translate into results, with recent defeats to Bournemouth exposing squad depth issues. Data & Market Impact The weekend’s results tightened the title race: City’s win moved them to 68 points, just 2 points ahead of Liverpool. Tottenham’s draw left them 5 points behind the top four, while Newcastle’s loss kept them in the relegation zone with 15 points from 12 games, underscoring the financial risk of their £220m transfer outlay. Why This Matters These talking points illustrate how individual performances and strategic decisions ripple through the league: Goalkeeper reliability remains a decisive factor in title battles, as seen with Donnarumma’s redemption. Liverpool’s willingness to repurpose players like Jones signals a shift toward squad versatility, crucial for a congested fixture schedule. Tottenham’s dependence on a single young talent highlights the fine line between nurturing potential and over‑reliance. Newcastle’s overspend raises questions about sustainable financial models for newly promoted clubs. Expert Insight Analysts note that Guardiola’s tolerance for a high‑risk keeper reflects a broader trend: elite clubs prioritize distribution skills over traditional shot‑stopping. Liverpool’s experiment with Jones at full‑back aligns with Jürgen Klopp’s evolving high‑press system, where positional fluidity can offset injuries. De Zerbi’s public backing of Simons is a calculated psychological move; confidence from the manager often translates into measurable performance spikes for young attackers. Finally, Newcastle’s transfer strategy illustrates the danger of “spending to catch up” without a clear tactical framework – a lesson echoed by clubs that have successfully integrated data‑driven recruitment. What Happens Next Looking ahead, the next round will test whether City can maintain composure under pressure, while Liverpool’s back‑line flexibility will be scrutinised against stronger opposition. Tottenham must find a secondary creative outlet if Simons faces a dip in form. Newcastle’s board is expected to reassess the squad’s wage structure and possibly offload under‑performing assets before the January window, aiming to stabilize both finances and league position.

The Decisive Manchester City Victory Over ArsenalOn 19 April 2026, Manchester City delivered a "huge win" against Arsenal at the Etihad Stadium, effectively taking control of the Premier League title race. The Football Weekly podcast broke down whether the result was a City triumph or an Arsenal collapse.Key Match Moments and Tactical HighlightsErling Haaland vs Gabriel: the panel debated whether the physical clash was the ultimate "man‑off" of the game.Near‑misses from Eberechi Eze and Kai Havertz that could have altered the scoreline.City’s attacking fluidity created multiple clear‑cut chances, while Arsenal struggled to convert.Points Shift and Table ImpactThe win moved City 3 points clear at the top of the table, widening the gap on Arsenal and forcing the Gunners into a must‑win scenario for their remaining fixtures.Broader Implications for the Title RaceWith City now in control, the race tightens for other contenders. Tottenham’s late concession to Brighton, Nottingham Forest’s surge, and Leeds’ safety push were also discussed, highlighting how a single result can ripple through the league.Looking Ahead: What the Rest of the Season HoldsThe panel forecasted a tense finish: City must maintain consistency, Arsenal needs to respond quickly, and mid‑table clubs will fight for European spots while the relegation battle intensifies. Upcoming fixtures, especially the clash between Manchester United and Chelsea, could further reshape the standings.

The Radical Deconstruction of the PianoAnnea Lockwood’s career is defined by a playful yet profound interrogation of the instrument. In 1968, she initiated 'Piano Burning,' an experiment where she set pianos alight to capture the chaotic, metallic sounds of wood splitting and strings snapping. This was followed by 'Piano Garden' (1969), where she buried pianos to observe how the sound changed as plants grew through the mechanisms. These works, alongside 'Piano Drowning,' established her as a pioneer of environmental sound art.Measuring the Resonance of DestructionWhile Lockwood’s work is conceptual, its impact is quantifiable through the longevity and influence of her recordings. Her 1975 masterpiece 'World Rhythms,' which collages geysers, earthquakes, and human biorhythms, is receiving a new expanded release. Furthermore, her 'Sound Map of the Danube' and the recent 'On Fractured Ground' recordings of Belfast’s peace walls demonstrate a vast scope of sonic documentation. Her influence is measurable in the continued interest from modern artists, such as the experimental rap trio Clipping, who cited her 'Piano Burning' as a major inspiration.Shifting the Paradigm of Environmental SoundLockwood’s work fundamentally shifted the music industry's approach to 'field recording.' By treating environmental noise—whether a burning piano or a quiet garden—as a valid musical instrument, she validated the aesthetics of instability and unrecognizability. Her collaboration with composer Ruth Anderson and mentor Pauline Oliveros also highlights a shift towards community-based and improvisational music practices, emphasizing the connection between human experience and the natural environment.The Enduring Legacy of Sonic ExplorationAs Lockwood prepares new releases and revisits her past, her legacy suggests a future where the line between music and environmental documentation continues to blur. Her recent work, 'For Ruth,' which blends field recordings with archival phone calls, indicates a trend toward deeply personal, archival sound art. We can expect a resurgence of interest in her early 'sound maps' as the field of acoustic ecology grows, cementing her status as a foundational figure for the next generation of sound artists.

The Lead Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman has accused the United States of violating a ceasefire agreement through the seizure of a shipment, escalating tensions between the two nations amid ongoing diplomatic negotiations. The Diplomatic Accusation The Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman made the formal accusation during a press conference on April 20, 2026, claiming that the US seizure of a shipment constituted a direct violation of the recently established ceasefire terms between the two countries. The spokesman emphasized that the action undermines fragile diplomatic efforts and could potentially derail ongoing negotiations. International Response The accusation comes at a critical juncture in US-Iran relations, with international observers closely monitoring developments. Regional powers and global diplomatic bodies have yet to issue official statements, though some analysts suggest this incident could strain already fragile diplomatic channels. Geopolitical Implications This development occurs against a backdrop of heightened tensions in the Middle East, with both nations navigating complex regional dynamics. The seizure of the shipment and subsequent accusation could potentially affect maritime security in the region and influence other nations' foreign policy decisions regarding both Iran and the United States. Future Outlook Diplomatic experts suggest that this incident may prompt Iran to reconsider its engagement with the US in multilateral forums. The coming weeks will be critical in determining whether this accusation leads to further escalation or if diplomatic channels can be preserved to address underlying concerns.

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.