Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Energy prices in the United States have continued to surge, even after President Donald Trump's administration issued a 60-day waiver of the Jones Act, a maritime law that restricts foreign-flagged vessels from transporting goods between US ports.The waiver, which came into effect on March 18, was intended to alleviate pressure on energy supplies by allowing more foreign vessels to transport goods domestically. However, experts say the impact on oil prices has been negligible, with oil prices rising 4 percent on the day amid a US blockade of Iranian ports.“It is estimated that it’s going to be about 3 cents on the East Coast and it might go up on the Gulf Coast, but these changes are so small that they’re overshadowed by the spikes in oil prices, and the oil prices keep going up,” said Usha Haley, a professor of management at Wichita State University.The Containerized Freight Index, a benchmark for shipping container costs, has jumped more than 10 percent over the last month and is up more than 35 percent from this time last year. The average price of gas in the US has also increased to $4.125 per gallon, up from $3.63 at this time last month.Despite the waiver, shippers have adapted their routes, with more than 34,000 ships diverting from the Strait of Hormuz over the past month. Major vessel insurers have also cancelled war risk coverage for ships travelling through the waterway, dissuading ship owners from going through the Gulf.Experts predict that fuel prices will only normalise once traffic through the strait returns to pre-war levels. The ongoing conflict and disruptions to transit through the Strait of Hormuz have contributed to the sustained high energy prices.

In a forceful statement released on Monday, a panel of 13 United Nations experts demanded that Israel halt all attacks on displaced Palestinians sheltering in Gaza and cease the accelerating forced‑displacement campaign in the occupied West Bank. Israeli air strikes in March set fire to tents housing Gaza’s internally displaced people, causing numerous fatalities, the experts noted, describing the tactic as part of a broader strategy to make life untenable for Palestinians. “This cycle of displacement, terror, and targeted attacks serves an ultimate purpose: to make life unbearable for Palestinians and permanently force them from their land,” the panel declared, underscoring the systematic nature of the violence. The experts warned that the targeting of makeshift shelters violates international humanitarian law and amounts to a grave breach, given that the majority of Gaza’s population has already endured multiple forced transfers. Beyond the immediate danger of bombardment, civilians living in tents face severe health threats—including hunger, exposure to freezing temperatures, flooding, and a lack of basic services. Women and children, the panel stressed, bear a disproportionate share of deprivation. Turning to the West Bank, the panel condemned what it described as a “sharp escalation in forced displacement” driven by the Israeli army and “state‑backed settler terrorism.” Daily attacks have resulted in killings, injuries, and the widespread destruction of homes, farmland, and livelihoods. According to a 2025 report from the UN Human Rights Office, more than 36,000 Palestinians have been forcibly displaced amid the expansion of illegal settlements, a figure the experts say illustrates a broader policy of ethnic cleansing across the occupied Palestinian territory. The panel urged Israel to end all forced‑displacement activities in the West Bank and to facilitate the safe return of those uprooted. It also called on the international community to uphold its legal obligations, launch independent investigations, and refrain from providing assistance that could enable the continuation of the occupation. The 13‑member panel includes UN special rapporteurs such as Francesca Albanese (occupied Palestinian territory), Paula Gaviria Betancur (rights of internally displaced persons), Michael Fakhri (right to food), and Reem Alsalem (violence against women and girls).

Senator Bernie Sanders declared on Monday that he will force a vote later this week on a resolution designed to stop the sale of nearly $500 million in bombs and bulldozers to the Israeli military. The procedural maneuver bypasses the Senate majority leader, signaling a direct challenge to the administration’s policy of unconditional support for Israel.Sanders framed the measure as a response to what he described as the "extremist Netanyahu government" responsible for alleged genocide in Gaza, arguing that American taxpayers should not fund further military operations that exacerbate civilian suffering.While the Republican‑controlled Senate is unlikely to approve the resolution, the vote will serve as a barometer of Democratic sentiment toward Israel, especially as anger over the U.S.–Israel war on Iran and ongoing atrocities in Gaza and the West Bank intensifies.Last year, Sanders introduced a comparable bill that was defeated 27‑70. At that time, a majority of Senate Democrats had supported the effort, reflecting an erosion of the once‑solid bipartisan consensus backing Israel.Public opinion data underscores this shift: a February Gallup poll found that only 46 % of Americans hold favourable views of Israel, and a mere 17 % of Democratic respondents say they sympathise more with Israelis than Palestinians.Since the conflict began, the United States has provided Israel with over $21 billion in military assistance during the first two years of the Gaza war, a figure that critics argue fuels continued violence.Adding pressure from the advocacy side, liberal Zionist organization J Street issued its first call to phase out U.S. aid to the Israeli military, citing the combined impact of the Gaza war, rising extremist activity in the West Bank, and the U.S.–Israel confrontation with Iran.J Street urged Washington to consistently apply existing legal restrictions—such as the Leahy Law—that prohibit security assistance to countries implicated in human‑rights abuses, a standard it says has been routinely overlooked in Israel’s case.The upcoming Senate vote, therefore, not only tests the durability of the U.S.–Israel security partnership but also reflects a broader reevaluation of American foreign‑policy priorities amid a volatile Middle‑East landscape.

High-level talks between the United States and Iran ended without an agreement in Islamabad, Pakistan, on Sunday. The breakdown leaves a fragile two-week ceasefire as the only barrier between diplomacy and a return to war. Pakistan, which played a key role in bringing both sides to the negotiating table, remains committed to facilitating further dialogue.The talks, the highest-level direct engagement between Washington and Tehran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, stalled over differences surrounding Iran's nuclear program. The US insisted on a commitment from Iran that it would not seek a nuclear weapon, while Iran's Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, accused the US of 'maximalism' and shifting demands.Despite the setback, Pakistan's Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, Ishaq Dar, emphasized that Pakistan will continue to play a role in facilitating engagements and dialogue between the two nations. Iranian officials, including Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, also expressed optimism about the potential for future talks.The immediate threat to the ceasefire comes from the evolving situation in the Strait of Hormuz and Lebanon. Iran has warned that continued Israeli strikes on Lebanon could render negotiations meaningless, while the US has announced a blockade in the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran controls and uses as a key negotiating lever.Analysts say Pakistan's role is crucial in preventing a prolonged conflict, but its economic fragility and limited leverage constrain its ability to impose outcomes. Pakistan's Prime Minister, Shehbaz Sharif, and Chief of Army Staff, Field Marshal Asim Munir, have been praised by both Trump and Iranian officials for their efforts to secure the ceasefire and host the talks in Islamabad.

An Israeli air attack targeted a group of men gathered outside a school in Deir el-Balah, central Gaza, killing at least three people. The incident occurred as Israeli forces arrested at least 30 Palestinians in raids across several cities and towns in the occupied West Bank.Medics at Al-Aqsa Hospital reported the killings, with the bodies of the victims laid out in white shrouds outside the hospital's morgue. Relatives and friends gathered to bid farewell, with some kissing the victims' foreheads before holding special prayers.The Israeli military did not immediately comment on the airstrike. The killings took place as mediators met with leaders from the Palestinian group Hamas to bolster a fragile ceasefire brokered by the United States, which began last October.The ceasefire has been marred by violence, with over 750 Palestinians killed since it took effect. Hamas fighters have killed four Israeli soldiers, and both sides have traded blame for violations.Israeli forces have also been accused of moving yellow concrete markers westwards in Gaza, which Palestinians say is an attempt to expand a depopulated zone. Israel denies this.In the West Bank, the Palestinian Prisoners Media Office reported that two children and some freed detainees were among those arrested in the raids. The military operations included searches of homes and property damage.The conflict has resulted in significant casualties, with over 72,000 Palestinians killed in Israel's war on Gaza, which began in October 2023. In the occupied West Bank, at least 1,133 Palestinians have been killed, 11,700 others wounded, and nearly 22,000 arrested.The International Court of Justice has declared Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory illegal and called for the evacuation of all settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

The United States has imposed a naval blockade on Iranian ports, escalating tensions between the two countries. The blockade, announced by President Donald Trump, aims to restrict Iran's access to international trade and oil exports.Iran's Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson, Esmaeil Baghaei, criticized the move, stating that it would only harm the international economy. "Can an illegal 'war of choice' be won through a 'revenge of choice' against the global economy?!" he posted on social media.Trump warned Iranian military ships against approaching the blockade zone, stating that they would be "immediately ELIMINATED" if they came close. The blockade, which came into effect on Monday, risks setting the stage for a major escalation that could fray a two-week ceasefire between the two countries.The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) centre announced that the US blockade would apply "without distinction" to ships engaging with Iranian ports and oil terminals. The restrictions encompass the entirety of the Iranian coastline, including the ports and energy infrastructure.Iranian officials have accused the US of violating the truce by allowing Israel to continue to bomb and conduct a ground invasion in Lebanon. Pakistan, which mediated the ceasefire, had said all regional fronts – including Lebanon – were part of the deal.While Trump's move to blockade Iran's ports could hamper the already ailing Iranian economy, it is unlikely to loosen the Iranian grip on Hormuz or bring down energy prices. The average price of one gallon of petrol in the US is now more than $4.12, up from less than $3 before the war began.Iran has promised to defend its territorial waters, saying the naval siege amounts to "piracy". The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRG) also warned that if fighting were to resume, Iran would introduce new capabilities to the battlefield.

Peter Magyar, the leader of the Tisza party, announced a comprehensive reform agenda hours after his coalition was declared the winner of Hungary’s parliamentary election, ending Viktor Orban’s 16‑year rule. He emphasized that his government will work to restore the rule of law, plural democracy and a system of checks and balances that he says were eroded under the previous administration.At a news conference, Magyar detailed plans for a new anti‑corruption office and a separate body to oversee government spending, aiming to curb the graft that plagued the former regime. He also announced a constitutional amendment that will limit future prime ministers to two terms, a direct response to Orban’s repeated changes to the constitution designed to extend his hold on power.Regarding foreign policy, Magyar pledged that Hungary will remain a committed member of both the EU and NATO, describing these alliances as essential guarantees of peace. He vowed to phase out dependence on Russian oil and gas by 2035 and to pursue a cooperative, rather than confrontational, dialogue with Brussels.The new government is expected to unlock roughly €18 billion in EU funding, and Magyar highlighted that the parliamentary shift could also release a €90‑billion loan package for Ukraine that Orban had blocked a month earlier.Magyar’s position on Ukraine is nuanced. He called the country “the victim in the war” and said he would press President Vladimir Putin to end hostilities, yet he maintained that “fast‑tracking Ukraine’s EU accession is completely out of the question while the war continues.” He added that the restoration of ethnic Hungarian minority rights in Ukraine would be a precondition for deeper ties.On trans‑Atlantic relations, Magyar affirmed that the United States remains “a very important partner” and expressed a desire for “good relations” with the Trump administration, noting the recent visit of U.S. Vice President JD Vance to Budapest.Domestically, Magyar called on President Tamas Sulyok to expedite the transfer of power and urged the president to resign, reminding readers that the president must convene a new parliament within 30 days, after which lawmakers will elect the new prime minister.

The ongoing conflict between the US and Iran has led to a sharp increase in crude prices, driving up fuel costs and placing strain on households worldwide. In the six weeks since the US and Israel launched strikes on Iran, oil prices have risen sharply, with the main international benchmark surging more than 8 percent to top $103 a barrel.However, the price of oil is more complicated than any one figure and depends on where you look. The oil trade can be broadly divided into two distinct markets: physical sales and contracts for future oil deliveries, known as futures.Since the start of the war and Iran's effective blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, prices in these markets have diverged substantially – reflecting what analysts say is a growing mismatch between perceptions of supply and the reality on the ground. Dated Brent hit an all-time high of more than $144 a barrel – about $35 above the price of Brent futures.The principal benchmark for spot prices is Dated Brent, a basket of four grades of oil produced in the North Sea and one produced in the US. It reflects the per-barrel price of oil scheduled for shipment in the next 10 to 30 days. On the other hand, Brent futures are financial derivatives that reflect the price of oil due to be loaded months or even years from now.The futures price is the price most commonly found in news reports and search engine results. However, the gap between spot and futures prices has widened well beyond what is typical since the conflict began, indicating that oil supplies are becoming increasingly scarce on the ground.Analysts say traders have been betting on a resolution to the crisis down the track, with the return of price stability depending on Iran easing its control over the strait and shipping companies gaining confidence that it is safe to transit. The global economy is still facing a daily shortfall of about 8 million barrels of oil, according to a recent estimate by market intelligence provider Kpler.

President Donald Trump has signaled that the U.S. Navy will enforce a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, targeting any vessel that has paid a toll to Iran. The announcement sent oil futures soaring past $100 per barrel on Monday, reviving fears of a deeper global energy crisis. U.S. Central Command later clarified that the operation would focus on ships entering or leaving Iranian ports, a narrower scope than the initial threat to shut the entire strait. Nonetheless, experts say the move would still choke a critical chokepoint in world oil supply. "Anything that removes oil from the market pushes prices higher, which in turn lifts gasoline costs," explained Trita Parsi, co‑founder of the Quincy Institute. He warned that if Iran’s allies, notably the Houthis in Yemen, retaliate by closing the Bab al‑Mandeb strait, oil could surge above $150 a barrel. Bab al‑Mandeb serves as an alternative route for Gulf oil to reach the Red Sea and Indian Ocean. Its closure would compound the disruption already caused by the Hormuz threat. Since the start of the U.S.–Israeli conflict on February 28, Iran has limited traffic through Hormuz, allowing only a handful of vetted ships. Windward estimates that about 3,200 vessels were stranded west of the strait as of Saturday. Former chief economist Anas Alhajji of NGP Energy Capital Management expects non‑Iranian carriers to avoid the strait regardless of U.S. assurances, citing rising insurance premiums and the risk of Iranian retaliation. "The Trump blockade of Iranian ports is effectively a blockade of the Hormuz Strait," he told Al Jazeera. The ripple effects extend beyond fuel. Higher oil and gas prices will lift the cost of chemicals, fertilizers and plastics feedstocks, analysts say. Cameron Johnson, senior partner at Tidalwave Solutions, predicts a rapid increase in raw‑material prices if the blockade persists into late April or early May. "The wild card is the timeframe," Johnson noted. "If it’s a short‑term negotiating tactic, the market may absorb it, but a prolonged blockade will spike global commodity prices." Supply‑chain experts warn of broader repercussions. Deborah Elms of the Hinrich Foundation highlighted that rising fabric costs and packaging shortages could strain food production and consumer goods later in the year. Industry observer Chad Norville of Rigzone said the mere threat erodes confidence in the strait’s stability, likely driving up insurance costs and reducing daily trade volumes. In sum, a U.S. blockade of Iranian ports would mark a stark reversal of recent policy, which had briefly eased sanctions to alleviate the energy crunch. The potential escalation underscores how geopolitical moves can quickly translate into higher energy bills and broader economic strain worldwide.