Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

The Gulf region breathed a sigh of relief on Tuesday after Iran and the United States agreed to a two-week truce, halting over five weeks of escalating attacks and hostile rhetoric.However, Gulf states are expressing caution, concerned that the US, seeking a swift exit, might agree to terms granting Iran some control over the Strait of Hormuz, a vital waterway through which one fifth of the world's oil and natural liquefied gas passes.Iran had nearly brought traffic through the strait to a standstill in response to joint US-Israeli attacks on its soil since February 28. Under the truce, Iran has agreed to halt attacks for two weeks in exchange for resumed maritime transit in the key waterway.Despite this, Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries are stressing that any deal must result in a permanent, long-term arrangement to keep the strait open. They fear a weakened yet intact Iranian leadership could use the strait as leverage, leaving them under constant threat of disruption and economic blackmail.“There is a quiet but palpable concern that President Trump, eager for a quick political victory, could tolerate some Iranian leverage over the strait in exchange for a fragile truce, prioritising optics over Gulf realities,” said Hesham Alghannam, a Saudi Arabia-based scholar at the Malcolm H Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center.The GCC countries, which have faced near-daily Iranian missile and drone attacks, have welcomed the truce but emphasize that the Strait of Hormuz must reopen. They are also concerned about Iran's future influence over the strait, with a Bahrain-sponsored UN Security Council resolution calling for countries to use defensive missions to keep the maritime chokepoint open being vetoed by Russia and China.A further escalation could have devastating consequences for the GCC economies, undoing decades of work to make the region a safe hub for finance, tourism, and culture. Analysts say GCC countries have stepped up diplomacy in the lead-up to the conflict, but officials across the region have warned Iran should not mistake their inaction as a sign of weakness.“The Gulf will leave no stone unturned if Iran continues to take the path of aggression,” said Hamad Althunayyan, a political analyst and professor at Kuwait University. “The Gulf expects its interests to be represented, and included, in any deal with Iran.”

Israel's heaviest and deadliest air attacks on Lebanon in years have left the country reeling, with at least 254 people killed and over 1,160 injured. The strikes, which occurred in dozens of locations across Beirut, its suburbs, the south, and the eastern Bekaa Valley, have sparked fears of a rising toll as more victims are recovered from the rubble.The attacks came hours after a Pakistani-negotiated ceasefire between the US and Iran took effect, but Israel and the US argued that Lebanon was not included in the agreement. US President Donald Trump described Lebanon as a 'separate skirmish,' while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed the ceasefire 'does not include Lebanon.'Netanyahu's goal appears to be taking advantage of the fluid situation to maximize operational achievements in Lebanon, according to Dania Arayssi, a senior analyst at New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy. 'He must take into account that a US-Iran deal might include ceasing the war on Iranian proxies, which would greatly complicate the Israeli war effort against Hezbollah in Lebanon.'The conflict escalated in early March when Israel intensified its war on Lebanon, following a salvo of rockets launched by Hezbollah. Since then, over 1,700 people have been killed and more than 1.2 million displaced. Hezbollah has claimed its right to respond to the attacks, affirming that it will resist occupation and respond to aggression.The airstrikes, which included over 100 attacks in fewer than 10 minutes, targeted Hezbollah headquarters and military targets, but many strikes were in densely populated residential areas. Hospitals were overwhelmed, and people were forced to flee their homes, with some attempting to return to their homes in the south amid confusion over Lebanon's inclusion in the ceasefire.'People are afraid,' said Najib Merhe, owner of a restaurant in the Manara neighborhood. 'This kind of situation no one can afford nor endure.'

Vice President JD Vance warned Iran that jeopardising the US‑Iran ceasefire over Lebanon would be "dumb", emphasizing that the United States expects the truce to remain intact despite Tehran’s frustrations. Pakistan, which brokered the two‑week ceasefire, publicly stated that Lebanon is part of the agreement. Vance, speaking to reporters in Hungary, countered that the United States does not consider Israel’s ongoing strikes on Lebanon as covered by the ceasefire. "If Iran wants to let this negotiation fall apart – in a conflict where they were getting hammered – over Lebanon, which has nothing to do with them and which the United States never once said was part of the ceasefire, that’s ultimately their choice," Vance said, adding, "We think that would be dumb, but that’s their choice." Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi echoed Pakistan’s position, highlighting Lebanon in his repost of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s statement and asserting that the ceasefire terms are clear: the US must choose either a ceasefire or continued war via Israel. President Donald Trump and the White House, however, maintain that Lebanon was not part of the deal. Vance dismissed the contradictory messages as a "misunderstanding" and "bad faith propaganda," suggesting the Iranians mistakenly believed Lebanon was included. The lack of a clear explanation from US officials leaves observers questioning how such a misunderstanding could arise amid high‑stakes diplomacy. Israel’s track record of breaching ceasefires dates back to the November 2024 truce with Lebanon. On Wednesday, Israeli air strikes in Lebanon killed at least 254 people and injured more than 1,100, marking one of the deadliest assaults in the 15‑month conflict. Vance indicated that Israel has signaled a willingness to temper its operations in Lebanon, stating the Israelis have "committed to check themselves a little bit in Lebanon" to ensure the US‑Iran negotiations stay on track. The broader conflict intensified in early March after Hezbollah launched rockets in retaliation for Israeli attacks and the killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Hezbollah now faces internal pressure from rival factions accusing it of dragging Lebanon into war on Iran’s behalf. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) issued a stark warning: if Israeli aggression against Lebanon does not cease immediately, the IRGC will deliver a "regretful response" to what it called "evil aggressors" in the region.

Britain has weathered a succession of crises since the 2008 financial collapse— austerity, Brexit, Covid, the Ukraine war and recent political turbulence. Prime Minister Keir Starmer says the war in Iran must become a turning point, forcing the country to build lasting resilience at home and with its European partners.Starmer stresses that the UK’s response to the Iranian aggression has been guided by de‑escalation, diplomacy and the swift reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. While Britain avoided direct offensive action, it intercepted drones, shot down missiles and protected British lives and interests alongside allies who share the same stance.The government’s approach, he explains, is to reduce escalation, work with allies and safeguard economic stability. In a world that is “more volatile and dangerous than at any other point in my lifetime,” such a strategy is presented as essential for protecting British interests.Starmer links global instability to domestic pressures, noting that the same tensions that threaten security also drive up energy prices, disrupt supply chains and strain household finances. To counter this, his administration has capped energy bills and invested heavily in homegrown energy sources, aiming to free the UK from reliance on external gas suppliers.On the defence front, the UK has announced the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War, reinforcing European alliances and expanding military capacity. Parallel to these security measures, the government has launched an ambitious industrial strategy, strengthened workers’ rights and pledged to lift more than half a million children out of poverty through a new child‑poverty programme.Starmer argues that these policies are not isolated reactions but part of a broader shift toward long‑term resilience. By building secure, domestic energy, robust alliances and a stable economy, Britain can “shape its future and deliver on priorities that matter to working people.”He concludes that Britain will not attempt to recreate the pre‑2008 world; instead, it will forge a stronger, more secure, and more resilient nation capable of withstanding future shocks.

Europe is undergoing a significant transformation in its relationship with the US, marked by a growing desire for independence and a shift away from Trump's aggressive policies. The recent crisis in the Middle East, where Trump's threat to annihilate Iranian civilisation was temporarily called off, has been a turning point in this journey. Initially, many European leaders had tacitly supported the US and Israeli attack on Iran, driven by a desire for a transatlantic detente and antipathy towards the Iranian regime. However, as the war escalated, Europe's stance began to shift, with countries like Italy, Poland, and France taking steps to distance themselves from Trump's policies. The cooling of European support for the war has taken various forms, including Italy denying US warplanes permission to use an airbase in Sicily, Poland refusing to send Patriot air defence systems to the Middle East, and France rejecting overflight rights and opposing a US-sponsored resolution at the UN security council. This shift in European policy is driven by a number of factors, including the realisation that the war has been a windfall for Russia, through higher oil prices and a depletion of air defence interceptors available to Ukraine. European leaders have also been reminded that the erosion of international law is bad news for the world, Europe included. As Europe finds its footing in distancing itself from Trump, it may also find its voice. Europe's diplomatic role in the Iranian nuclear file in the early 2000s grew out of its opposition to the Iraq war. Today, the same dynamic could unfold, with Europe promoting a permanent end of hostilities and a multilateral initiative in the region. The proposal by a group of European, Gulf, and Asian countries to contribute to ensuring safe passage through the strait of Hormuz was originally aimed at placating Trump. Europeans then backed a UN-led fertiliser corridor to prevent a food crisis in the global south. The UK is also leading a coalition of more than 40 countries seeking to reopen the strait once the US and Israel definitively end their offensive. If a sustainable reopening of Hormuz succeeds, it could eventually extend to a new nuclear agreement, a non-aggression pact between the US and Iran, and a similar one between Israel and Iran – including Lebanon. It could involve the release of Iranian funds frozen abroad to rebuild infrastructure destroyed by US and Israeli attacks, and the selective lifting of EU and US sanctions.

Iran and the United States each declared a triumph after agreeing to a two‑week ceasefire that was announced just before President Donald Trump’s deadline to force Tehran’s surrender. The conflict, which began on 28 February, has already claimed 2,076 lives in U.S.–Israel strikes on Iran and has caused thousands more deaths across the region. The fighting has also shocked global energy markets, stranding oil tankers and pushing prices to unprecedented levels. Trump announced on Truth Social that the United States would halt bombing Iran after receiving a “workable” 10‑point ceasefire proposal, adding that “almost all of the various points of past contention have been agreed to.” Iran, for its part, said it would reopen the Strait of Hormuz to commercial traffic, even as some citizens denounced the government’s perceived capitulation. Both parties are set to resume Pakistan‑mediated talks in Islamabad on Friday, though analysts warn that earlier red lines may resurface. Key terms of the Tuesday agreement: the United States will suspend air strikes for two weeks, citing that it has already achieved its military objectives and is close to a “definitive agreement concerning long‑term peace.” Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, pledged to halt “defensive operations” and to allow safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz, while also indicating willingness to fund reconstruction from fees collected on transiting ships. Domestic reaction in Iran remains volatile. University of Tehran professor Foad Izadi noted that the public’s pessimism stems from two prior escalations—June’s 12‑day war and the February 28 strikes—both of which occurred amid ongoing negotiations. Earlier demands: The United States had presented a 15‑point plan on 25 March, calling for a 30‑day ceasefire, immediate reopening of the Strait, Iran’s de‑commissioning of its nuclear facilities, a total ban on uranium enrichment, handover of nuclear stockpiles to the IAEA, cessation of support to regional proxies, strict limits on ballistic missiles, and a full lift of sanctions, among other items. Iran responded with a 10‑point proposal that emphasized a non‑aggression commitment from the United States, controlled passage through the Strait, acceptance of its enrichment programme, comprehensive sanctions relief, withdrawal of U.S. combat forces, compensation for war damages via shipping fees, and a binding UN Security Council resolution. Both sides have already made concessions. Iran moved from demanding a permanent ceasefire to accepting a two‑week pause, and it shifted from insisting on reparations to proposing reconstruction funding from Strait fees. The United States, meanwhile, has softened its demand for an “unconditional” Iranian surrender and has not reiterated its earlier insistence on dismantling Iran’s missile capabilities. One of the most contentious issues remains the status of Lebanon. While Pakistan’s prime minister said the ceasefire would extend to Lebanon, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu denied any such inclusion, and Israel launched a major bombing campaign in Beirut shortly thereafter, killing hundreds. Looking ahead, analysts highlight that the United States is unlikely to concede on the complete withdrawal of its roughly 50,000 troops stationed across 19 Middle Eastern sites—a demand Tehran has placed on the table. The outcome of the upcoming talks will hinge on whether Washington can accommodate Tehran’s broader political and economic requests without compromising its strategic objectives.

President Donald Trump has stated that Lebanon was not included in the ceasefire between the United States and Iran, contradicting Pakistan's claim that the truce covers the entire region. This development comes after Israel launched a massive assault on Lebanon, resulting in hundreds of casualties in densely populated areas.Trump described the Israeli conflict with Hezbollah as a “separate skirmish,” indicating that the US-Iran agreement does not extend to Lebanon due to Hezbollah's presence. “Because of Hezbollah, they were not included in the deal,” he told PBS. “That’ll get taken care of, too. It’s all right.”The exclusion of Lebanon from the truce risks jeopardizing the ceasefire across the region. Iranian news outlets have reported that Tehran may take serious steps in response to the Israeli attacks, including potentially suspending oil tanker passage through the Strait of Hormuz. However, Iranian officials have not confirmed these reports.Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif had announced that the two-week truce covers the entire region, specifically mentioning Lebanon. However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asserted that attacks against Lebanon would continue, despite the US-Iran agreement.Israel's recent assault on Lebanon has compounded the humanitarian and displacement crises, with over 1.2 million people forced to flee their homes. The attacks included a strike on a funeral in the Bekaa Valley town of Shmestar, killing at least 20 people. Lebanon’s Prime Minister Nawaf Salam called on the international community to intervene and end the aggressions.

Shell is poised to report a substantial increase in profits from its commodity trading activities in the first quarter, driven by recent market volatility sparked by the Iran crisis. The energy giant's chemicals and products unit, which encompasses its primary oil trading desk, is expected to see a significant boost in trading results.The company's trading windfall is particularly notable in its renewable energy division, with predicted earnings ranging from $200m to $700m in the first quarter, up from approximately $100m in the previous quarter. This surge is attributed to the historic price rises in oil and gas markets following Iran's retaliation to US-Israeli aggression, which included throttling energy trade through the Strait of Hormuz and launching strikes against key energy infrastructure in the Gulf region.However, Shell's gas production is expected to decline by about 5% to between 880,000 and 920,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day, compared to 948,000 in the fourth quarter, due to the impact of the Middle East conflict on its assets in Qatar. A strike damaged Shell's assets at the Ras Laffan liquified natural gas (LNG) complex in Qatar, contributing to the expected decline.Despite these challenges, Shell's boss, Wael Sawan, has warned that Europe could face an energy and fuel shortage in April without a reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. The company is working with governments to address the oil and gas supply crisis, which has already led to energy rationing in some Asian countries.

Russia and China have exercised their veto power in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to block a resolution aimed at safeguarding commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. The draft resolution, proposed by Bahrain, garnered support from 11 of the 15 UNSC members, with two abstaining.The vetoes by Russia and China were based on their assertion that the measure was biased against Iran. The resolution sought to encourage affected states to coordinate defensive efforts to ensure the safety and security of navigation across the strait.The Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway through which a fifth of global oil and gas shipments pass, has effectively been blockaded after Iran threatened to attack vessels in response to the conflict with the United States and Israel. This blockade has led to soaring fuel prices worldwide and prompted some countries, particularly in Asia, to impose consumption restrictions and ration supplies.The US Ambassador to the UN, Mike Waltz, condemned the vetoes, calling them a 'new low'. He argued that Iran's actions were preventing medical aid and supplies from reaching humanitarian crisis zones in the Congo, Sudan, and Gaza.France expressed regret over the vetoes, stating that the aim was to promote 'strictly defensive measures' to ensure security in the strait without escalating tensions. Russia and China, however, argued that the resolution was biased against Iran and proposed an alternative resolution on the Middle East situation, including maritime security.Iran's UN Ambassador, Amir Saeid Iravani, praised the Russian and Chinese moves, saying they prevented the Security Council from being used to 'legitimize aggression'.