Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

While the two‑week pause in the US‑Israel campaign against Iran remains uncertain, one constant is clear: Donald Trump lacks a concrete plan, but Benjamin Netanyahu does. The war’s stated aim – to cripple Iran’s state capacity – is only a stepping stone toward a larger vision of a Greater Israel. For Israel’s right‑wing, the phrase often evokes a purely territorial ambition: enlarging the land Israel claims. History shows this expansionist drive has repeatedly displaced Palestinians, a process that has accelerated dramatically in recent years. Since the war began, Israel has flattened Gaza, killing tens of thousands and reducing the civilian‑inhabitable area to roughly 12 % of its pre‑war size. In the West Bank, a wave of settlement expansion and property destruction rivals the scale of the 1967 conflict. Beyond the occupied territories, Israel has seized parts of Syria and is forging a de‑facto occupation zone in southern Lebanon, with ministers from Religious Zionism, Jewish Power and Likud openly demanding Israeli sovereignty there. Finance minister Bezalel Smotrich even called for an expansion “to Damascus,” and Netanyahu has publicly expressed a deep personal connection to this territorial vision. However, Greater Israel is as much a geopolitical and strategic construct as a land‑grab. Netanyahu’s ambition extends beyond occupying borders; he seeks a regional dominion built on new alliances and hard‑power dependencies. After the October 7 attacks and the ensuing Gaza devastation, Israel’s prospects for Arab‑state normalization stalled. Faced with a choice between a conciliatory approach and a zero‑sum rejection of a Palestinian future, Netanyahu chose the latter, aiming to eliminate Iran as a regional counterweight – a move that inevitably required massive US military involvement. Former Israeli security analysts note that, from the perspective of Sunni Gulf states, a weakened Iran would elevate Israel to the role of “dominant regional power.” Achieving this, according to the article, also means softening the Gulf Cooperation Council (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE) and making them dependent on Israel for security and energy routes. The spill‑over of Iranian drone and missile attacks on GCC infrastructure is portrayed not as an accident but as a calculated element of Israel’s strategy. When the US‑Israel coalition struck Iranian energy sites, Iran retaliated against the Gulf, disrupting global oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz. Netanyahu seized the moment to propose “alternative routes” – oil and gas pipelines that would bypass Hormuz and Bab‑al‑Mandab, ending at Israeli Mediterranean ports. In a meeting with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Netanyahu outlined a “hexagon of alliances” linking India, Arab nations, African states, Greece, Cyprus and other Asian partners, positioning Israel as the central hub. Recent IDF strategy papers echo this, suggesting Israel could achieve “operational control” far beyond its borders without permanent occupation, likening the Middle East to a “jungle” where Israel would become the “queen.” Netanyahu now describes Israel not merely as a “regional superpower” but, in some contexts, as a “global superpower.” He promises the hexagonal alliance will confront a “radical Shia axis” and an “emerging radical Sunni axis,” with Turkey singled out as the next strategic threat. Dismissal of the Greater Israel rhetoric as wartime hyperbole would be misleading. The article warns that a permanent war‑oriented mindset permeates Israel’s political elite, security establishment and media, posing a risk of overreach and regional blowback. Containing this expansive vision may become one of the most pressing post‑war challenges for the Middle East.

Rolls-Royce has secured a significant investment of up to £599m from the UK's national wealth fund to develop the country's first small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). The funding will support Rolls-Royce's design of SMRs at Wylfa on the island of Anglesey, Wales. The investment is expected to create around 1,000 jobs at Rolls-Royce and contribute to the UK's goal of generating electricity without carbon dioxide emissions. The project also offers the potential for a large new export industry in SMRs. The UK government has embraced nuclear energy as a key component of its clean energy strategy, and this investment marks a significant milestone in the development of SMR technology. SMRs aim to produce nuclear power stations in factories, driving down costs and speeding up installation. The Wylfa site has a history of nuclear power generation, having operated from 1971 until 2015. Hitachi had previously attempted to build a new nuclear power station at the site but abandoned its plans in 2020 due to funding issues. The site was later acquired by the state-owned Great British Energy – Nuclear (GBE-N) in 2024. The chancellor, Rachel Reeves, highlighted the importance of the investment, stating that it will strengthen energy security, create skilled jobs, and help build a new generation of homegrown nuclear technology that will power the UK's economy for decades to come. Tufan Erginbilgiç, chief executive of Rolls-Royce, described the investment as a critical milestone for the business and for the UK, marking the beginning of a golden age of new nuclear. The company owns the majority of Rolls-Royce SMR, alongside Qatar's sovereign wealth fund, France's BNF Resources, and the Czech utility CEZ.

The United States’ senior envoy, Vice President JD Vance, said the marathon talks in Islamabad collapsed because Iran would not abandon its nuclear weapons programme, a stance Tehran’s representatives dismissed as a lack of US goodwill. Vance, who departed Islamabad on Sunday after a 21‑hour session with Iranian officials, reiterated that Washington’s red lines required an "affirmative commitment" from Tehran that it would not pursue a nuclear weapon or the means to acquire one quickly. He described the stalemate as "bad news for Iran much more than it is for the United States." Iranian parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf countered that, despite offering "constructive initiatives," the US failed to win the trust of the Iranian delegation, leaving it to Washington to decide whether it can regain that confidence. Iran’s foreign ministry downplayed expectations, stating that no one anticipated a deal in a single session and emphasizing continued regional contacts, while the semi‑official Tasnim news agency blamed "excessive" US demands for the impasse. The talks took place under a 14‑day ceasefire agreed by the US, Iran and Israel, with Pakistan’s foreign minister Ishaq Dar urging both sides to honour the pause and offering to facilitate renewed dialogue. The conflict, which began on 28 February, has already claimed over 3,000 lives in Iran, more than 2,000 in Lebanon, and dozens across the Gulf region, while inflicting extensive infrastructure damage. Israeli security cabinet minister Ze’ev Elkin warned that Iran is "playing with fire," even as he left the door open for further negotiations. These were the first direct US‑Iran talks in more than a decade and could determine the fate of the fragile ceasefire and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz—a chokepoint for roughly 20 % of global energy supplies. The war has already sent international oil prices soaring. In addition to Vance, US special envoy Steve Witkoff and former President Trump’s son‑in‑law Jared Kushner met with Ghalibaf and Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi for two hours before a brief recess. The Iranian delegation arrived in black mourning attire for the late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and carried shoes and bags belonging to children killed in a school bombing near a military compound—a strike the Pentagon says is under investigation, with some reports suggesting US involvement. Pakistani security forces sealed off Islamabad, a city of over two million, underscoring Pakistan’s newly prominent mediating role after a year of diplomatic isolation. The US military announced it was "setting conditions" to clear mines and allow warships to pass through the Strait of Hormuz, a claim Iran’s state media denied. Prior to the talks, a senior Iranian source told Reuters that the US had agreed to release frozen Iranian assets held in Qatar and other banks, a statement the US later denied. Tehran’s broader demands include control over the strait, payment of war reparations, a region‑wide ceasefire—including in Lebanon—and the collection of transit fees from shipping traffic. President Trump’s minimum objectives remain the free passage of global shipping through the strait and the crippling of Iran’s nuclear enrichment capability to prevent the development of an atomic bomb.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has confirmed that his country's technology played a crucial role in shooting down Iranian drones in the Middle East. This development comes after Zelenskyy announced last month that expert teams had been deployed to the region following the outbreak of the United States-Israeli war on Iran.In a recent statement, Zelenskyy revealed that Ukrainian forces participated in operations using domestically produced interceptor drones against 'Shahed' drones, which are similar to those used by Russia during its ongoing conflict with Ukraine.Key highlights of Zelenskyy's statement include:Ukrainian forces successfully destroyed Iranian 'shaheds' in several countries.The operations were not limited to training missions but involved actual support in building modern air defence systems.Ukrainian experts provided crucial advice on strengthening air defence systems in countries that collaborated with them.Zelenskyy expressed optimism about the future, stating that it is only a matter of time before mass production of interceptors capable of destroying drones with jet engines commences.Kyiv has effectively utilized cheap drone interceptors to neutralize Russian drones before they reach their targets. As part of the agreement, Ukraine is receiving weapons to protect its energy infrastructure and, in some cases, financial arrangements.During his recent visits to Gulf nations, including Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates, Zelenskyy signed defence agreements with the UAE, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia.

The Gulf Cooperation Council is reassessing its security model after the brief but intense US‑Israel campaign against Iran. With American bases on Gulf soil turning the region into a target for Tehran’s missile and drone barrage, Gulf capitals are looking to diversify their defence partners beyond the United States. Iran’s lingering missile arsenal and its demand to retain control of the Strait of Hormuz remain the central security dilemma. The strait channels the bulk of Gulf oil trade, and Tehran’s insistence on keeping a foothold there was a sticking point in the cease‑fire talks scheduled to begin in Islamabad. Gulf air defences boasted a high interception rate, claiming to have neutralised more than 90% of the 2,256 drones and 563 missiles that struck the United Arab Emirates, the hardest‑hit member of the bloc. Nevertheless, the Gulf is split on how to engage Iran moving forward. A hawkish bloc led by the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain favours a tougher stance, while Saudi Arabia, Qatar and others are open to restoring diplomatic ties. In a rare development, Saudi Arabia and Iran held their first official conversation since the conflict began, with foreign ministers discussing measures to lower tensions and restore regional stability. Security scholars such as Bader Mousa Al‑Saif of Kuwait University argue that Gulf states must broaden their security network, forging alliances with regional powers like Turkey and Pakistan rather than relying solely on the United States. He warned that the region needs a model that shields it from a perpetual state of war. Pre‑war trends are now accelerating: Saudi Arabia recently signed a defence pact with Pakistan, the UAE announced a partnership with India, and all three Gulf states – Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar – entered rapid defence agreements with Ukraine to counter Iranian drone threats. Talks of a “Muslim NATO” have largely faded, but a new alignment dubbed “Step”, involving Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt and Pakistan, is taking shape. The coalition’s purpose remains ambiguous, oscillating between counter‑Iran and counter‑Israel objectives, and internal rivalries complicate cohesion. The United Kingdom, which helped protect Gulf airspace during the hostilities, is also seeking deeper defence‑industrial cooperation with Saudi Arabia, as discussed by Prime Minister Keir Starmer in Jeddah. UAE political scientist Abdulkhaleq Abdulla predicts tighter security ties with the United States and a growing willingness among Gulf states to engage with Israel on military and intelligence fronts. Analysts such as Yasmine Farouk of the International Crisis Group note that Saudi Arabia’s extensive oil infrastructure, Red Sea ports and sheer geographic size give it a strategic advantage in post‑war reconstruction, though the cost of rebuilding could strain its Vision 2030 diversification agenda. Looking ahead, the Gulf is expected to layer additional security partnerships—particularly with European nations—while investing heavily in air and missile defence, hardened ports, desalination facilities, maritime surveillance and alternative export routes. As Andreas Krieg of King’s College London observes, the United States remains the only power with a full‑scale military architecture in the Gulf, but its bases are increasingly viewed as “tripwires” rather than protective shields.

Saudi Arabia has halted operational activities at several energy facilities due to recent attacks, according to the Saudi Press Agency. The attacks targeted oil, gas, and electricity sites in Riyadh, the Eastern Province, and Yanbu Industrial City.The attacks resulted in the death of one Saudi national from the industrial security personnel of the Saudi energy company, with seven others injured. The attacks have reduced the kingdom's oil production capacity by approximately 600,000 barrels per day.The Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, and Qatar, have faced repeated drone and missile attacks from Iran over recent weeks. These attacks have contributed to increased volatility in the oil market, affecting the security of supply for consuming countries.Oil prices have jumped upward as the world weighs the prospects of a shaky Iran-US ceasefire and possibly the full reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, a vital oil transit point that Iran has effectively blocked during the conflict.The ceasefire, announced by US President Donald Trump, has been placed in doubt due to Israel's ongoing daily attacks on Lebanon and Iran's attacks on the Gulf countries. Several leaders around the world have called for Lebanon to be included in the ceasefire.

The strategic Strait of Hormuz, linking the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman, has become the focal point of the Israel‑U.S. war on Iran that began in February. In peacetime the narrow waterway handled about 20% of global oil and liquefied natural gas shipments without any tolls, but the conflict has turned it into a contested zone. After a series of Israeli and U.S. strikes, Iran retaliated by targeting merchant vessels it deemed hostile, effectively shutting the passage and triggering one of the most severe energy‑distribution crises in recent memory. While a two‑week ceasefire, brokered by Pakistan, was declared on Tuesday, Tehran has issued a set of official terms that would govern the strait moving forward. According to Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghi, safe passage will be allowed in coordination with the Iranian armed forces and subject to technical limitations. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has even published a new navigation map that pushes traffic farther north, away from the traditional route near Oman’s coast, citing the risk of anti‑ship mines. Central to Tehran’s 10‑point peace proposal is the idea of charging fees for strait usage. Iranian media report that the plan could levy up to $2 million per vessel—a sum to be shared with Oman—or a charge of $1 per barrel of oil shipped. The revenue would allegedly fund reconstruction of military and civilian infrastructure damaged by the U.S.–Israeli campaign. Oman has publicly rejected any toll scheme, with Transport Minister Said Al‑Maawali reminding that the country has already signed all relevant international maritime transport agreements that prohibit such fees. International law adds another layer of complexity. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) prohibits levying charges for mere passage through international straits, allowing fees only for services like navigation assistance or port use. Neither the United States nor Iran have ratified UNCLOS, but the principle remains a benchmark for maritime norms. Analysts suggest a possible workaround: charging for de‑mining and safety services rather than for passage itself, which could be permissible under existing legal frameworks. The proposal has sparked diplomatic pushback. At the United Nations Security Council, Bahrain led a resolution urging coordinated reopening of the strait, backed by Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Jordan. The resolution passed with 11 of 15 votes, but was vetoed by Russia and China, who argued it unfairly targeted Iran and ignored the initial strikes. Beyond the region, the United States is unlikely to accept indefinite tolls. Former President Donald Trump, who announced the ceasefire, warned that U.S. forces would remain in the area and threatened to resume attacks if negotiations faltered. American troops are reportedly “hanging around” to assist with traffic buildup, though the extent of their operational control remains unclear. Maritime analyst C. Uday Bhaskar notes that only three to five ships have traversed the strait since the ceasefire began, underscoring the lingering uncertainty for global shippers. He adds that ship owners facing multi‑million‑dollar losses each day may ultimately acquiesce to Iran’s terms, at least temporarily. Should Iran implement a toll regime, the immediate impact would fall on Gulf oil‑producing nations, but the ripple effects could destabilize global energy markets, already strained by supply shocks. Major powers such as the United Kingdom have been coordinating with a coalition of 40 countries to explore alternative mechanisms for reopening the waterway without conceding to tolls. In sum, Iran’s proposed protocol for the Strait of Hormuz introduces a contentious new variable into an already volatile geopolitical landscape, pitting national security interests against established maritime law and the broader stability of world energy supplies.

The global energy crisis has been labeled 'the mother of all crises' by Turkish Energy Minister Alparslan Bayraktar, as tensions in the Strait of Hormuz continue to escalate. The crisis, sparked by Iran's retaliatory blocking of the strait, has significant implications for global energy supplies and security.Bayraktar, in an exclusive interview with Al Jazeera Arabic, highlighted the importance of diversifying energy routes to mitigate the impact of such crises. He noted that Turkey, with its strategic location between Asia and Europe, has become a pivotal country in the region, hosting key pipelines such as the 'Blue Stream' and 'TurkStream'.The minister emphasized that Turkey is well-suited to weather the crisis, with sufficient strategic energy reserves, including gas storage facilities that are 72 percent full, compared to Europe's 28 percent. However, he warned that rising oil and gas prices still burden the state budget, with an increase of $1 per barrel costing Ankara approximately $400 million.Bayraktar also discussed the potential for a new energy architecture to emerge, driven by the need for diversification. He proposed several projects, including the transportation of Turkmen gas across the Caspian Sea to Turkey and Europe, extending the Iraq-Turkey oil pipeline to reach Basra, and constructing a natural gas pipeline from Qatar to Turkey.The crisis has significant economic implications, with oil prices potentially rising to $200 per barrel in a worst-case scenario, which could lead to another global recession. Bayraktar stressed the importance of a lasting peace in the region to stabilize energy markets and prevent further economic damage.

Israel's wave of air attacks on Lebanon has resulted in a significant escalation of violence, with over 250 people killed and 1,165 wounded. The attacks, which occurred just hours after the announcement of a two-week US-Iran ceasefire, have raised concerns about the fragility of the agreement.The Israeli military claimed it was targeting Hezbollah's military infrastructure, but Lebanese officials and aid groups reported that entire neighborhoods were devastated, with hospitals overwhelmed and emergency services struggling to cope. The United Nations described the casualty figures as 'appalling', with its human rights chief Volker Turk calling the destruction 'horrific'.The attacks have exposed major disagreements over the scope of the ceasefire, with the US and Israel claiming it excludes Lebanon, while Iran and Pakistan argue it includes the country. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, whose government helped broker the deal, stated that the ceasefire deal included the halting of attacks on all fronts, specifically mentioning Lebanon.The continuation of Israeli attacks in Lebanon poses a significant threat to the prospects for the ceasefire between the US and Iran. Analysts warn that if Hezbollah continues to be targeted while attacks on Iran remain paused, Tehran could lose both its leverage and credibility within its network of resistance groups.International reaction has largely focused on condemning the scale of the Israeli attacks on Lebanon and calling for Lebanon's inclusion in the ceasefire. Several countries, including Qatar, Egypt, and Turkey, described the attacks as a 'dangerous escalation' and urged the international community to act.