Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told Al Jazeera that Tehran has been exchanging messages with the United States, either directly or via regional partners, as the US‑Israel war on Iran continues. He emphasized that these contacts do not constitute formal negotiations. "I receive messages from US special envoy Steve Witkoff directly, as before, and this does not mean that we are in negotiations," Araghchi said. He added that all communications are routed through the Foreign Ministry or security agencies, and there is no truth to claims of active talks with any US party. Reflecting on past diplomatic experience, Araghchi recalled a previous agreement—referring to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—that the United States later abandoned. "We do not have any faith that negotiations with the US will yield results; the trust level is at zero," he asserted. President Masoud Pezeshkian echoed the skepticism, stating that the US "does not believe in diplomacy" after Iran was attacked twice during prior negotiations. In a phone call with European Council President Antonio Costa, Pezeshkian said Iran possesses the "necessary will" to end the war, but insists on guarantees to prevent further aggression. US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth countered, saying Washington aims to secure a deal that would end the conflict and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, yet remains prepared to "negotiate with bombs" if needed. Addressing the strategic waterway, Araghchi noted that the strait lies within Oman’s and Iran’s territorial waters and can be used strategically. "Only for the ships of those who are at war with us, this strait is closed. That is normal during war," he explained, adding that some nations avoid the route due to security concerns and high insurance costs, while others have negotiated access. He warned that any post‑war arrangement for the strait will be decided jointly by Oman and Iran, with the potential to transform it into a "peaceful waterway." Regarding rumors of a possible US ground operation, Araghchi said Tehran is unafraid: "We are waiting for them. I don’t think they’d dare to do such a thing. There will be a lot of strength waiting for them." He affirmed Iran’s readiness to repel any ground attack. The foreign minister clarified that Iran has neither responded to nor submitted any counter‑proposals to the US 15‑point plan aimed at ending the war. The proposal, according to earlier reports, calls for Iran to renounce the acquisition of nuclear weapons and to limit its missile stockpile in range and quantity. Araghchi concluded that Iran will only accept an end to all attacks in the region, not merely a ceasefire, underscoring the country's firm stance amid ongoing hostilities.

Coordinated strikes by United States and Israeli forces hit Tehran, Isfahan and several other Iranian cities on Tuesday, prompting widespread power outages and extensive damage to civilian sites. The Ministry of Energy confirmed that shrapnel from the raids ruptured a primary power‑transfer line, but the outage was restored within a few hours. Among the most critical targets was the Tofigh Darou pharmaceutical complex in the Karaj industrial zone. The facility, which supplies over 90% of Iran’s domestically produced medicines—including cancer and multiple‑sclerosis treatments—sustained heavy damage from multiple projectiles. In central Iran, Isfahan endured a barrage of heavy bunker‑buster bombs over a nearby mountainous area, likely aimed at military installations. The explosions triggered secondary blasts that illuminated the night sky and produced reverberating shockwaves across the city. North‑west of Tehran, in Zanjan, a building identified as the administrative department of the Hosseinieh Azam religious centre was struck, resulting in at least four fatalities and several injuries. Iranian authorities now claim that more than 2,000 people have been killed by US‑Israeli attacks since the conflict erupted on 28 February, with residential blocks, schools, hospitals and historic sites also affected. Additional targets this week included civilian nuclear facilities, major steel producers, petrochemical plants, and the Iran University of Science and Technology, where an imaging satellite was developed. A professor linked to Iran’s missile programme and his two children were assassinated at their home in northern Tehran. U.S. President Donald Trump reiterated threats to strike Iran’s oil and gas infrastructure, power plants and water‑desalination facilities. Despite the onslaught, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) continues to project defiance. A spokesperson for the Khatam al‑Anbiya Central Headquarters declared that Tehran’s adversaries are “humiliated and on the path of destruction,” while senior commander Ali Fadavi warned that American warships are vulnerable and allegedly transmit false transponder signals. The IRGC also released footage of ballistic missiles aimed at Israel and surrounding nations, and claimed to have downed two U.S. MQ‑9 Reaper drones, promising retaliatory strikes against technology firms linked to the United States and Israel. Domestically, the judiciary announced the execution of two members of the foreign‑based Mojahedin‑e‑Khalq (MEK) group, labeling them terrorists. This follows a series of recent executions tied to the January protests and broader dissent. Authorities also issued new indictments against roughly 200 individuals accused of assisting the U.S. and Israel, including alleged “mercenaries” who disseminated strike footage abroad. Penalties for national‑security offenses now encompass asset confiscation and capital punishment. President Masoud Pezeshkian convened his first cabinet meeting since the war’s onset in a makeshift, blue‑covered space, emphasizing that any peace negotiations will safeguard Iran’s “dignity, security and national interests.” Israel’s Channel 14 reported that Pezeshkian sought greater negotiating leverage with the United States, a request allegedly rebuffed by IRGC chief Ahmad Vahidi.

Islamabad – Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar will travel to Beijing, reaffirming the “all‑weather strategic cooperative partnership” between the two nations, according to the Pakistani Ministry of Foreign Affairs.The visit follows a high‑profile quadrilateral meeting in Islamabad that brought together foreign ministers from Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, all aiming to coax the United States and Iran back to the negotiating table amid a war that has already spiked global energy prices.Despite a recent hairline shoulder fracture, Dar pressed on with the trip, signalling the urgency of Pakistan’s diplomatic push. In a March 27 call, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi praised Islamabad’s “untiring efforts to cool down the situation,” a sentiment echoed by spokesperson Mao Ning, who said China is ready to “enhance communication… for a cease‑fire and peace in the region.”Analysts argue the mission is less about collecting praise and more about testing whether Beijing will move from rhetoric to concrete action in the US‑Iran mediation. The central question: can China become an active partner rather than a silent observer?Former Wilson Center fellow Baqir Sajjad Syed explains that Dar will brief Chinese leaders on the recent Islamabad quadrilateral and seek to turn five draft principles – immediate ceasefire, resumption of talks, civilian protection, maritime security, and UN Charter compliance – into a binding framework.Pakistani scholars view the outreach as classic intermediary behaviour: Pakistan leverages China’s permanent‑member status to stay relevant, while China, unlike the United States, mainly engages with Gulf states and Tehran.Iran specialist Vali Nasr suggested Tehran may be looking for a Chinese “guarantor” for any US‑Iran deal, a premise disputed by professor Ishtiaq Ahmad, who calls the expectation “analytically weak” given China’s reluctance to back a declining regime.The strategic stakes are stark. The Strait of Hormuz moves roughly 20 % of global oil. Kpler data show China imported about 1.38 million barrels per day of Iranian crude in 2025 – roughly 12 % of its total oil imports. The IEA estimates 15 million barrels per day passed through the strait in 2025, with China and India accounting for 44 % of that flow.China‑Iran trade hit about $41.2 billion in 2025, and a 2021 25‑year strategic cooperation pact promised up to $400 billion in Chinese investment for discounted Iranian oil, much of which remains unrealised due to U.S. sanctions.Syed describes China’s motivations as “clear and self‑interested”: protecting energy security, safeguarding Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and China‑Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) projects, and bolstering its image as a global peace broker. A prolonged war would hurt China’s economy through higher oil prices and disrupted trade routes.While Beijing is unlikely to deploy military forces, it may employ diplomatic tools – public endorsements, joint statements, and economic levers – to push for a cease‑fire. Its pragmatic stance means it will weigh the benefits of deeper involvement against the risk of being drawn into a conflict.The diplomatic backdrop includes a postponed Trump visit to Beijing and a slated summit for mid‑May, as well as a future Xi‑to‑U.S. trip, which observers say could signal a broader alignment between the two great powers.Meanwhile, the United States continues to amass forces in the Gulf, with thousands of Marines and Army troops positioned for possible ground operations, underscoring the volatility that Pakistan and China are trying to mitigate.In sum, Dar’s Beijing mission tests whether China will remain a passive supporter or become an active broker in a war that threatens global energy markets and regional stability.

Israeli and U.S. forces launched a series of air strikes on Tuesday that struck Tofigh Daru Research and Engineering Company, one of Tehran’s largest producers of anaesthetics and anti‑cancer medicines. The state‑run firm, owned by the Social Security Investment Company, saw its drug‑production line damaged, according to an official post on X. In the north‑western city of Zanjan, a separate strike hit the Husseiniya Azam, a Shia congregation hall adjacent to a mosque. Iranian Red Crescent teams rescued two people from the rubble; one of the victims died and several others were injured. Further attacks were reported in the western province of Kermanshah, where a civilian contracting company in Qasr‑e Shirin – a border town with Iraq – was hit. One person was killed and eight injured, the Mehr news agency said. Heavy bombing was also confirmed in Isfahan, a strategic hub for Iran’s defence industry and home to key nuclear facilities such as Natanz. Local officials indicated that the strikes may have targeted “military sites,” though the exact locations and damage assessments remain unclear. Iranian officials condemned the operations. Former foreign minister Javad Zarif denounced the targeting of the pharmaceutical plant as a deliberate attack on a medical facility, calling the aggressors “desperate” and accusing them of “diabolical delusions.” Governor‑level security official Akbar Salehi echoed these concerns, noting that the strikes appeared aimed at military installations without specifying which ones. The broader conflict has already claimed 1,937 Iranian lives since the joint U.S.–Israeli campaign began on 28 February, while 20 Israelis have been killed. Recent Israeli interceptions using the Iron Dome and David’s Sling systems have limited damage on Israeli soil, but impact sites were reported in Tel Aviv, Bnei Brak and Petah Tikva. Amid the escalating violence, diplomatic channels remain active. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Al Jazeera that communications between Washington and Tehran continue, primarily through intermediaries, and that the U.S. aims to achieve its war objectives “in weeks, not months.” Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth added that negotiations to end the conflict are “very real, ongoing and gaining strength.” Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) claimed a retaliatory strike, saying it hit an Israeli container ship in the Gulf with a ballistic missile and that Iranian drones targeted a group of U.S. Marines near a UAE military base. Public sentiment in Iran has turned sharply hostile, with pro‑state demonstrations erupting in Tehran as citizens protest the continued air raids. The atmosphere, described by Al Jazeera’s Tohid Asadi as a “cloud of mistrust,” reflects growing frustration over diplomatic dead‑ends and the relentless cycle of attacks.

President Donald Trump is reportedly weighing a request for Arab countries to fund the U.S.–Israel war on Iran, White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday. Leavitt said the president is "quite interested" in calling on regional partners to share the expense.The idea mirrors the financing arrangement of the 1990‑91 Gulf War, when a coalition of Arab and Western nations covered roughly 88% of the $61 billion cost, leaving the United States to foot only about 12%.Trump also hinted that, even if the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, other export‑dependent partners should manage the crisis. The strait carries about 20% of the world’s oil and LNG shipments; its shutdown has pushed Brent crude to **$116 per barrel**, up from pre‑war levels near **$65**.Iran, meanwhile, has demanded that the United States pay reparations to Iranian victims as a precondition for any cease‑fire.So far, there is no clear commitment from Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members—countries that have themselves been hit by Iranian strikes—to finance the conflict. Analysts estimate the total bill could run into tens of billions of dollars, though exact figures remain uncertain.Experts note a shift in regional attitudes: GCC states opposed the war before it began and continue to call for diplomacy, according to Zeidon Alkinani of the Arab Perspectives Institute. He added that Israel appears to be the primary driver pushing the United States into the confrontation.History shows the United States has repeatedly sought external funding for wars it leads. During the Gulf War, Saudi Arabia contributed $16.8 billion (27% of total costs) and Kuwait $16 billion (26%). Japan, Germany, the UAE and South Korea also supplied sizable sums.Post‑World War II, the U.S. administered the Marshall Plan, providing over $13 billion to rebuild Europe, while Germany and Japan paid reparations and later funded the upkeep of U.S. bases—about $1 billion annually each.In the ongoing Ukraine war, the United States once delivered the largest aid package—€114.64 billion (≈$134 billion) by mid‑2025. Since Trump returned to office in 2025, he has withdrawn **99% of U.S. support**, shifting the financial load to European allies and turning the U.S. into a major arms supplier, with weapons sales reaching a record **$318.7 billion in 2024**. Recent deals, such as a $10 billion weapons package for Ukraine financed by European partners, illustrate this new model.These precedents underscore a pattern: when U.S. leadership faces costly overseas engagements, it often looks to allies—especially those with strategic interests—to share or assume the fiscal burden.

The question of whether a peaceful settlement is possible in Iran remains a pressing concern for the international community. Diplomatic efforts have been underway to find a resolution to the country's complex situation, but a lasting solution has yet to be achieved.The country's strategic location in the Middle East makes its stability crucial for regional and global security. However, Iran's nuclear program and its stance on various international issues have been major points of contention.Despite these challenges, there are ongoing efforts to engage in dialogue and find a peaceful resolution. The international community continues to seek a negotiated settlement that addresses the concerns of all parties involved.

A series of intense attacks have been launched by the United States and Israel on the Iranian city of Isfahan, leading to a significant column of fire in the area. The incident has heightened tensions in the already volatile region.The attacks, which occurred on March 31, 2026, have been widely reported, with sources indicating a substantial military response from the US and Israel. However, details of the attacks and any resulting damage or casualties remain unclear.The city of Isfahan, known for its historical significance and military installations, has been a key location in Iran's military and nuclear programs. This latest development escalates the ongoing conflict between the US, Israel, and Iran, which has been marked by periods of heightened tension and sporadic violence.

Tottenham Hotspur has officially announced the appointment of Roberto De Zerbi as their new head coach, signing him to a five-year contract. The Italian manager, renowned for his daring and aggressive possession-based approach, faces a significant challenge as he takes over with the club precariously positioned just above the relegation zone.Spurs are set to play seven matches to end the season, with their next fixture scheduled against Sunderland on the upcoming Sunday. Notably, De Zerbi's contract does not include any break clause in the event of Tottenham being relegated.De Zerbi expressed his delight in joining the club, stating, “I am delighted to be joining this fantastic football club, which is one of the biggest and most prestigious in the world. In all my discussions with the club’s leadership, their ambition for the future has been clear – to build a team capable of reaching great achievements and to do that playing a style of football that excites and inspires our supporters.”The appointment of De Zerbi comes after Igor Tudor, the interim manager, parted ways with the club by mutual consent. Tudor had taken over temporarily following the departure of Thomas Frank on February 14.De Zerbi previously managed Brighton & Hove Albion, where he achieved significant success, leading the club to a sixth-place finish in the Premier League and qualification for the Europa League. His tenure at Marseille also yielded impressive results, with a second-place finish in Ligue 1 and Champions League qualification.Despite his successes, De Zerbi is also known for his volatile personality and has had public disagreements with players and clubs in the past. The immediate concern for Spurs will be whether De Zerbi can adapt quickly and lead the team to avoid relegation.

On a surprisingly quiet evening at Wembley, England’s 1-0 defeat to Japan unfolded in a half‑hour that was more ceremonial than competitive. The opening thirty minutes were fluffy and formless, offering little in the way of decisive play but plenty of clues about the team’s underlying issues.For manager Thomas Tuchel, the concession of the opening goal will likely linger in post‑match analysis sessions. The loss adds another chapter to what critics describe as the “never‑ending story of England footballdom,” where each friendly serves as a diagnostic test rather than a showcase of progress.Injuries and omissions forced Tuchel to field a makeshift side featuring Phil Foden, Morgan Rogers, Cole Palmer and Kobbie Mainoo. The line‑up lacked traditional power runners and aerial threats, resembling a “false nine” formation that felt experimental but ultimately failed to generate a clear tactical identity.Japan’s solitary goal came after Palmer lost possession in an attacking area, leaving a void that England’s midfield could not fill. The Japanese attack exploited the space, threading a pass through the centre of England’s formation and scoring with ease. The goal underscored England’s lack of pressure and positional awareness in the defensive third.Despite the disappointment, the match offered a glimpse of individual talent. Harry Maguire and Dan Burn were deployed on set‑pieces, and Jude Bellingham remained an unused asset, highlighting the depth of options available for the upcoming World Cup.Atmospherically, the match resembled a village fête more than a high‑stakes international fixture. Pre‑match entertainment featured a medley of music, fireworks and quirky performances, creating a backdrop that contrasted sharply with the on‑field performance.Analysts noted that England’s approach felt like an attempt to dress up “borrowed tactical clothes” rather than a coherent game plan. The lack of a defined structure left the side vulnerable to Japan’s disciplined, technically sound play.Looking ahead, Tuchel now faces the task of reconciling his experimental selections with the need for a pragmatic, battle‑ready squad. The friendly serves as a reminder that, while England possesses individual brilliance, the team must resolve its tactical ambiguities if it hopes to contend seriously for the 2026 World Cup.