Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Executive Summary: Legal Challenge to BP’s Kaskida ProjectEnvironmental groups have sued the Trump administration over its approval of BP’s new ultra‑deepwater drilling venture, Kaskida, arguing the project threatens Gulf ecosystems and repeats the mistakes of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill.BP’s $5 bn Kaskida Ultra‑Deepwater Drilling Plan ApprovedThe Interior Department green‑lit a $5 bn plan to drill 6,000 ft below the Gulf’s surface, extending another 6 miles into the seabed—deeper than Mount Everest. The Kaskida platform, located roughly 250 miles off Louisiana, is slated to begin production in 2029 and aims to extract about 80,000 barrels of oil per day from six wells, tapping a reserve of roughly 10 bn barrels.Financial Scale and Production ForecastsThe project’s $5 bn investment reflects BP’s confidence in unlocking “more than 275 m barrels of previously unrecoverable oil.” If the forecast holds, annual output could exceed 29 m barrels, generating billions in revenue and reinforcing the U.S. position as a leading oil producer.Environmental and Political Ramifications in the GulfLegal claim: BP allegedly failed to provide required safety data and cannot prove containment capacity for a potential 4.5 m‑barrel spill.Ecological stakes: The Gulf’s endangered Rice’s whale, sea turtles, and fish populations face heightened risk.Political context: The approval aligns with broader administration moves to accelerate offshore drilling, including exemptions from endangered‑species protections.Historical echo: The lawsuit was filed on the 16th anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, underscoring lingering public trauma.Potential Outcomes and Future Offshore PolicyIf the courts block Kaskida, the decision could set a precedent limiting ultra‑deepwater projects and force stricter safety reviews. Conversely, a ruling in favor of the administration may embolden further offshore expansion, potentially reshaping the balance between energy security and environmental stewardship in the Gulf region.

The High-Stakes Legal Battle Over National Security AllegationsFBI Director Kash Patel has initiated a high-profile defamation lawsuit against The Atlantic and reporter Sarah Fitzpatrick, seeking $250 million in damages. The legal action follows a report alleging that Patel’s alleged alcoholism and erratic behavior posed a direct threat to United States national security.The Accusations and The DefenseThe Atlantic’s story, initially titled “Kash Patel’s Erratic Behavior Could Cost Him His Job,” cited more than two dozen anonymous sources. The report detailed instances of “conspicuous inebriation” and unexplained absences that allegedly delayed critical FBI investigations.Key Allegations: Rescheduled meetings due to alcohol-fueled nights; frequent unavailability delaying time-sensitive decisions.The Defense: The Atlantic stands by the reporting, stating it is “meritless” and that sources were granted anonymity to discuss sensitive information.The Response: Patel denied the allegations, calling them “lies” and stating, “Print it, all false, I’ll see you in court—bring your checkbook.”The Financial Stakes and Legal PrecedentsThe lawsuit alleges that The Atlantic acted with “actual malice,” a legal standard requiring public figures to prove a publisher knowingly printed falsehoods or recklessly ignored doubts. The complaint highlights a Friday letter from Patel’s attorney, Jesse Binnall, sent just two hours before publication, which detailed specific refutations of the 19 allegations.This case adds to a growing trend of legal confrontations between the Trump administration and media outlets. While previous suits by Donald Trump against CNN, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal were largely dismissed by judges, settlements have been secured with ABC News and Paramount Global.A New Front in the Culture War Between Media and the Executive BranchThis lawsuit signals a hardening of the relationship between the FBI leadership and investigative journalism. By targeting the credibility of anonymous sources and the speed of publication, Patel’s legal team is attempting to set a precedent that could make future negative reporting on high-ranking officials significantly riskier.The Future OutlookGiven the precedent of judges dismissing similar defamation claims in the past, it is unlikely this case will reach a jury trial soon. However, the sheer scale of the damages ($250 million) and the focus on “actual malice” suggest that this will be a prolonged legal battle designed to deter future investigative reporting rather than a guaranteed path to financial recovery.

The Lead: Another Cabinet Departure US Secretary of Labour Lori Chavez-DeRemer will be leaving her post in the administration of President Donald Trump, marking the third female cabinet member to depart since March. The White House announced her departure on Monday, stating she has done a "phenomenal job" protecting American workers and is set to "take a position in the private sector." The Personnel Shift: Trump's Evolving Cabinet Chavez-DeRemer's departure comes amid a series of high-profile exits from the Trump administration. She follows Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who was fired in March following federal immigration raids in Minnesota that led to the deaths of two protesters, and Attorney General Pam Bondi, who was ousted earlier this month. These departures signal a significant personnel shakeup in the administration's early months of its second term. The Investigation Context: Controversy Surrounding the Secretary While White House Director of Communications Steven Cheung did not specify a reason for Chavez-DeRemer's departure, the New York Post reported in January that she was under investigation for "pursuing an 'inappropriate' relationship with a subordinate" and drinking in her office during the work day. Al Jazeera was unable to independently verify these allegations, which have not been officially confirmed by the administration. The Policy Contradictions: Union Support vs. Anti-Regulatory Stance From the beginning of her tenure, Chavez-DeRemer had notable differences with other members of Trump's inner circle. She had voiced support for the pro-union Protecting the Right to Organize Act (PRO Act), earning support for her nomination from some Democrats. Her appointment was also seen as favored by Sean O'Brien, the president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, who spoke in support of Trump's re-election campaign at the Republican National Convention in July 2024. However, as labor secretary, her positions more closely aligned with the Trump administration's overall anti-regulatory policies. The Regulatory Rollback: Environmental and Worker Protections During her tenure as secretary, the Labor Department stalled on responding to calls for limits on silica exposure from Appalachian coal miners suffering from the occupational black lung disease. This approach aligned with the administration's broader moves to roll back environmental and workplace regulations, reflecting a tension between Chavez-DeRemer's apparent personal views on labor issues and the administration's policy direction. The Precedent Set: Firing of BLS Director Chavez-DeRemer is not the first top official to leave the Labor Department during Trump's second term. In August 2025, Trump fired the director of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Erika McEntarfer, who was appointed by previous President Joe Biden, after a report showed that hiring had slowed. Chavez-DeRemer had supported the president's move at the time, stating in a post on X that she backed "the President's decision to replace Biden's Commissioner and ensure the American People can trust the important and influential data coming from BLS." The Future Outlook: Implications for Labor Policy With Keith Sonderling taking on the role of Acting Secretary of Labor, the department's direction remains uncertain. The departure of Chavez-DeRemer, who had some bipartisan support due to her union-friendly positions, suggests that the administration may continue to prioritize anti-regulatory approaches in labor policy. This could have significant implications for worker protections, union rights, and occupational safety standards in the coming months.

The Political Imperative of Energy AffordabilityAs geopolitical tensions escalate, the US political landscape is witnessing a critical shift in how clean energy is discussed. Democrats are facing mounting pressure to pivot their messaging from abstract climate protection to tangible economic benefits, specifically focusing on how clean energy can shield American consumers from the volatility of fossil fuels.The Iran War as a Catalyst for Energy PolicyThe conflict involving Iran has disrupted global oil supplies, triggering a sharp increase in energy costs. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for global oil and gas, has caused gasoline prices to soar above $4.10 a gallon nationally. This economic shock has exposed the vulnerabilities of the US energy grid under the current administration's policies.Gasoline Prices: Surpassed $4.10 per gallon nationally.Global Impact: A fifth of the world's oil and gas travels through the Strait of Hormuz.Administration Stance: Trump has doubled down on a 'drill, baby drill' strategy while acknowledging prices could rise further.Soaring Costs and Corporate WindfallsThe economic fallout of the war is not evenly distributed. While consumers face higher bills, the fossil fuel industry is reaping massive profits. Data indicates that the world's largest 100 oil and gas companies are generating more than $30bn in unearned profit every hour during the initial phase of the conflict. This disparity highlights the growing public frustration with energy monopolies.Global Shifts and the US Policy GapWhile the US struggles to articulate a coherent response, other nations are aggressively accelerating their transitions. The war has served as a wake-up call for nations like Indonesia and Malaysia, which are seeing electric vehicle (EV) sales boom. The European Union is also drafting proposals to accelerate clean energy deployment to alleviate electricity bills, viewing delayed investments as a future liability.Indonesia's Plan: President Prabowo Subianto announced a mandate to convert all motorcycles and vehicles to electric by 2030.EU Action: Accelerating clean energy deployment to mitigate future costs.US Response: Democrats are criticized for 'climate hushing' and failing to link the war to the need for energy independence.Winning the Narrative on Clean EnergyPolitical analysts argue that Democrats must seize the current moment to reframe clean energy as a tool for national security and consumer savings. By emphasizing that renewable sources like solar and wind are 'unlimited, free, and independent of geopolitical events,' the party can counter the Trump administration's narrative. The future of the clean energy debate depends on moving beyond environmental doom to practical economic solutions.

The LeadOn his show Last Week Tonight, John Oliver delivered a scathing critique of prediction markets, calling out companies like Kalshi and Polymarket for allowing bets on serious events while avoiding gambling regulations through political connections and semantic loopholes.The Rise of Prediction MarketsPrediction markets have seen exponential growth in recent months, with billions of dollars wagered weekly on questions ranging from geopolitical events like "will traffic in the strait of Hormuz return to normal" to trivial matters like "will Mr Beast say 'feastable'." This surge is largely due to aggressive marketing by the two dominant players, Kalshi and Polymarket, which have opened the door to what Oliver describes as a "free-for-all" of questionable betting opportunities.The Financial FacadeBoth companies claim they are not gambling sites but financial exchanges offering "event contracts" that allow people to hedge against future risks. Kalshi CEO Tarek Mansour argued his platform was "very important" because it allowed people to bet on student loan forgiveness. Oliver mocked this claim, showing clips of people betting on phrases Donald Trump would say in speeches, calling it "taking advantage of a sundowning geriatric's rapidly declining verbal abilities" rather than legitimate financial hedging.Political Connections and Regulatory LoopholesThe companies have successfully avoided gambling regulations by insisting they are financial exchanges, allowing them to operate in states where gambling is illegal and bypassing age requirements and taxes. Oliver highlighted their strong connections to the Trump family, noting that Donald Trump Jr is an investor and unpaid adviser to Polymarket and a paid adviser to Kalshi. These connections have paid off, as the Trump administration has effectively stripped the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) of its power to regulate these markets, leaving only one commissioner—Michael Selig, a prediction markets advocate—in charge.Societal Impact and Ethical ConcernsOliver expressed deep concern about the ethical implications of prediction markets, particularly when people bet on tragic events like "will Nancy Guthrie's kidnapper be arrested by 28 February." He noted the "chilling" reality that people might be using insider information to bet on life-or-death events, citing a case where someone made $400,000 after betting on the capture of Nicolás Maduro. Oliver also criticized news organizations for "laundering these companies' reputations" by presenting their odds as actual news.Future Outlook and Calls for ReformOliver called for basic guardrails to be put in place to regulate prediction markets, expressing little faith in the current Supreme Court or Congressional action given the Trump family's involvement. He suggested that individuals should reconsider using these markets for gambling, noting they are statistically likely to lose money. Ultimately, Oliver warned against a society where "every aspect of our lives" becomes a bet, where people engage with news not for its meaning but because they have money riding on it.

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.

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 Frontline ParadoxMichael Watkins, a 50-year-old recovery advocate in Dallas, represents the human cost of the evolving opioid crisis. His work involves 'uninvited interventions'—door-knocking strangers within 72 hours of an overdose to offer Narcan and resources. Despite these grassroots efforts, the broader national strategy faces a critical juncture. While Dallas County saw fentanyl deaths drop from 280 in 2023 to 203 last year, a nationwide trend of decline has been complicated by a sudden shift in federal policy and the global supply chain of the drug.The Migration of Fentanyl PrecursorsA critical technical breakthrough in the supply chain has shifted the epicenter of fentanyl production. For years, the focus was on China, where companies like Yuancheng supplied precursor chemicals. However, a new paper in the journal Science suggests that China's crackdown on these companies led to a drop in overdose deaths. Now, the supply chain has migrated to India.The New Route: Precursor chemicals are now largely sourced from India's large, less-regulated pharmaceutical industry.The Destination: These chemicals are exported to Mexico, where they are used to manufacture the lethal drug before it crosses the US-Mexico border.The Blind Spot: Experts like Ben Westhoff argue that the US is 'behind the eight ball' because India is not currently on the radar of policymakers, despite the strong diplomatic relationship between the two nations.Funding Cuts and Data DisruptionThe progress made in reducing overdose deaths is now at risk due to severe federal budget cuts. The Trump administration has declared fentanyl a 'weapon of mass destruction,' yet simultaneously slashed hundreds of millions of dollars in addiction services.Massive Reductions: At least $1.7bn in block grants for state health departments and $350m in addiction prevention funding were cut.Staffing Crisis: The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) has reduced its staff by half.DOGE Impact: Elon Musk's DOGE team fired a team that rigorously tracked Americans' drug use for decades, creating a data vacuum that hampers response efforts.The Cost of Political RhetoricThe administration's militaristic approach, including military strikes on Venezuela (which does not produce fentanyl) and labeling cartels as 'terrorist organisations,' has drawn criticism from public health experts. Jonathan Caulkins of Carnegie Mellon University argues that labeling fentanyl a 'weapon of mass destruction' is a political move that hijacks a specific term and ignores the reality that cigarettes kill more Americans annually.Experts warn that this rhetoric further stigmatizes addiction, discouraging users from seeking help. While military tactics are necessary for interdiction, the consensus is that healthcare and local support services are equally critical for saving lives.Future Outlook: The India Blind SpotThe future of the fentanyl crisis in the US depends on addressing the new supply chain reality. As the precursor trade moves to India, the US must pivot its focus from China to the Indian subcontinent. Without increased funding for community organizations like the Recovery Resource Council and a strategic focus on Indian chemical regulation, the recent decline in overdose deaths could be short-lived. The 'uninvited interventions' of advocates like Michael Watkins will be vital, but they cannot replace the systemic support that federal funding provides.

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.