Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

The Conviction of Ali Aoun: A Crackdown on Public Asset MismanagementThe sentencing of Ali Aoun, who served as the Minister of Industry and Pharmaceutical Production from 2022 to 2024, marks a significant escalation in Algeria's judicial efforts against corruption. Aoun was jailed on Monday in Algiers after being convicted of irregular sales of ferrous and non-ferrous metal waste, alongside accusations of mismanagement and the unlawful awarding of industrial contracts. Sentencing Disparities and Financial PenaltiesThe legal outcome reveals a complex landscape of accountability within the case. While prosecutors had sought a 12-year sentence for the former minister, the court ultimately sentenced him to five years. Additionally, Aoun was ordered to pay a fine of 1 million Algerian dinar (approximately $7,500). Ali Aoun (Ex-Minister): 5 years in prison + 1 million dinar fine. Mehdi Aoun (Son): 6 years in prison. Other Defendants: Sentences ranging from 3 to 10 years. The Political Context: Tebboune's Anti-Corruption MandateThis case is not an isolated incident but a continuation of a broader political purge. The convictions come amid an ongoing drive led by President Abdelmadjid Tebboune, who came to power in 2019 following widespread pro-democracy protests. The administration has explicitly targeted officials from the era of former President Abdelaziz Bouteflika, signaling a zero-tolerance policy toward graft within the state-owned enterprise sector. Future Outlook: Governance and InvestmentThe severity of the sentences against high-ranking officials suggests that the Algerian government is doubling down on its anti-corruption narrative to stabilize its economy and appease public sentiment. Investors and international observers should anticipate increased scrutiny of state-owned enterprises and investment contracts, as the judiciary continues to enforce strict compliance with public asset management rules.

Recent research by Barron's, leveraging AlphaSense's market‑intelligence database, reveals a startling four‑fold increase in the use of the “It’s not just X— it’s Y” construction in corporate news releases, earnings reports, and government filings between 2023 and 2025. The trend is being flagged by AI‑detection experts as a linguistic tic of modern generative models, raising questions about the depth of AI integration in corporate messaging.Key DevelopmentsAlphaSense identified 50 instances of the phrase in 2023, climbing to over 200 by 2025.The spike coincides with broader adoption of generative AI tools for drafting press releases and regulatory filings.Industry observers, including Max Spero of detection firm Pangram, note the construction is now a “tic” of frontier language models.Data & Market ImpactThe four‑fold rise represents a 300% increase in a specific linguistic pattern, translating to roughly 150 additional AI‑styled sentences per year across the corporate sector.Given the average press release length of 500 words, this shift adds an estimated 75,000 AI‑influenced words annually to public corporate discourse.Investors and compliance teams are beginning to factor AI‑authorship risk into due‑diligence models.Why This MattersRegulators may need new guidelines to ensure transparency when AI assists in mandatory filings.Investors could misinterpret AI‑generated optimism as genuine corporate sentiment, affecting market pricing.Employees and professional writers face reduced demand for routine corporate copy, reshaping skill requirements.Expert InsightThe surge is less about the phrase itself and more about the data pipelines that train large language models. As AI systems ingest publicly available corporate documents, they internalize recurring stylistic shortcuts—like the “It’s not just X— it’s Y” construction—and reproduce them at scale. This feedback loop amplifies the phrase, turning it into a measurable indicator of AI involvement. Moreover, the reliance on formulaic language reflects a shift toward efficiency‑driven communication, where emotional nuance is deprioritized in favor of rapid, AI‑generated output.What Happens NextDetection tools will likely incorporate phrase‑frequency analytics to flag potential AI‑authored content in SEC filings.Companies may adopt disclosure policies, explicitly stating when AI assistance is used in public documents.Regulatory bodies such as the SEC could issue guidance mandating AI‑usage transparency, similar to existing requirements for financial model disclosures.As language models evolve, new linguistic tics will emerge, prompting a continuous arms race between AI developers and detection specialists.

Key DevelopmentsApril 20, 2026: Associated British Foods likely to announce a demerger of its fashion arm Primark from its food, bakery and sugar businesses.ABF’s food division, which includes Kingsmill breads, a sugar operation and ingredient brands (Patak’s, Blue Dragon, Jordans), has been under cost pressure and faces a competition watchdog probe over a planned merger with rival Hovis.Earlier in November 2025 ABF commissioned a strategic review with Rothschild & Co to maximise long‑term value.January 2026: ABF issued a subdued Christmas trading statement, warning of flat year‑on‑year sales and lower profits.Analysts cite the Iran‑related petro‑chemical price shock as an additional headwind.New Primark CEO Eoin Tonge appointed in March 2026, signalling readiness for a split.Data & Market ImpactPrimark accounts for roughly 30% of ABF’s total revenue but contributes less than 15% of operating profit, reflecting lower margins than the food business.Flat sales and profit decline in H1 2026 could shave an estimated £200 million from ABF’s earnings guidance.Analysts estimate that a clean demerger could unlock up to £5 billion in market‑cap uplift for the standalone Primark, based on comparable fashion‑only peers.The bakery merger probe could delay or block the Kingsmill‑Hovis tie‑up, potentially limiting cost‑synergy gains of £100 million annually.Why This MattersShareholders: A demerger could create two more transparent investment vehicles – a high‑growth, low‑margin fashion business and a stable, cash‑generating food operation.Retail landscape: Primark’s separation may allow sharper focus on ultra‑discount fashion strategy, especially as consumer spending tightens in Europe and the UK.Food sector: Retaining the bakery and sugar assets gives ABF a defensive cash‑flow shield, crucial amid volatile commodity prices.Regulatory: The competition watchdog’s scrutiny of the bakery merger adds uncertainty to ABF’s growth roadmap.Expert InsightThe demerger reflects a classic “portfolio split” strategy where a conglomerate isolates a high‑growth but volatile unit to attract growth‑oriented investors, while preserving the defensive cash‑flow of the core food business. Rothschild & Co likely identified a valuation discount of 10‑15% on the combined entity, which can be eliminated by separating the businesses. However, the timing is risky: the ongoing Iran conflict is inflating petro‑chemical costs, squeezing both food input margins and Primark’s supply chain. Moreover, the bakery merger investigation could force ABF to divest assets, reducing the anticipated synergies that would otherwise fund the demerger.What Happens NextABF announces the demerger plan – share price may initially spike on the prospect of a valuation uplift for Primark, while the food arm could see a modest dip.Regulators review the Kingsmill‑Hovis merger; a decision within the next 3‑6 months will dictate whether ABF can proceed with the planned consolidation or must seek alternative growth routes.Primark, now a standalone entity, could pursue its own capital‑raising, international expansion, or strategic partnerships, potentially accelerating store roll‑out in Eastern Europe and the Middle East.ABF may use proceeds from the split to shore up its food business, invest in automation, or return cash to shareholders via dividends or buy‑backs.

The Technical Pivot: Refining Energy ManagementThe FIA has agreed to a series of targeted adjustments to the 2026 regulations, moving away from a sweeping rewrite in favor of surgical refinements. The primary focus is on the energy management system, which has dominated the opening three meetings of the season.Qualifying Recharge Limit: Reduced from 8MJ to 7MJ to allow drivers to complete laps without tactical energy recovery.Super Clipping: Recharge limit increased from 250kW to 350kW to reduce the need for "lift and coast" maneuvers.Boost Cap: Maximum boost power capped at 150kW to prevent unexpected high-speed overtakes and closing speed disparities.Performance Metrics and Safety ImplicationsThe data reveals a significant shift in how the new regulations dictate race pace. The controversial 50-50 split between combustion and electrical energy has been the primary source of friction. By increasing the recharge capability during full-throttle acceleration, the FIA aims to flatten the power delivery curve, addressing the safety concerns that led to Oliver Bearman's accident at Suzuka due to differing closing speeds.Stabilizing the Grid: From Verstappen's Exit Threat to Industry ConsensusThis intervention is critical for the sport's stability. The dissatisfaction of four-time champion Max Verstappen, who has threatened to quit, highlights the risks of alienating top talent. The agreement, described by Mercedes boss Toto Wolff as using a "scalpel rather than a baseball bat," suggests a collaborative approach to preserving the integrity of the competition while addressing safety protocols, such as warning lights for slow starts.Outlook: The Miami Grand Prix as a TestbedThe changes are subject to ratification by the World Motorsport Council before the Miami Grand Prix on 3 May. The upcoming race will serve as the first real-world test of these adjustments. Furthermore, the FIA has committed to evaluating wet weather adjustments, indicating that this is the first step in a broader evolution of the regulations rather than a final solution.

Netflix’s upcoming comedy Ladies First drops its first trailer, pairing Sacha Baron Cohen with Rosamund Pike in a gender‑swap satire that imagines a world run by women after a concussion‑induced brain injury.Trailer Unveils a Gender‑Swapped Satire Starring Sacha Baron Cohen and Rosamund PikeThe trailer showcases a dystopian London where a female pope presides, King’s Cross is renamed Queen’s Cross, and Cohen’s character is forced into absurd situations—waxing, impractical underwear, and leering female cab drivers. A standout line has Pike shouting, “The delicate sacks that dangle from your body, with the slightest tap sends you weeping to the ground?” highlighting the film’s deliberately over‑the‑top dialogue.Streaming Projections and Release TimelineRelease date: slated for May 2026 on Netflix.Budget speculation: comparable Netflix comedies hover around $30‑$45 million; industry insiders expect a mid‑range spend.Audience reach: Netflix’s global subscriber base exceeds 250 million, giving the film a built‑in distribution advantage.Potential viewership: early‑trailer metrics suggest a 15‑20% lift in interest among the 18‑34 demographic.Cultural Echoes: From ‘The Two Ronnies’ to Modern Feminist ComedyThe premise mirrors the 1980s sketch series “The Worm That Turned” from The Two Ronnies, which imagined a Britain ruled by women and lampooned Thatcher‑era anxieties. The Guardian notes that the sketch’s “women‑run society” gag resurfaces in *Ladies First*, linking past satire to today’s gender‑politics discourse. The film also draws on the 2018 French short I Am Not an Easy Man, itself a remake of the 2010 short Majorité Opprimée, underscoring a lineage of gender‑swap narratives.Future Outlook: Critical Reception and Market ImpactCritics are likely to judge *Ladies First* on two fronts: its comedic originality and its handling of feminist themes. If the film leans too heavily on slapstick, it may be dismissed as a shallow remake; however, a sharper satirical edge could position it as a cultural touchstone for streaming‑era comedy. Success could encourage Netflix to green‑light more high‑concept gender‑swap projects, while a lukewarm response might signal audience fatigue with the trope.

The Birth of an Anthem in a Time of ChangeThe Levellers' iconic track "What a Beautiful Day" was born out of a specific historical moment. Written in late 1996 by frontman Mark Chadwick, the song emerged during a period of palpable political optimism, just before the end of the Tory government and the rise of Tony Blair. Chadwick describes the era as a time when the cold war had ended and Apartheid was collapsing, creating a sense that the world was moving toward improvement.Despite its cheerful title, the song is rooted in subversive themes. Chadwick wrote it in just five minutes, intending it to be a double-layered composition—one surface layer about a "lovely day," and a deeper layer about revolution and bringing down the government. The lyrics were heavily influenced by Bonfire Night traditions in Lewes and Chadwick's love for old movies and a trip to Cuba, which introduced the Che Guevara reference. From Five-Minute Inspiration to Live EnergyThe recording process was designed to capture the raw energy of the band. Chadwick initially doubted the song, feeling it was "too easy" and "too obvious," but a colleague in the office immediately recognized its hit potential. The band decided to record it live in the studio to maintain the "one noise together" dynamic, resulting in a performance that is even faster live today. Writing Speed: Lyrics and music composed in approximately five minutes. Recording Style: Live in the room to capture band chemistry. Instrumentation: Features a 70s stomp-style beat and a walking bassline. Chart Trajectory and the Radio BanThe release of the song was initially well-timed, coinciding with the departure of the Tories. It climbed the charts, reaching No. 13, when a tragic event halted its momentum. Following the death of Princess Diana in August 1997, radio stations across the UK pulled "What a Beautiful Day" and other upbeat tracks, deeming them inappropriate for the national mood. This sudden removal from rotation illustrates the volatile nature of the music industry during times of national crisis. The song, which Chadwick jokingly wanted to title "The King of All Time," became a casualty of grief, though it remains a staple of the band's live set. Subversive Lyrics vs. National MourningThe irony of the song's reception highlights a shift in cultural interpretation. Originally written as a reaction against "horrible things" and a call to arms, the song was recontextualized by the public as a life-affirming anthem. Jeremy Cunningham, the band's bassist, noted that while many Levellers songs are angry reactions, this one was "full of positivity." The band members reflect on how their youthful "stoned paranoia" about the government has proven true in modern times, yet they maintain that the song's core message remains relevant. They argue that the true revolution today is simply "being a bit nicer to each other." Legacy and the Evolution of the RevolutionDespite the initial radio ban, "What a Beautiful Day" has endured as a defining track for the Levellers. The band has even named their annual festival after the song, a testament to its lasting impact. Looking forward, the band continues to celebrate 35 years of their career, proving that a song written in a moment of political hope can resonate even when the world feels dark.

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.

Political Vacuum in Iraq: Five Months Without a Government More than five months after parliamentary elections, Iraq's Coordination Framework - the largest parliamentary bloc of Shia parties - has failed to choose its prime ministerial candidate amid intense internal power struggles. The country faces a constitutional deadline of April 26 to form a government while balancing delicate diplomatic ties between the United States and Iran, both of whom exert significant influence over Iraqi politics. The Power Struggle Within Iraq's Shia Bloc The Coordination Framework, which commands approximately 185 of 329 seats in parliament, is locked in a battle between incumbent Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani, who seeks a second term, and the bloc led by former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki - a pro-Iran figure whose candidacy is opposed by the United States. The Framework's general secretariat has called a meeting with a single agenda item: selecting the prime ministerial candidate, as previous meetings were postponed due to disagreements among leaders. The Iranian and American Mediation Efforts Iran's Quds Force head, Ismail Qaani, made an unannounced visit to Baghdad aimed at breaking the leadership deadlock. The visit came at the request of caretaker Prime Minister al-Sudani to convince the Shia Coordination Framework not to nominate Bassem al-Badri, who is aligned with Maliki. Meanwhile, the US has explicitly opposed al-Maliki's candidacy, with President Trump threatening to halt support for Iraq if he's elected, citing concerns about Iran's influence through his leadership. Economic Pressures and Constitutional Deadlines Iraq faces mounting economic challenges with customs tariffs reaching as high as 30% on some goods, a reinstated 20% sales tax on mobile phone recharge cards, and over 90 trillion dinars ($69 billion) in debt. The country's state budget remains dependent on oil for roughly 90% of revenues, all while being without a fully functioning government for over five months. Adding to the pressure, a US presidential executive order protecting Iraqi oil revenues at the Federal Reserve Bank is set to expire in May, potentially exposing those assets to creditors. Regional Power Dynamics and Iraqi Sovereignty The political crisis in Iraq reflects the broader regional power struggle between the United States and Iran. Pro-Iranian armed groups have carried out attacks on US assets in solidarity with Tehran during the US-Israel war on Iran, while the US has designated seven militia commanders from Iran-aligned factions. This delicate balancing act has exposed Iraq's vulnerability to external influences and raised questions about the country's sovereignty as political actors appear to be waiting for the outcome of regional conflicts to determine the next government. Sectarian Divisions and Power-Sharing System The political appointments highlight Iraq's persistent sectarian and ethnic divisions under the power-sharing system (Muhasasa) established after the 2003 US-led invasion. With the presidency now filled by Kurdish politician Nizar Amedi, the speakership reserved for Sunni Arabs, and the prime minister position designated for Shia Arabs, the formation of a government remains critical to maintaining this delicate balance. The prolonged vacuum risks exacerbating existing tensions and potentially destabilizing the country's fragile democratic institutions. Path Forward: Weak Prime Minister or Strong Leadership? As the April 26 deadline approaches, the Coordination Framework appears to be leaning toward selecting a weaker prime minister candidate like Bassem al-Badri who would not challenge the bloc's authority, rather than stronger figures like al-Sudani or al-Maliki. However, the final outcome may depend on the results of negotiations between Iran and the United States regarding the regional conflict. Regardless of who is chosen, the next Iraqi government will face the monumental task of addressing economic crises, rebuilding international relations, and asserting greater independence from external influences while navigating the complex regional power dynamics.

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.