Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

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 Since Trump returned to office in 2025, he has withdrawn **99% of U.S. support**, shifting the financial load to European allies and turning the U.S. into a major arms supplier, with weapons sales reaching a record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 United States and Israel have launched a war against Iran that many observers label a monumental breach of international law, echoing the illegal aggression that began with Israel’s campaign in Gaza.According to recent reports, the Pentagon is ready to commit thousands of ground troops to the region, signaling a potential escalation that could last for weeks.Analysts warn that the conflict is poorly planned, especially given Iran’s capacity to disrupt shipping through the strategic Strait of Hormuz. The resulting choke‑choke on energy and essential commodities is already pushing the global economy toward a precarious edge, with Asian and African nations bearing the brunt of the fallout.History offers a stark warning. In 2003, the United States invaded Iraq on the premise of a swift campaign, a promise later proved hollow. The war extended for nearly nine years, costing $1.92 trillion in U.S. taxpayer money, claiming over 4,500 American lives, and contributing to more than half a million Iraqi deaths by 2006.Back then, the coalition assembled roughly 250,000 troops—including 150,000 from the United States and 46,000 from the United Kingdom—to invade a country far smaller than Iran. Today, the U.S. maintains about 50,000 troops in the Middle East, a modest increase of 10,000 over its usual presence, yet the objectives being discussed—occupying Iranian territory, seizing uranium stockpiles, and controlling key islands—appear overly ambitious.Israel’s role is also intensifying. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced an expansion of Israel’s security buffer in southern Lebanon, a region Israel occupied from 1982 to 2000. Since the 2024 cease‑fire with Hezbollah, Israel has reportedly violated the agreement around 10,000 times in its first year, suggesting that a weakened Iran could serve as a strategic boon for Israeli ambitions in Lebanon.For the United States, the war risks becoming a “Venezuela‑style” takeover that is far more complex than anticipated. As the conflict drags on and the prospect of U.S. ground combat looms, public support—already low—could erode further, potentially jeopardizing the political standing of President Trump ahead of the mid‑term elections.Critics argue that repeating the Iraq‑war playbook may not only fail to achieve its stated goals but could also hand strategic advantage to rival powers such as Russia or China, reshaping the balance of power in the Middle East.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has assured that the Strait of Hormuz will reopen after the ongoing conflict with Iran. In an exclusive interview with Al Jazeera, Rubio emphasized that the strait will be reopened either with Iran's consent or through an international coalition including the US.The conflict began on February 28 with US-Israeli strikes on Iran. Despite US President Donald Trump stating that the US is pursuing diplomacy, Rubio mentioned ongoing direct talks between the US and Iran, primarily through intermediaries. Iran has denied these talks are happening.Rubio called on Iran to take concrete steps to end its nuclear programme and cease manufacturing drones and missiles. He accused Iran of seeking nuclear weapons to threaten and blackmail the world, which Tehran denies.The situation remains volatile, with speculation about a possible US troop deployment in Iran. Rubio warned of severe consequences if Iran keeps the strait closed after the conflict ends. The White House has considered various military options, including a special forces operation to seize enriched uranium stored in Iran.

Recent air strikes on Iraq's Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF) have resulted in the deaths of three PMF fighters and two Iraqi police officers. The attacks, which occurred near northern Iraq's Kirkuk Airport, also left two fighters wounded and six Iraqi soldiers injured.An Iraqi security source revealed that the double-bombing was part of the ongoing US-Israeli war on Iran, which has been spilling over into Iraq's eastern border. The PMF, a coalition now integrated into the regular Iraqi army, accused the US and Israel of a 'treacherous Zionist-American' attack.In a separate incident, Reuters reported that two members of the Iraqi police were killed in an air strike targeting the PMF in Mosul, approximately 105 miles northwest of Kirkuk. This development has contributed to the escalating tensions in the region.Al Jazeera's Nicolas Haque reported from Baghdad that Iraq is becoming an 'expanding battleground' in the crisis. The conflict began on February 28 with US-Israeli strikes on Iran and now threatens to engulf the region in a protracted conflict.The PMF, formed in 2014 to fight ISIL (ISIS), has been targeted by pro-Iran armed groups within the coalition. These groups have claimed responsibility for attacks on US interests in Iraq and beyond.Haque noted that the PMF takes its orders from Baghdad, but some factions are loyal to Tehran. This complex dynamic makes it challenging for Baghdad to manage the different factions effectively.Iraq finds itself 'on a tightrope' between the US and Iran, said Haque, due to its economic and security ties with both countries. The government must balance its relationships with its biggest neighbor, Iran, and the United States.In related incidents, two drones targeted an airbase serving as a hub for US and coalition forces near Erbil airport in Iraq's semi-autonomous Kurdish region. The US C-RAM air defence system successfully intercepted the drones.French President Emmanuel Macron described the increased attacks in Iraq as a 'worrying development' after speaking to Nechirvan Barzani, president of the Kurdish region.

Jeepney driver Arturo Modelo of Manila says his daily earnings have collapsed to roughly one‑third of the usual 600 pesos after fuel costs surged, leaving him unable even to afford his child’s lunch money.Modelo joined a two‑day transport strike on Thursday and Friday, hoping to make a “deaf government” listen to the plight of drivers who can no longer earn a living on the road.The iconic jeepney, born from repurposed U.S. military vehicles after World War II, remains the most affordable commuter option in the Philippines, yet its operators are now bearing the brunt of a global oil shock.Last week, jeepney owners walked out, and this week the protest expanded to include bus, taxi, minibus and motorcycle‑taxi drivers. Nearly a dozen national transport groups marched to the Presidential Palace demanding price caps on petrol and diesel, the removal of fuel taxes, and stricter regulation of the oil sector.Organised under the No to Oil Price Hike Coalition, the demonstrators also blamed “American aggression” against Iran for the domestic economic distress, with union chair Jerome Adonis likening the impact to “a bomb dropped on us”.In response, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr declared a national energy emergency on Tuesday night – the first such declaration in the country’s history. The emergency, set to last one year, grants the government powers to accelerate fuel procurement, curb hoarding and curb profiteering.Fuel prices remain among the highest in Southeast Asia: diesel is now about $2.3 per litre and petrol close to $2 per litre in the Philippines, versus $2.7 and $2.35 respectively in Singapore, while Malaysia, Vietnam and Thailand report roughly half those prices.To alleviate the burden, the administration has introduced a 5,000‑peso ($83) subsidy for motorcycle‑taxi drivers and other public‑transport workers, and disbursed 2.5 billion pesos (≈$414 million) in fuel subsidies to roughly 300,000 transport employees. Unions claim the sector employs about two million people, leaving many without aid.During the strike, picket lines appeared at 85 commuter terminals, and jeepneys were scarce on Manila’s usually congested streets. Authorities, however, argued that the action did not cripple the city’s transport network.Union leader Mody Floranda of the Piston group accused President Marcos of favouring oil companies, saying the president could issue an executive order to cap prices but has yet to act decisively.Energy officials note that 98 % of the Philippines’ crude oil is imported and that the country’s high 12 % value‑added tax, excise duties and a deregulated market – shaped by the Oil Industry Deregulation Law of 1998 – amplify price volatility. Professor Krista Yu of De La Salle University highlighted the nation’s limited refining capacity as a structural weakness.Chief economist Emmanuel Leyco warned that the law allowing industry‑driven price adjustments “is the main culprit”, especially as “half the population is poor”.Amid mounting pressure, Marcos signed legislation permitting the temporary suspension of fuel excise taxes when crude oil prices exceed a set threshold. Opposition lawmaker Renee Co urged that the 12 % VAT also be removed, calling both taxes “regressive” burdens on ordinary Filipinos.Co and other lawmakers have also filed a resolution demanding an immediate end to the U.S.‑Israel‑Iran conflict, linking regional geopolitics to the domestic fuel crisis.

Meta, the world's most powerful social media company, has faced a severe public reckoning in recent days, with juries in California and New Mexico delivering back-to-back verdicts that hold the company liable for harming young people. This marks a significant shift in accountability for social media companies, which have long operated with minimal regulation and few consequences in the US.In the California case, a jury ordered Meta and YouTube to pay $6 million in damages over claims that they deliberately designed addictive products to hook young users. The following day, a jury in New Mexico ordered Meta to pay $375 million in damages over claims that its products led to child sexual exploitation, among other harms.These verdicts are the first to go to court, and they set a precedent for over 2,000 plaintiffs, including families, school districts, and state attorneys general, who have brought lawsuits against Meta, YouTube, TikTok, and Snap. The cases borrow from a familiar playbook, echoing those brought against big tobacco companies in the 1990s, which focused on cigarettes' addictive qualities and their makers' public denials despite knowledge of their products' harms.Lawyers for the plaintiffs argue that social media companies have profited from targeting children while concealing their addictive and dangerous design features. The verdicts signal that public perception of social media and its makers is shifting, with jurors now laying blame on the business practices of a multi-trillion-dollar industry.Meta and YouTube have both said they disagree with the verdicts and will appeal. However, the rulings mark a significant turning point in the growing scrutiny of social media companies and their impact on young people.The cases are part of a broader effort to challenge tech companies' practices, with online safety advocates urging Congress to pass regulation, forming coalitions of parents, teens, and advocates, and bringing thousands of lawsuits front and center. The goal is to force social media companies to redesign their products and do more to protect children online.

Saudi Arabia has urged the US to ramp up attacks on Iran, a Saudi intelligence source has confirmed, while it is weighing a decision on whether to join the fight directly. The Saudi source confirmed reporting that the kingdom’s de facto leader, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, has urged Donald Trump not to cut short his war against Iran, and that the US-Israeli campaign represented a “historic opportunity” to remake the Middle East.The intelligence source said Riyadh was not just calling for the military campaign to be continued, but to be intensified. Trump appeared to confirm the report about the crown prince’s role, telling journalists on Tuesday: “Yeah, he’s a warrior. He’s fighting with us.”There are no reports of active Saudi military involvement in the nearly four-week-old war so far, but a Saudi political analyst said the kingdom was likely to take that step if current peace efforts led by Pakistan failed.“What matters now is Iran’s decision,” Mohammed Alhamed, a Saudi geopolitical analyst, said. “If Iran engages seriously, there is still a path to contain escalation. If it rejects the conditions and continues its attacks, the threshold for Saudi action will be crossed.”Alhamed added that Saudi Arabia “is not reacting impulsively”.“It is calibrating its response and preparing for a scenario where escalation, if it happens, will be deliberate and decisive,” he said, adding that Saudi Arabia “has not been pushing for war.”“It has been trying to avoid being drawn into it, while keeping all options on the table,” he said.Saudi Arabia has come under Iranian drone attack, as part of Tehran’s response to the US-Israeli attack on 28 February. One drone strike a week ago hit an oil refinery in Yanbu on Saudi Red Sea coast.The attack on Yanbu signalled an Iranian warning that it could also threaten that economic lifeline.“I believe that Saudi Arabia still maintains cautious neutrality in the Iran-Israel-US war,” Hesham Alghannam, a Saudi defence expert told Agence France-Presse. But he added: “If the Houthis strike Saudi assets, Riyadh may shift toward defensive coalition support or limited retaliation.”The crown prince solidified his hold on power by cultivating a close relationship with Trump, but will now have to rethink Saudi reliance on the US for its security, observers have argued.“MBS [Mohammed bin Salman] has lost the bet on all his investments over the last several years,” Ellie Geranmayeh, senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations said. “He financially invested in Trump and Trump’s family and his corporation and his White House, but at the end of the day the views of the Saudis and of the whole Gulf have been sidelined by the wishes of Benjamin Netanyahu.”

Israel stands as the sole nation where overwhelming public support exists for the conflict with Iran, despite the profound impact on daily life. At least 15 people have been killed and hundreds injured by Iranian missiles since the war began in February, with school closures and missile warnings becoming routine. Polling indicates that more than 90% of Jewish Israelis back the war, a figure that sharply contrasts with international sentiment.The global perspective reveals a dramatically different picture. Nearly a month into the fighting, polling shows that 60% of the US public opposes the war with Iran, and just one in four Americans backed the initial strikes. In the Gulf, Europe and Asia, the conflict is widely unpopular as severe economic consequences begin to manifest.According to Emma Graham-Harrison, The Guardian's chief Middle East correspondent based in Jerusalem, many Jewish Israelis view themselves as under siege in a hostile world since the October 2023 massacre. This perception has led many to conclude that an aggressive security policy is the only way to ensure safety, regardless of international reaction.There's a prevailing sentiment in Israel that short-term suffering will lead to long-term security, despite security experts questioning whether Israel has a clear strategy to convert tactical achievements into lasting security. Life in Jerusalem remains restricted, with many working from home and limitations on businesses from cafes to gyms.The public support for the war has not translated into improved political fortunes for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who currently lags in polls for the upcoming general elections. While there is majority support for Netanyahu's decision to launch the war and his handling of it, even among those who don't want to give him another term, his coalition faces challenges in securing enough seats to return him to power.Some Israeli supporters of the war worry that Netanyahu's push to attack Iran has jeopardized the country's crucial relationship with the United States. Historically, Israel's foreign policy has been based on bipartisan ties, but Netanyahu has effectively abandoned that approach to cultivate an extremely close relationship with Trump.Israel's isolation is becoming increasingly apparent as the conflict continues. Unlike historical precedents where Israel achieved security through negotiated agreements with Jordan and Egypt, the current approach emphasizes military power above diplomatic solutions. This isolation is reflected in the fact that Israel may be the only place in the world with broad support for this war, with populations in Lebanon and Iran experiencing the conflict as horrific.

Oil prices are continuing to rise as markets see no end in sight to the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz. The critical waterway, which usually transports about one-fifth of the global oil supply, has been brought to a standstill by Iran in retaliation for US and Israeli strikes on the country.Brent crude, the most important benchmark for global prices, rose as much as 3 percent on Sunday to top $106 a barrel, before easing slightly early on Monday to $104.63 a barrel, up nearly 1.5 percent. This represents a more than 40 percent increase in global oil prices since the start of the war.US President Donald Trump has called on other countries to help Washington reopen the Strait, but his proposal has received a muted response. None of the countries he appealed to by name – including China, Japan, France, and the UK – have publicly committed to deploying their navies to secure the strait. Japan and Australia have both stated they have no plans to send ships to the critical waterway.The closure of the strait has resulted in what the International Energy Agency has called the largest disruption to global energy supplies in history. According to the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) centre, no more than five ships have passed through the strait each day since the start of the war, compared with a historical average of 138 daily transits. At least 16 commercial vessels have been attacked in the region since the war began on February 28.Trump has repeatedly stated he is willing to deploy the US Navy to escort commercial shipping through the strait if necessary. However, Trump administration officials have said that warships will not be deployed to the waterway until Tehran's military capacity has been further degraded.