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 Since Trump returned to office in 2025, he has withdrawn **99% of U.S. support**, shifting the financial load to European allies and turning the U.S. into a major arms supplier, with weapons sales reaching a record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.

Pakistan and China have jointly released a five-part proposal aimed at bringing peace to the Middle East, as the conflict between Iran and the US shows no signs of abating. The plan, which was agreed upon during a meeting between Pakistan's Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar and his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi, calls for an immediate ceasefire and the protection of key waterways, including the Strait of Hormuz.The proposal is part of Pakistan's broader efforts to position itself as a peacemaker in the region, with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Army Chief Syed Asim Munir engaging in diplomatic communications with global leaders, including US President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian. Islamabad has also hosted talks with foreign ministers from Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt in an attempt to find a regional solution to the conflict.China, which has maintained a neutral stance in the conflict, has emphasized the importance of dialogue and diplomacy in resolving the crisis. The joint statement from Pakistan and China highlighted that dialogue and diplomacy are the only viable options to resolve conflicts, although there appears to be little substantive progress in bringing key participants to the negotiating table.Pakistan's push for peace is driven by both geopolitical and domestic concerns. The country shares a 560-mile land border with Iran and has significant stakes in ending the conflict, including economic concerns related to the blockade on fuel and gas through the Strait of Hormuz. Furthermore, Pakistan is home to the world's largest population of Shia Muslims outside Iran, and there are fears that the conflict could stir up sectarian tensions.Rafiullah Kakar, a Pakistani columnist and political analyst, noted that Islamabad seeks to reinforce its standing as a consequential middle power within the broader Muslim world and to signal continued geopolitical importance to external partners, particularly Washington and the Gulf states. However, with serious instability in Iran having direct implications for Pakistan's security, Islamabad is keen to avoid being dragged into the conflict.

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.

In an exclusive interview with Al Jazeera, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio revealed that President Donald Trump favors diplomacy as a means to end the conflict with Iran. Rubio emphasized that direct talks between the US and Tehran are currently underway through intermediaries.Earlier, Trump threatened to target Iran's civilian energy infrastructure, including power plants, oil wells, and Kharg Island, if Tehran did not reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Despite these military threats, Rubio's comments suggest a preference for diplomatic engagement.

The recent arrival of US ground invasion forces in the Middle East has raised concerns about a potential military confrontation with Iran. With 5,000 marines and 2,000 paratroopers deployed, the US may attempt to forcibly open the Strait of Hormuz, a vital waterway through which a fifth of the world's oil trade passes.Iran's control over the strait gives it significant leverage, and any US action could lead to severe escalation. The US president, Donald Trump, has stated he is prepared to give diplomacy a chance, but he also expressed a desire to 'take the oil in Iran'. The situation is precarious, with experts warning of a high risk of casualties and escalation.There are two possible military options for the US to open the strait: seizing territory or deploying a massive naval presence. However, both options carry significant risks. Iran has threatened to carpet bomb its own territory to kill any American soldiers on its soil, and the US would need a substantial force to hold any territory.The deployment may be a show of force to strengthen the American negotiating position, but it could also lead to a more significant conflict. The challenge could be multiplied if Iran-allied Houthi forces in Yemen enter the conflict, potentially attacking vessels passing through the southern end of the Red Sea.

Iran's Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) spokesperson has issued a stern warning regarding the United States, stating that former President Donald Trump 'only understands the language of force'. This statement comes amid heightened tensions between Iran and the US, suggesting a potentially more assertive stance from Iran in response to Trump's policies.The IRGC spokesperson's comments reflect a broader narrative within Iran that Trump's approach to international relations is rooted in a show of strength, rather than diplomacy. This perspective is likely influenced by Trump's 'maximum pressure' campaign against Iran, which included economic sanctions and a significant military presence in the region.Iran's stance underscores the complexities of US-Iran relations, which have been strained for decades. The IRGC's statement may indicate a strategic recalibration by Iran, potentially leading to a more confrontational approach in its dealings with the US.

Top diplomats from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey have gathered in Islamabad for two-day talks with their Pakistani counterpart on the escalating conflict between the US and Israel against Iran. The goal is to seek a de-escalation of the situation.The talks, led by Pakistani Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar, follow Iran's agreement to allow 20 more ships under the Pakistani flag to pass through the Strait of Hormuz, with two ships permitted daily. This development was announced by Dar on Saturday.Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif had a detailed telephone conversation with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Saturday, lasting over an hour, as part of preparations for the Islamabad talks. Sharif emphasized Pakistan's commitment to bringing an end to the conflict.Al Jazeera's Kamal Kyder, reporting from Islamabad, noted that Pakistan has been acting as a key interlocutor between the US and Iran, facilitating communication between the two sides as part of mediation efforts. He described the gathering in Islamabad as the beginning of a critical process that hinges on diplomacy and dialogue.The talks in Islamabad are seen as a crucial step towards finding a peaceful resolution to the conflict. Iran's President Pezeshkian has thanked Pakistan for its mediation efforts to stop the aggression against Iran. With Islamabad's longstanding links with Tehran and close contacts in the Gulf, Pakistan is well-positioned to play a key role in these diplomatic efforts.Meanwhile, the risk of an expanded Iran war increased on Saturday as Yemen's Iran-aligned Houthi rebels launched their first attacks on Israel since the start of the conflict. The developments underscore the complexity and volatility of the situation in the Middle East.

Iran has agreed to permit 20 Pakistani-flagged vessels to transit the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial waterway for global oil supplies. This development is seen as a significant step towards alleviating the severe energy crisis affecting the region.Pakistan's Foreign Minister, Ishaq Dar, announced the agreement, stating that two ships will cross daily under the arrangement. He described Iran's decision as 'a harbinger of peace' and a 'welcome and constructive gesture'.The Strait of Hormuz has been effectively shut since the United States and Israel launched coordinated strikes on Iran on February 28, triggering a war that has resulted in significant loss of life and disruptions to global markets. The conflict has killed about 2,000 Iranians and over 1,100 people in Lebanon.The strait is a critical passage for oil supplies, with an estimated 2,000 vessels stranded on either side. This blockade has caused oil prices to surge past $100 a barrel, up by roughly 40 percent. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has turned the strait into a checkpoint, requiring ships to submit cargo details and receive clearance codes.At least two vessels have reportedly paid $2 million per crossing, settled in Chinese yuan, to secure passage. Iran's parliament is now moving to legalize this arrangement as a potential source of revenue.This agreement is the result of intense Pakistani diplomacy, with Army Chief Field Marshal Asim Munir speaking to US President Donald Trump and Foreign Minister Dar holding calls with his Iranian and Turkish counterparts.

The possibility of US ground troops being sent into combat on Iranian soil is growing, driven by President Trump's desire to avoid being personally and politically humiliated in a war he started, mismanaged, and cannot end. Such a self-serving escalation could prove catastrophic for Trump and the American people, given the history of US military interventions in the region.Trump insists that the war is all but won, Iran is suing for peace, and talks are making good progress. However, in the real world, Iran is still fighting on all fronts, Israel is still bombing, the Strait of Hormuz remains largely closed, and the Iran-allied Houthi militia in Yemen has joined the war, attacking Israel and potentially blocking Red Sea trade routes.The US and Iran have each issued maximalist demands, but there is no sign of actual negotiations. They are even further apart than they were before Trump, egged on by Benjamin Netanyahu, abandoned diplomacy last month. Sometime soon, Trump will be forced to confront the huge gap between what he wants and what's on offer. At that point, he could turn to the troop buildup in the Gulf and order ground attacks.It's incredible to think that after all the mortal agony and anguish of Iraq and Afghanistan, a US president is once again seriously contemplating boots on the ground in the Middle East. Trump's stumped, hoist by his own petard, stuck between a rock and a hard place, and up the creek without a paddle. The creek in question is, of course, the Strait of Hormuz.Trump is increasingly isolated and out on a limb. His wealthy Arab business cronies no longer trust him. US bases on their territory now resemble a liability, not a defence. When he demanded NATO's help, Europe said: we'll let you know. Likewise, Iran's ethnic Kurds are less than keen to die for a muppet. Support for the war among the US public and the Maga right, always weak, is a fast-vanishing mirage.If Trump were to order ground attacks – both he and Netanyahu have publicly discussed the possibility – the targets would most likely be the coastal batteries, missile defences, and concealed armed speedboat bases dotting the northern flank of the Hormuz strait. An attack on the Kharg oil export terminal further up the Gulf is also predicted.The inherent, inescapable military risks are daunting. Casualties would be inevitable. Even if operations went well in the short term, questions would immediately arise about potential escalation when Iran counterattacked, expansion of the operational area, and duration of the occupation.