Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

The United States has a long history of threatening to carpet bomb countries, with President Donald Trump recently warning Iran that he would bomb the country 'back to the stone ages.' This rhetoric is not new, as US leaders have made similar threats in the past.During his prime-time address to the nation, Trump said, referring to Iran: 'We are going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks, we're going to bring them back to the stone ages, where they belong.' Trump also said 'discussions are ongoing,' adding that the conflict could end over the same period.The current war on Iran began on February 28 when the US and Israel launched their attacks. Tehran hit back, targeting Israel and Gulf countries. More than 2,000 Iranians have been killed in the war so far. Thousands of civilian sites, including hospitals, schools, universities, and pharmaceutical factories, have been attacked by Israel and the US.Janina Dill, a global security professor at the University of Oxford, told Al Jazeera that if Trump's 'stone ages' threat implies that the US will destroy structures and buildings that characterise a modern society, 'then this would be illegal because it implies directing attacks against civilian objects.'The phrase 'bombing back to the stone ages' is widely associated with US Air Force officer Curtis LeMay, in the context of US threats against North Vietnam in LeMay's 1965 book, Mission with LeMay. LeMay wrote: 'We're going to bomb them back into the Stone Age.'The US carried out intensive bombing in South Vietnam, as well as in Cambodia and Laos, claiming to target enemy bases and supply routes. Overall, millions of Vietnamese soldiers and civilians were killed or wounded in the war.In January 1991, the US led a global coalition to force out Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Former US Secretary of State James Baker threatened that the US would bomb Iraq 'back to the Stone Age' if it did not withdraw from Kuwait.During World War II, the US carpet bombed Japanese cities, as well as cities in Asia that were controlled by Japanese forces. During the Korean War, the US carried out heavy bombing in North Korea, which some officials said destroyed almost every town.

A recent statement by Pastor Franklin Graham has ignited controversy, claiming that Iranians are seeking the death of all Jews. This assertion was made in the context of a prayer at the White House, drawing significant attention to the complex dynamics between Iran and Israel. The relationship between Iran and Israel has long been strained, with Iran's stance on Israel being a focal point of international concern. Iran has repeatedly denied allegations of seeking to destroy Israel, but its rhetoric and actions have been closely monitored by global powers. Pastor Graham's comments have highlighted the deep-seated tensions in the region and the challenges of navigating diplomatic relations. The White House, as a platform for such statements, underscores the significance of religious and political discourse in shaping international perceptions. The international community remains vigilant, monitoring developments that could impact global stability. The situation underscores the importance of diplomatic engagement and the need for clear communication to avoid escalating tensions.

Iran launched a fresh wave of missiles toward Israel in what appears to be a direct response to U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent televised address. In that speech, Trump asserted that Washington had effectively destroyed the Iranian military and was on the brink of fulfilling its war goals in the region. The presidential remarks came just hours after Trump claimed that Iran had asked for a ceasefire. Tehran promptly denied the request, emphasizing that it had not sought any pause in hostilities. This escalation underscores the volatile dynamics of the Middle East, where diplomatic rhetoric from Washington can quickly translate into kinetic actions on the ground. The missile barrage not only heightens the risk of broader conflict between Iran and Israel but also places the United States in a precarious position, having publicly declared a near‑victory over Tehran while its ally faces direct attacks. Analysts note that Trump's statements may be aimed at bolstering domestic support by portraying a decisive end to a protracted regional struggle. However, the Iranian denial of a ceasefire request suggests that diplomatic channels remain strained, and the likelihood of further military exchanges is increasing. Regional observers warn that continued missile exchanges could destabilize already fragile peace efforts, potentially drawing in additional actors and complicating any forthcoming negotiations.

TikTok announced the removal of a high‑profile Israeli far‑right influencer’s account after The Guardian identified videos in which he assaulted left‑wing activists in the occupied West Bank. The platform said the content breached its community guidelines on hate speech and bullying. The influencer, identified as Roi Star, posted footage in January showing himself entering a house used by activists in Ras Ein al‑Auja and using pepper spray on a protester who tried to stop him. In the same clip, he shouted, “This is Judea, not Palestine,” and later threatened to disclose personal details of the activists and their families. When contacted, Star claimed he was “talking about peace” and argued that the area was an open Israeli public space, insisting that his use of pepper spray was the “most minimal” defensive measure. He later described the incident as “acting” and said his intentions were not “extreme.” TikTok’s statement emphasized that its policies prohibit “violent and hateful individuals, including extremist praise or glorification,” and that the account was taken down for breaching these rules. The company also said it had removed additional videos linked to other Israeli far‑right agitators, though it did not disclose further details. The incident occurs against a backdrop of rising far‑right activity on social platforms since the Gaza war began in October 2023. Israeli forces and settlers have been responsible for the deaths of over 1,000 Palestinians in the West Bank, and recent weeks have seen an escalation of attacks on homes and activists. Human‑rights groups warn that the online amplification of such content fuels real‑world violence. Yuli Novak, executive director of B’Tselem, said dehumanising Palestinians has become “mainstream in Israel,” while digital‑media scholar Prof. Anat Ben‑David highlighted the “troubling convergence between platform dynamics and on‑the‑ground violence.” Activists on the ground report a profound psychological impact, with one resident of Masafer Yatta noting that the videos heighten fear among Palestinians living under daily settler attacks. The phenomenon mirrors the rhetoric of Israel’s far‑right politicians. In August 2025, National Security Minister Itamar Ben‑Gvir faced criticism for posting a video taunting Palestinian leader Marwan Barghouti, while Knesset member Zvi Sukkot was filmed denying settler violence in the West Bank, framing the settlement enterprise as a biblical right. Meta’s Instagram continues to host numerous accounts linked to similar agitators, though the company has not responded to requests for comment. Experts argue that while platform policies technically forbid hate‑speech, their vague language allows harmful content to spread unchecked, underscoring the need for stronger enforcement to curb the digital propagation of extremist narratives.

Israel’s parliament has approved a law that authorises the death penalty solely for Palestinians convicted in West Bank military courts for what the courts define as "terrorism" killings of Israelis. The measure was greeted with celebration by far‑right politicians, yet it has drawn swift rebuke from the United Nations human‑rights chief, who warned it could constitute a war crime, and from a broad coalition of international observers.Israeli rights organisations argue that the law is the latest manifestation of an apartheid‑style legal framework that systematically privileges Jewish citizens while imposing severe penalties on Palestinians. They contend that such legislation entrenches a system of codified discrimination that has evolved since the state’s founding.Under the new rule, military tribunals in the occupied West Bank – which exclusively try Palestinians – will, by default, impose the death sentence on anyone found guilty of an unlawful killing of Israelis classified as terrorism. In contrast, Israeli citizens charged with comparable offences in the same territory are tried in civilian courts, where the death penalty is not applied.Statistics underscore the disparity: conviction rates for Palestinians in military courts hover at an astonishing 99.74%, whereas Israelis tried for crimes committed in the West Bank have a conviction rate of roughly 3% between 2005 and 2024. These figures highlight the stark imbalance in judicial outcomes.Arab‑Israeli lawmaker Aida Touma‑Suleiman of the Hadash party expressed her dismay, leaving the parliamentary chamber after the vote and stating she anticipated “scenes of happiness” from far‑right figures but was “painful” to see the public echo the same sentiment.The law follows a series of statutes that critics say have progressively eroded Palestinian rights, including the 1950 Absentees’ Property Law, the 2003 Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law, and the 2018 Nation‑State Law, which enshrines Jewish supremacy in identity, settlement policy, and constitutional hierarchy while marginalising Arabic.Human‑rights advocate Yair Dvir of B’Tselem described Israel as an “apartheid regime,” noting that a “whole set of laws” differentiate between Jews and Palestinians and that the death‑penalty legislation is less an outlier than a logical extension of existing policies that deny Palestinians the right to life.Analysts argue that the dehumanisation of Palestinians has deepened to the point where capital punishment can be enacted with minimal dissent and even public celebration by parliamentarians.Physician‑rights activist Tirza Leibowitz of Physicians for Human Rights – Israel warned that the law exemplifies a broader pattern of violations, ranging from inhumane prison conditions to a legal system that often refuses to investigate crimes against Palestinians or actively shields abusive practices.She cited the unresolved deaths of more than 100 Palestinians in the West Bank since the October 2023 Gaza conflict, highlighting the case of 17‑year‑old Walid Ahmad, whose death by starvation in custody was ruled “undeterminable” by an Israeli judge, as evidence of the low value placed on Palestinian lives.Leibowitz also pointed to the recent dropping of charges against soldiers accused of sexual abuse at Sde Temain prison, noting that far‑right protesters, including lawmakers, rallied in support of the accused, further normalising systemic abuse.Touma‑Suleiman linked the new law to the 2018 Nation‑State legislation, recalling a confrontation with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in which he dismissed her criticism, insisting Israel remains “the Middle East’s only democracy.” She later observed that far‑right leader Itamar Ben‑Gvir has openly chanted “Death to Arabs,” rebranding it as “Death to terrorists,” thereby blurring the line between extremist rhetoric and state policy.Overall, the death‑penalty law is being portrayed by critics as a stark illustration of an entrenched apartheid system, raising serious questions about Israel’s adherence to international legal standards and the future of Palestinian rights under occupation.

Iran has strongly denied US President Donald Trump's claim that the Iranian president has requested a ceasefire amid the ongoing conflict with the United States and Israel. A senior Iranian official stated that there has been no such request, contradicting Trump's post on social media.According to Al Jazeera's Ali Hashem, reporting from Tehran, the Iranian government is refuting Trump's claim, stating that they have not asked for any ceasefire. This development occurs as the US and Israel continue their military actions against Iran, leading to soaring global energy prices and widespread opposition among the US public.Trump's claim came just hours before he was scheduled to deliver a speech in Washington, DC, which the White House described as an 'important update on Iran'. In his social media post, Trump mentioned that his administration would consider the purported ceasefire request once the Strait of Hormuz is 'open, free, and clear'. He also threatened to continue 'blasting Iran into oblivion' until this condition is met.The ongoing conflict has raised serious concerns about a global economic downturn, particularly due to the critical nature of the Strait of Hormuz, through which about one-fifth of the world's oil and liquified natural gas supplies transit. Experts, such as Mohamad Elmasry from the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies, have expressed concerns over Trump's aggressive rhetoric and its implications for civilian infrastructure in Iran.Al Jazeera's Alan Fisher, reporting from the White House, suggested that Trump is unlikely to announce an immediate end to the war during his address. Instead, sources indicate that he may state the conflict will continue for a couple of weeks, acknowledging the financial strain on the public but framing it as a short-term pain.

Donald Trump announced over the weekend that he wants to "take the oil in Iran" by seizing control of Kharg Island, the strategic outpost through which roughly 90% of Iran’s oil exports flow. Experts say the remark underscores a blatant disregard for international law and exemplifies what they term “fossil‑fuel imperialism.” Patrick Bigger, co‑director of the Transition Security Project, described the approach as a "might‑makes‑right" logic that is both "abhorrent and spectacularly miscalculated." Trump is slated to give an update on the Iran‑U.S. conflict on Wednesday. He previously claimed the war could end within weeks, a statement that sent the stock market soaring on expectations of de‑escalation. Iran, however, has insisted it needs guarantees against future attacks before halting its counter‑offensive. The fighting continues, highlighted by an Iranian strike on a fully loaded crude tanker in Dubai and threats to "blow up and completely obliterate" Iran’s energy infrastructure if the Strait of Hormuz is not reopened promptly. Kharg Island, a five‑mile strip that handles the bulk of Iran’s oil shipments, along with its power plants and oil wells, has been singled out by Trump. He told the Financial Times that U.S. forces should take over the island and the oil stored there. "My favorite thing is to take the oil in Iran," Trump said, adding that critics in the United States are "stupid people." Amir Handjani, an energy lawyer at the Quincy Institute, warned that the statement "completely discredited" the war’s stated objectives and revealed a classic play for natural resources. Handjani noted that Trump’s desire to seize Iranian oil is not new; he voiced similar ambitions in a 1988 interview while promoting The Art of the Deal, saying he would "do a number on Kharg Island" if elected. The former president has also floated comparable ideas for Iraq, Syria and Venezuela, suggesting the United States could appropriate their oil to offset war costs or bolster strategic reserves. Handjani emphasized that international law provides no framework for waging war to capture sovereign nations' natural resources. From a military perspective, taking Kharg Island would be extremely challenging. Iranian missile defenses have rendered regional U.S. bases inoperable, meaning any assault would likely require a parachute insertion of Marines into heavy fire, with the risk of massive Iranian retaliation. Handjani warned that such retaliation could target oil export terminals across the Persian Gulf, potentially driving crude prices to $200‑$300 per barrel and destabilising the global economy. The conflict has already caused the largest-ever disruption to global energy supplies, killing thousands and sparking sharp fuel‑price shocks. While consumers bear the brunt, major fossil‑fuel companies are enjoying windfall profits. Bigger noted that higher oil prices benefit oil majors and are being used as a pretext to expand U.S. drilling, further entrenching reliance on carbon‑intensive fuels. According to Bigger, Trump’s rhetoric reveals a belief that "fossil fuels are a linchpin of his domestic industrial strategy," and that controlling oil equates to controlling global power. He argues that this mindset threatens the international order and hampers the transition to cleaner energy.

Amid the escalating United States‑Israel confrontation with Iran, parliamentary speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf has emerged as an unexpected voice on financial strategy, posting a series of warnings on X that market‑moving headlines are often engineered to trigger profit‑taking. Ghalibaf’s core advice is simple yet provocative: if a headline inflates prices, bet against it; if it drags prices down, go long. He describes pre‑market news bursts as a “reverse indicator” designed to manipulate investors. His posts are laced with sarcasm, referencing alleged manipulation of oil futures and even joking about turning rhetoric into “actual fuel at the pump.” Behind the humor, analysts say, lies a calculated effort to exploit the overlap between digital propaganda and real‑world conflict. The backdrop to Ghalibaf’s messaging is Iran’s use of asymmetric warfare, notably the brief shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz—a chokepoint through which roughly 20% of global oil and LNG shipments pass. The closure sent crude prices soaring and heightened economic pressure worldwide, underscoring Tehran’s ability to influence U.S. markets by targeting critical supply routes. On March 22, Ghalibaf warned financial institutions that support U.S. military financing in the Middle East, declaring that U.S. Treasury bonds are “soaked in Iranians’ blood” and that their portfolios were under surveillance. Economist Jo Michell of the University of the West of England observes that falling equity markets, rising energy costs, and higher interest rates could eventually force President Donald Trump to seek a diplomatic exit from the conflict. Michell notes that Trump often delivers his most aggressive statements over weekends when markets are closed, only to retreat before the opening bell—a pattern traders have dubbed TACO (“Trump always chickens out”). Indeed, when Trump’s original 48‑hour deadline for Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz loomed, he extended it by five days and later pledged a further 10‑day pause on attacks against Iranian energy infrastructure, actions that analysts interpret as deliberate market signaling. Middle‑East specialist Zeidon Alkinani explains that the conflict’s volatility creates new leverage points beyond direct price manipulation. Even light‑hearted rhetoric from officials like Ghalibaf can exacerbate market instability, as investors scramble for any hint of the war’s trajectory. In this environment, uncertainty itself becomes a powerful market driver. Alkinani stresses that the significance of the Strait of Hormuz now extends beyond physical oil flow disruptions; it reshapes investor expectations and amplifies the impact of digital messaging, especially given Trump’s high‑visibility online presence. Overall, Ghalibaf’s social‑media campaign illustrates how Tehran is blending military pressure with information warfare, turning market sentiment into an additional front of the broader geopolitical struggle.

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