Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

U.S. President Donald Trump announced that the next nuclear accord with Iran will be “far better” than the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) he abandoned in 2018, adding new demands on enrichment, ballistic missiles and proxy groups as a two‑week cease‑fire in the US‑Israel‑Iran conflict nears its end.Key DevelopmentsTrump asserts the forthcoming deal will surpass the JCPOA, which limited Iran’s uranium enrichment to 3.67% and reduced centrifuges to 6,104.New US‑Israel demands include: zero uranium enrichment, removal of the estimated 440 kg of 60%‑enriched uranium, strict caps on ballistic‑missile development, and a halt to support for Hezbollah, the Houthis and other proxy forces.Negotiations are expected to shift to Islamabad, Pakistan after the current cease‑fire expires.Analyst Andreas Kreig (King’s College London) predicts any new pact will likely resemble the JCPOA with limited tweaks, not the sweeping concessions Trump touts.Data & Market ImpactU.S. sanctions imposed after the 2018 withdrawal cut Iran’s oil exports by roughly 60 %, slashing revenue by an estimated $30 billion per year.Frozen Iranian sovereign assets total about $150 billion; their release would inject significant liquidity into Iran’s banking sector.IAEA reports indicate Iran now holds 440 kg of 60%‑enriched uranium, enough to reach weapons‑grade (90%) in weeks if centrifuge capacity is fully utilized.Why This MattersThe outcome will shape three critical arenas:Regional security: A stricter deal could curb Iran’s missile reach, reducing the threat to Israel’s “Iron Dome” and to Gulf‑state oil infrastructure.Global non‑proliferation: Allowing zero enrichment would set a precedent that could pressure other volatile states to accept similar terms, but it also risks driving Tehran underground if perceived as punitive.Economic stability: Lifting sanctions would revive Iran’s oil exports, potentially adding $20‑30 billion to global supply and influencing crude prices.Expert InsightAndreas Kreig warns that Tehran’s political climate has hardened; the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps now dominates strategic decision‑making, making concessions on sovereignty unlikely. While the United Nations resolution attached to the JCPOA prohibited missile work linked to nuclear delivery, the new U.S. demand for outright missile bans exceeds that framework and could stall talks.Economic incentives—rapid asset release and sanction relief—are the primary leverage for Washington. However, without a credible verification regime comparable to the JCPOA’s intrusive IAEA inspections, any “better” deal may lack enforceability, increasing the risk of clandestine enrichment.What Happens NextNegotiators are expected to convene in Islamabad within the next two weeks; the agenda will likely focus on enrichment thresholds and verification mechanisms.If talks stall, both sides may resort to further kinetic actions, as seen in recent strikes on Natanz, Isfahan and Bushehr facilities.International actors—EU, China, Russia—are poised to mediate, pushing for a compromise that balances sanctions relief with robust monitoring.Long‑term, the region’s stability hinges on whether the U.S. can deliver tangible economic benefits to Iran while securing verifiable limits on its nuclear and missile programs.

The Escalating Rhetoric Between Washington and TehranParliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf has stated that Iran is "prepared to reveal new cards on the battlefield" following United States President Donald Trump's threat to Tehran with "problems like they've never seen before" if the two-week ceasefire expires on Wednesday without a deal. This exchange of threats comes amid heightened tensions that have already disrupted the second round of US-Iran peace talks scheduled to take place in Pakistan.Geopolitical and Economic ImplicationsThe situation was further complicated when the US seized an Iranian-flagged vessel near the Strait of Hormuz over the weekend, angering Iranian authorities and provoking another surge in global oil prices. This action has significantly damaged the already fragile diplomatic environment, with Iran viewing the seizure as a violation of the ceasefire agreement. The Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for global oil supplies, has become a focal point of the conflict, with both sides demonstrating military readiness in the region.Regional Stability at RiskReporting from Tehran, Al Jazeera's Tohid Asadi noted that "there is no official confirmation on whether Iran is going to take part in talks in Islamabad," despite Iran attempting to "keep the door ajar to diplomacy." The situation presents a complex web of issues including the Strait of Hormuz, sanctions, war reparations, ballistic missiles, and Iran's regional relations. Both sides have presented long lists of demands, creating multiple sticking points that could derail any potential agreement and potentially lead to military confrontation.Path Forward Amid UncertaintyWhile Trump expressed confidence that Iran would negotiate, warning that otherwise "lots of bombs start going off," Iranian officials have made it clear they "do not accept negotiations under the shadow of threats." The international community watches closely as the ceasefire deadline approaches, with global oil markets already reacting to the uncertainty. The potential collapse of the ceasefire could have far-reaching consequences for regional stability and global energy markets, making a diplomatic resolution increasingly urgent despite the current impasse.

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.

North Korea has conducted a series of ballistic missile launches towards the sea off its eastern coast, as reported by South Korea and Japan. The incident occurred on Sunday, marking North Korea's seventh ballistic missile launch this year and its fourth in April.The missiles were fired near the city of Sinpo on North Korea's east coast at approximately 6:10 am local time on Sunday, equivalent to 21:10 GMT on Saturday. In response, South Korea has bolstered its surveillance posture and is closely exchanging information with the United States and Japan.According to Japan's government, the ballistic missiles are believed to have fallen near the east coast of the Korean Peninsula, with no incursion into Japan's exclusive economic zone confirmed. South Korea's presidential office has held an emergency security meeting to address the situation.These missile tests violate United Nations Security Council resolutions against North Korea's missile programme. However, North Korea rejects the UN ban, citing its sovereign right to self-defence.The launches come ahead of a summit between China and the US in mid-May, where Chinese President Xi Jinping and US President Joe Biden are expected to discuss North Korea. This development follows North Korea's recent assertion that its status as a nuclear-armed state is irreversible, with leader Kim Jong Un emphasizing the importance of expanding its "self-defensive nuclear deterrent" for national security.

Modern combat has been reshaped by the Russia‑Ukraine war, the Gaza clashes, India‑Pakistan skirmishes and the recent US‑Israel strikes on Iran, driving an unprecedented global appetite for drones, missiles and sophisticated air‑defence systems. Turkey, a leading military power in the Middle East, is positioning itself as a key supplier in this booming market. At the heart of Turkey’s push is Roketsan, a firm founded in 1988 to equip the Turkish Armed Forces. Today the company exports to roughly 50 nations and is counted among the fastest‑growing defence enterprises worldwide. Bypassing Western embargoes has been a catalyst for this growth. After the United States imposed CAATSA sanctions in 2020 and removed Turkey from the F‑35 programme, Ankara was forced to develop an indigenous defence ecosystem. The result is a network of nearly 4,000 small and medium‑sized enterprises that now supplies over 90 % of the components used in Turkish weapons. Financially, the strategy is paying off. In 2025 Turkish defence exports reached $10 billion. Roketsan’s General Manager Murat Ikinci told Al Jazeera the firm sits at 71st place among global defence firms and is targeting a climb into the top 50, then top 20, and ultimately the top 10 by the end of the decade. To fuel this ambition, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan inaugurated a suite of new facilities last week, including: Europe’s largest warhead production plant. A new R&D centre employing 1,000 engineers. The “Kirikkale” complex dedicated to rocket‑fuel research. Infrastructure for mass‑producing ballistic and cruise missiles. The construction represents a $1 billion outlay, with an additional $2 billion earmarked for scaling up production capacity. Roketsan’s R&D engine—the third‑largest in Turkey with 3,200 engineers—draws heavily on lessons from ongoing wars. The Ukraine conflict highlighted the effectiveness of cheap FPV and AI‑guided kamikaze drones, prompting Roketsan to field systems such as the ALKA and BURC air‑defences and the laser‑guided CIRIT missile. Recent US‑Israel operations against Iran have underscored the threat posed by low‑cost Iranian‑designed Shahed drones, now upgraded with Russian “Kometa‑B” anti‑jamming modules. These swarms have overwhelmed regional defences and even struck a British base in Cyprus in March 2026, while NATO intercepted three Iranian ballistic missiles that entered Turkish airspace. In response, Roketsan is advancing the “Tayfun” (Typhoon) missile family. The flagship Tayfun Block 4 is a hypersonic ballistic missile designed to pierce advanced air‑defence layers at extreme speeds. When pressed for specifics, Ikinci declined to disclose the exact range, noting only that it is “sufficient.” Strategically, Turkey is shifting away from Western dependence toward an “Eastern” partnership model. Roketsan now offers joint production and technology‑development agreements, establishing co‑located facilities and R&D centres across the Middle East, Far East and Europe. Qatar has been cited as a flagship example of this collaborative approach. Roketsan has identified five priority product lines to meet rising global demand: Long‑range ballistic and cruise missiles. Advanced air‑defence systems, including “Steel Dome”, Hisar‑A, Hisar‑O and Siper. Submarine‑launched cruise missiles leveraging the AKYA system. Smart micro‑munitions for armed drones. Long‑range air‑to‑air missiles, a capability highlighted by the recent India‑Pakistan clash. The timing is critical. Ongoing conflicts have depleted the stockpiles of high‑end air‑defence assets worldwide. During the US‑Israel‑Iran confrontation, the United States relied heavily on Patriot and THAAD systems, raising concerns that interceptor inventories could run low. Gulf states, which have logged over 1,000 drone sightings in their airspace, are actively seeking alternative solutions—an opening that Turkey’s self‑sufficient supply chain is poised to fill. Analysts warn that even major powers like the United States will need years to rebuild their air‑defence inventories due to the complexity of production. Turkey’s claim of near‑complete domestic manufacturing positions it as a ready supplier for nations eager to diversify away from traditional Western sources. As demand for missiles and drones surges, Roketsan is reinvesting its revenues into expanding production infrastructure, aiming to cement its place among the world’s elite defence exporters.

An overwhelming majority of Israelis oppose the US-Iran ceasefire deal announced last week, with 61% of respondents in a recent poll expressing their disapproval. The poll, conducted by the Israeli Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), also found that 73% of respondents expect fighting with Iran to resume within the next year.The ceasefire deal, which was negotiated without Israel's direct involvement, has been met with skepticism by many Israelis who feel that it does not address the root causes of the conflict with Iran. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had promised a final showdown with Iran, but the deal has left the Iranian government still standing.The Israeli public's disappointment with the ceasefire deal is reflected in the 69% of respondents who support continued military action in Lebanon, despite talks between the Lebanese and Israeli governments. Israel has continued to attack Lebanon, killing over 300 people in the past week.Analysts say that Netanyahu's problem is that he had oversold the war's objectives, promising regime collapse and the destruction of Iran's nuclear program and ballistic missiles. However, these goals were unrealistic, and the ceasefire deal has exposed the gap between Netanyahu's rhetoric and the reality on the ground.The opposition to the ceasefire deal is not limited to Netanyahu's critics, with opposition leaders like Yair Lapid also expressing their disappointment. Lapid has accused Netanyahu of turning Israel into a protectorate state that receives instructions from the US on matters of national security.Despite the backlash, Netanyahu has given public support to the US blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, claiming that Israel and the US are in constant coordination. However, analysts say that Israel is unlikely to break with the US while it is leading negotiations with Iran.

Ukraine’s armed forces reported that Russian soldier losses surged to 35,351 in March, the highest monthly tally since the conflict began. 96% of those casualties were inflicted by Ukrainian drones, with artillery and small arms accounting for the remainder. This represents a 29% increase over February’s figures, according to Ukraine’s commander‑in‑chief. Ukrainian officials say the spike confirms a trend of rising Russian attrition. Deputy Head of the Presidential Office, Colonel Pavlo Palisa, noted that Russia suffered 316 casualties per square kilometre captured in the first quarter of 2026, compared with just 120 per km² in 2025. Russia’s manpower replenishment is faltering. Although Moscow set a target of 409,000 contract soldiers for the year, recruitment in the first quarter averaged 940 troops per day, well below the required 1,120 per day. At this pace, analysts project a 65,000‑person shortfall by year‑end, a vulnerability Kyiv aims to exploit. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has publicly set a goal of inflicting 50,000 Russian casualties each month to render the invading force “irrecoverably weakened.” Territorial gains for Russia are also receding. The Institute for the Study of War estimates Russian forces captured an average of 5.5 sq km per day in 2026, down from 10.66 sq km a year earlier and 14.9 sq km at the end of 2024. Ukrainian commanders attribute their lethal edge to a rapid expansion of drone capabilities. Commander‑in‑Chief Oleksandr Syrskii disclosed that Ukrainian drones struck 151,207 targets in March, a 50% rise from February, driven by roughly 11,000 sorties daily. Ukraine now enjoys a 1.3:1 advantage in First‑Person‑View drones on the frontlines. Interceptor drones also played a decisive role, with Defence Minister Mykhailo Fedorov reporting a record 33,000 Russian UAVs shot down in March—double the previous month’s tally. His deputy, Serhii “Flash” Beskrestnov, is collaborating with manufacturers on next‑generation interceptors capable of speeds up to 550 km/h to counter emerging jet‑powered Shahed drones. Long‑range strike capacity is set to expand further. Fire Point, Ukraine’s leading long‑range drone producer, announced the near‑deployment of two ballistic missiles with ranges of 300 km and 850 km, the latter theoretically reaching Moscow. These offensive gains have shifted the operational balance. Syrskii asserts that, despite modest territorial concessions, Ukrainian forces have seized the “strategic initiative” by preventing large‑scale Russian offensives and intensifying mid‑range strikes (30‑120 km into Russian rear areas) against logistics hubs, warehouses, command posts and oil depots. On the ground, Ukrainian troops have recaptured eight settlements and reclaimed 480 sq km of land in the Dnipropetrovsk region, underscoring the momentum of Kyiv’s counter‑offensive. Analysts warn that Russia may still pursue broader territorial ambitions, eyeing the Odesa and Mykolaiv coasts and a potential southern buffer in Vinnytsia near Moldova’s Transnistria. President Zelenskyy reiterated that Russian leadership believes a Ukrainian retreat would spare “hundreds of thousands of people,” a claim he dismissed as a strategic ploy during recent ceasefire talks.

The ongoing conflict between the US and Israel and Iran has significantly altered the dynamics of the nuclear programme negotiations. Former US envoys who dealt with Iran have stated that the US-Israeli attack on Iran and Tehran's subsequent closure of the Strait of Hormuz have given Iran new tools and resolve to resist pressure to shutter its nuclear programme.Two senior negotiators for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the Obama-era agreement to limit Iran's nuclear uranium enrichment in exchange for sanctions relief, said the Trump administration's war had handed Iran a coveted weapon by demonstrating its ability to cut off the Strait of Hormuz, an economic chokehold that one negotiator said would help Iran 'balance the asymmetry of power' with the US.Alan Eyre, a former diplomat who helped negotiate the JCPOA, noted that 'this administration, to say it more politely, cannot unsoil the bed. There's no way to get back to the status quo ante before this war started.'In 2018, Donald Trump withdrew the US from the JCPOA, which barred Tehran from enriching its uranium to weapons-grade. Trump called the deal 'one of the worst and most one-sided transactions' the US had ever entered into.However, after a strategy of high pressure – first through returning sanctions and then, after Trump's return to power in 2025, a war that was meant to destroy Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities – the current US administration has found itself in more complex negotiations than before its campaign of economic and military strikes.Robert Malley, a Yale lecturer who was former special envoy to Iran under Joe Biden and a lead negotiator on the JCPOA, said: 'The strait of Hormuz wasn't an issue before the US decided to strike. You have all the issues inherited from the past, but you just added a few, because the US has handed Iran a tool that it always had, but it never thought of using, or never felt it could.'The chances for a comprehensive agreement addressing all of the US and Iran's grievances appear slim. While the Obama administration sought to negotiate exclusively on Iran's nuclear programme in the lead-up to the 2015 agreement, the Trump administration has sought a broader deal limiting Iran's ballistic missiles programme and its support for regional proxies, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen.

Iran and the United States each declared a triumph after agreeing to a two‑week ceasefire that was announced just before President Donald Trump’s deadline to force Tehran’s surrender. The conflict, which began on 28 February, has already claimed 2,076 lives in U.S.–Israel strikes on Iran and has caused thousands more deaths across the region. The fighting has also shocked global energy markets, stranding oil tankers and pushing prices to unprecedented levels. Trump announced on Truth Social that the United States would halt bombing Iran after receiving a “workable” 10‑point ceasefire proposal, adding that “almost all of the various points of past contention have been agreed to.” Iran, for its part, said it would reopen the Strait of Hormuz to commercial traffic, even as some citizens denounced the government’s perceived capitulation. Both parties are set to resume Pakistan‑mediated talks in Islamabad on Friday, though analysts warn that earlier red lines may resurface. Key terms of the Tuesday agreement: the United States will suspend air strikes for two weeks, citing that it has already achieved its military objectives and is close to a “definitive agreement concerning long‑term peace.” Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, pledged to halt “defensive operations” and to allow safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz, while also indicating willingness to fund reconstruction from fees collected on transiting ships. Domestic reaction in Iran remains volatile. University of Tehran professor Foad Izadi noted that the public’s pessimism stems from two prior escalations—June’s 12‑day war and the February 28 strikes—both of which occurred amid ongoing negotiations. Earlier demands: The United States had presented a 15‑point plan on 25 March, calling for a 30‑day ceasefire, immediate reopening of the Strait, Iran’s de‑commissioning of its nuclear facilities, a total ban on uranium enrichment, handover of nuclear stockpiles to the IAEA, cessation of support to regional proxies, strict limits on ballistic missiles, and a full lift of sanctions, among other items. Iran responded with a 10‑point proposal that emphasized a non‑aggression commitment from the United States, controlled passage through the Strait, acceptance of its enrichment programme, comprehensive sanctions relief, withdrawal of U.S. combat forces, compensation for war damages via shipping fees, and a binding UN Security Council resolution. Both sides have already made concessions. Iran moved from demanding a permanent ceasefire to accepting a two‑week pause, and it shifted from insisting on reparations to proposing reconstruction funding from Strait fees. The United States, meanwhile, has softened its demand for an “unconditional” Iranian surrender and has not reiterated its earlier insistence on dismantling Iran’s missile capabilities. One of the most contentious issues remains the status of Lebanon. While Pakistan’s prime minister said the ceasefire would extend to Lebanon, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu denied any such inclusion, and Israel launched a major bombing campaign in Beirut shortly thereafter, killing hundreds. Looking ahead, analysts highlight that the United States is unlikely to concede on the complete withdrawal of its roughly 50,000 troops stationed across 19 Middle Eastern sites—a demand Tehran has placed on the table. The outcome of the upcoming talks will hinge on whether Washington can accommodate Tehran’s broader political and economic requests without compromising its strategic objectives.