Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Immediate Breach of Proposed De-escalationHours after US President Donald Trump announced a breakthrough de-escalation agreement, the conflict on the ground raged on. Israeli strikes across southern Lebanon resulted in the deaths of at least five people, underscoring the immense challenge of enforcing peace in a deeply fractured region. Neither the Israeli government nor the Iran-aligned group Hezbollah had publicly accepted the terms at the time of the attacks.Ground Realities and Strategic StrikesThe Lebanese National News Agency (NNA) reported multiple targeted attacks that immediately tested the proposed truce. Two Syrian workers were killed at a plant nursery in Jebchit, while drone strikes targeted vehicles and motorcycles in Toul, Ansar, and Nabatieh. These strikes occurred parallel to Israeli troops consolidating control over strategic positions, such as the 900-year-old Beaufort Castle, which was seized by Israeli forces recently. Meanwhile, the Israeli military reported intercepting two projectiles crossing from Lebanon into northern Israel.Mounting Human Cost and Military CasualtiesThe continued tit-for-tat violence has resulted in staggering casualties, reflecting the intensity of the recent escalation that began when Hezbollah entered the fray on March 2. The data illustrates a devastating toll on both sides of the border:Lebanese casualties: At least 3,433 people killed in Lebanon since March 2.Israeli military losses: 27 soldiers killed since early March, including two recently near the strategic Beaufort Castle position.Recent strikes: 5 individuals killed in the latest wave of Israeli attacks within hours of the ceasefire announcement.Geopolitical Friction and the Iran FactorThe immediate violation of the proposed truce threatens to derail broader diplomatic efforts. President Trump's announcement claimed an agreement to halt strikes on Beirut's southern suburbs in exchange for Hezbollah ceasing fire into Israel. However, the reality on the ground shows a complex theater of war where Hezbollah continues to target what it calls occupying troops in southern Lebanon. Furthermore, this localized conflict is deeply entangled with the broader US-Iran tensions. Tehran, which was drawn into the conflict following the killing of its supreme leader, has reportedly halted engagement with Washington due to Israel's offensive in Lebanon.Outlook for the US-Hosted NegotiationsAs military delegations prepare for a fourth round of US-hosted security talks between Israel and Lebanon, the trajectory of this conflict remains highly volatile. Unless both parties formally commit to the terms discussed by Trump and establish a robust enforcement mechanism, the April ceasefire agreement will remain merely diplomatic rhetoric. The coming days will be critical in determining whether the upcoming negotiations can override the kinetic realities on the ground, or if the region will plunge deeper into a multi-front war.

Executive Summary: A Deal Remains ElusiveIran’s leadership has not ruled out a settlement with the United States, but competing hawkish voices on both sides are raising demands that keep any understanding out of reach. The war‑driven environment, disputes over the Strait of Hormuz and lingering distrust make the path to a durable agreement uncertain.Divergent Stances Within Iran’s Power StructureKey figures and institutions express markedly different thresholds for negotiation:Mojtaba Khamenei – son of the late Supreme Leader, author of written messages that stress a “resistance economy” and a future without U.S. presence.IRGC commanders – Ahmad Vahidi, Ali Abdollahi, Majid Mousavi and Mohammad Ali Jafari demand no major concessions, emphasizing deterrence, control of the Strait of Hormuz and a set of five pre‑conditions for talks.Saeed Jalili and the Paydari Front – hard‑line parliamentarians who view any compromise as a loss, insisting on guarantees that do not rely on “trusting” the United States.Government pragmatists – parliamentary speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, President Masoud Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi signal openness to a pragmatic deal that ends hostilities.Financial Stakes and Strategic DemandsNegotiations are anchored by concrete economic and security requests:Control and classification of vessel traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, including the right to levy transit fees.Access to at least 12 bn USD in frozen Iranian assets abroad.Removal of U.S. and United Nations sanctions linked to Iran’s nuclear programme.Release of frozen assets, war reparations and recognition of Iranian sovereignty over Hormuz as outlined by Mohammad Ali Jafari.Regional and Diplomatic ImplicationsThe internal split influences broader dynamics:Continued military exchanges between the U.S. and the IRGC raise the risk of accidental escalation.State‑run media and IRGC‑linked outlets amplify maximalist rhetoric, shaping public opinion against compromise.Hard‑line pressure could force the United States to offer stricter guarantees, potentially prolonging the stalemate.Any concession on Hormuz could alter global oil shipping routes and affect energy markets worldwide.Outlook: Scenarios for a US‑Iran AgreementAnalysts see three plausible trajectories:Stalemate – hard‑liners block a deal, extending the conflict and deepening sanctions.Limited Interim Accord – pragmatic leaders secure a cease‑fire and limited economic relief while broader issues remain unresolved.Comprehensive Settlement – a breakthrough that meets most of Tehran’s demands (asset release, Hormuz control, sanction lift) and includes security guarantees for the United States, leading to a gradual de‑escalation.The direction Iran ultimately takes will hinge on the balance of power between its hard‑line factions and the more moderate elements seeking an end to the war.

Court Blocks Trump's Transgender Military BanA United States court of appeals has ruled that a policy under President Donald Trump to expel transgender troops from the military was a violation of the Constitution. Monday's decision was a split one among the three-judge panel of the US appeals court for the District of Columbia.One judge, Robert Wilkins, an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama, upheld a lower court ruling rejecting the Trump administration's policy as it pertains to already enlisted service members. A second judge – Judith Rogers, who was picked by former Democratic President Bill Clinton – agreed with his opinion, but only in part. She felt it should extend to those who seek to enlist, too.And the third judge, Trump pick Justin Walker, issued a dissent questioning the court's ability to second-guess US military policy.Origins of Trump's Controversial PolicyThe case focused on one of the earliest actions Trump took during his second term in office. On January 27, 2025, a week after his second inauguration, Trump issued an executive order called "Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness".In it, he denounced the US armed forces as having been infiltrated with "radical gender ideology". He proceeded to describe transgender people as unfit for service for embracing a "false 'gender identity'"."A man's assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member," Trump wrote.The executive order became the basis for a 13-page Pentagon memorandum, issued in February 2025 under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. It declared that any service member who has "symptoms" of gender dysphoria, or who has used hormone therapy or surgery to affirm their gender, would be "disqualified from military service".Military Service Record of Transgender PlaintiffsIn Monday's ruling, Wilkins described the policy as blatantly discriminatory. The policy, he wrote, "appears to be driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group: persons who identify as transgender"."To add insult, the President labeled transgender persons as dishonorable, undisciplined, arrogant, selfish liars," Wilkins added, pointing to the executive order.He pointed out that the transgender plaintiffs in the case had a combined 130 years of military service and had earned more than 80 commendations for their work.In the face of such evidence, Wilkins said the Trump administration had "forfeited any argument" that "retaining these service members will harm national security".Divided Rulings and Legal ImplicationsBut Wilkins stopped short of fully upholding a lower court ruling against the policy. Previously, Judge Ana Reyes had issued a temporary injunction against Trump's executive order, finding that the discrimination against transgender troops was unconstitutional.Wilkins agreed with Reyes that the Trump administration could not dismiss those already in the military's employ. But, he added, the harm was less for those seeking to enlist.Monday's ruling, therefore, strikes down the part of Reyes's injunction that would have barred the Trump administration from banning transgender people from the enlistment process.Rogers, the Clinton appointee, disagreed with that distinction. She pointed to testimony indicating that excluding transgender recruits from joining the military would deprive "our force of qualified personnel who have proven their ability to serve".Meanwhile, the dissent from the Trump appointee, Walker, hinged on his argument that the court had violated the separation of powers in the US government.Courts, he argued, should not be able to rule on the composition of the military."We have neither the expertise nor the authority to decide whether the military can exclude the plaintiffs from its ranks," Walker wrote. "The Constitution assigns that authority to Congress and the Commander in Chief."What Happens Next in the Legal BattleThe split decision is unlikely to have an immediate effect on US military policy. The appeals court has stayed the preliminary injunction from Reyes, as the legal fight continues, and last year, the US Supreme Court also halted an injunction against Trump's anti-transgender policy, in the case United States v Shilling.In a short, four-word social media post, Hegseth signalled that the Pentagon would appeal Monday's decision."See you at SCOTUS," he wrote, using the acronym for Supreme Court of the United States.But Democrats and LGBTQ+ advocates hailed the ruling as a victory against prejudice and discrimination in the Trump administration."No one who is qualified and answers the call to serve should be denied that opportunity because of who they are," US Representative John Larson of Connecticut wrote in a statement."Trump's trans military ban is discrimination — plain and simple. We'll keep fighting these attacks on our troops and all transgender Americans."

The Profile in Courage Award and the Independence TestFormer Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell issued a stark warning on Sunday, declaring that a single act of political interference in monetary policy could permanently erode the public's trust in the central bank. Speaking in Boston to accept the 2026 John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award, Powell described the institution as undergoing a critical 'stress test.'He emphasized that legal protections shielding monetary policy from politics have historically served the public well across administrations of both parties. However, Powell argued that if any administration finds a way to remove Fed officials over policy disagreements, future administrations will inevitably follow suit, creating a dangerous precedent for executive overreach.The Lisa Cook Case and Constitutional PrecedentThe speech comes at a pivotal moment as the Supreme Court weighs a highly anticipated decision on the fate of Fed Governor Lisa Cook. Trump attempted to fire Cook last August, marking the first time in the Fed's history that a sitting president sought to remove a sitting governor. Powell noted that the court's upcoming ruling is 'perhaps the most important legal case in the Fed's 113-year history.'The Legal Basis: Trump cited 'deceitful and potentially criminal conduct' regarding mortgage transactions, though Cook denied any wrongdoing.Market Implications: Powell warned that removing Cook would signal that the Fed is not independent, leading to a loss of credibility and a potential constitutional showdown.The Future of Central Bank AutonomyPowell argued that Fed officials hold office with legal protections against removal and serve long terms unrelated to the four-year presidential election cycle to insulate decisions from political pressure. By quoting philosopher Edmund Burke—who noted that democratic institutions take time to build but can be torn down quickly—Powell highlighted the fragility of this independence.With the Supreme Court expected to rule before its summer recess, the global economy faces an uncertain future where the Fed's ability to make decisions based solely on economic analysis, rather than political winds, hangs in the balance.

The LeadFormer US Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has issued a powerful defense of central bank independence while accepting the prestigious John F Kennedy Profile in Courage Award. In his speech delivered in Boston, Powell warned against the growing politicization of monetary policy, directly addressing the mounting pressure from President Trump on the Federal Reserve's decision-making processes.Powell's Defense of Central Bank IndependenceIn a clear reference to the current political climate, Powell described the Fed as undergoing a "stress test" similar to other institutions during the Trump era. He emphasized that the US Congress had "wisely" chosen to insulate the central bank from political pressure, noting that all advanced economies maintain similar norms protecting monetary policy independence."These protections have served the public well, and administrations from both parties have respected them," Powell stated. He went on to warn that if any administration were to remove Fed officials over policy differences, it would set a dangerous precedent: "If any administration finds a way to remove Fed officials over policy differences, then future administrations will do so as well."Powell argued that such actions would erode public trust in the central bank: "The public would lose faith that the central bank will make decisions based only on what's best for all Americans." He stressed that the Fed's credibility, built over many decades, is a "priceless asset" that must be safeguarded for future generations.Trump's Campaign Against the FedWhile Powell did not mention Trump by name, his comments directly address the sustained pressure campaign the president has waged against the central bank. Trump has repeatedly criticized the Fed for not cutting interest rates more sharply, even threatening Powell with dismissal during his tenure.The administration's actions have extended beyond mere criticism. Trump appointee and ally Jeanine Pirro initiated a short-lived criminal investigation into Powell's congressional testimony regarding renovation works at the Fed's headquarters. More significantly, Trump ordered the removal of Fed governor Lisa Cook based on unproven claims of mortgage fraud, though the Supreme Court has ruled she can remain in her position while a legal challenge is considered.These actions challenge the traditional interpretation of the Federal Reserve Act, which requires the president to demonstrate "cause"—widely understood to mean malfeasance—to remove any of the Federal Reserve's governors.Broader Implications for Democratic InstitutionsPowell's speech extended beyond the specific issue of Fed independence to offer a broader defense of democratic institutions. He acknowledged that "partisan political differences are normal—indeed essential—in a thriving democracy," but emphasized the need for unity on higher principles."Chief among them is respect for the rule of law," Powell stated, quoting John Adams: "ours is 'a government of laws and not of men'." He highlighted how public institutions "carry us forward through change" and "embody our commitment to freedom, democracy, and service of the public good."These comments reflect growing concerns about the erosion of institutional norms during the current administration, with the Fed's independence being a particularly significant case given its critical role in managing the economy.Future Outlook for Fed IndependencePowell's warning comes at a critical moment for the Federal Reserve, which has historically enjoyed broad bipartisan support for its independence. The current administration's challenges to this norm could have far-reaching consequences for monetary policy and economic stability.Markets and economists will be watching closely to see whether the administration continues to pressure the Fed on interest rate decisions and whether other central bank governors face similar threats. The ongoing legal challenge to Governor Lisa Cook's removal will also be closely monitored as a potential test case for the limits of presidential power over the central bank.As Powell noted in his speech, the Fed's credibility is built over decades and can be lost quickly. The coming months may reveal whether this fundamental principle of American economic governance will withstand the current political pressures.

The Lead Anita Rani's new podcast celebrates 'awesome women on the planet right now'. Her first guest is Meera Syal, and future guests include Gisèle Pelicot and Adjoa Andoh. Anita Rani's Sisters of Defiance Anita Rani's podcast, 'Sisters of Defiance', features discussions with 'awesome women' on various topics, including empty-nest life, Goodness Gracious Me, and divorce. The podcast is widely available, with episodes released weekly from Tuesday, 26 May. Slow Burn: Becoming Justice Gorsuch Slate's anthology series, 'Slow Burn', dissects the life of US Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch in its 11th season. The podcast is widely available, with episodes released weekly. Drilled: Carbon Cowboys The climate crisis-themed podcast 'Drilled' explores the carbon capture trade through the story of Republican megadonor and Iowa entrepreneur Bruce Rastetter. The podcast is widely available, with episodes released weekly. Passages: On Morrison This podcast series follows Harvard professor Namwali Serpell as she discusses Toni Morrison's work with various guests, including critic Vinson Cunningham and former US poet laureate Tracy K Smith. The podcast is widely available, with episodes released weekly. To Catch a King Journalist Sue Mitchell and ex-soldier Rob Lawrie team up to investigate a man believed to be responsible for thousands of illegal cross-channel journeys. The podcast is widely available, with episodes released weekly.

The Lead: Iran's Internet Partially Restored Tehran, Iran – Authorities in Iran have reinstated some internet access three months after taking the country offline at the start of the war with the United States and Israel, but restrictions remain in place for most people. The Iranian government said last week that it had started a process to bring internet access back to a pre-war level, which was already very restricted as Iran was at the time still coming off an earlier 20-day shutdown imposed during deadly nationwide protests in January. The World's Longest Internet Blackout Last week's move ended more than 2,000 hours of near-total internet shutdown in the country of 90 million people, the longest-ever nationwide blackout in the world. But according to numerous user reports, local media accounts and expert analysis, Iranians' free access to the global internet is far from restored. Restricted Access and Blocked Services Access to millions of web pages remains blocked by the state, and almost all global services and apps such as YouTube, Instagram, Telegram, WhatsApp, Facebook and Waze are closed off and are not under consideration for reinstatement. Mobile, wireless and landline connections are slow and patchy, to varying degrees, while many local applications and services regularly malfunction or fail to load. The Black Market for Internet Access Most people are forced into a black market for access to the internet, which has proven lucrative for those selling virtual private networks (VPNs) or other circumvention methods, often through affiliations with the state. Those connections have now become cheaper after the authorities restored some internet bandwidth, but demand for VPNs has skyrocketed, and people remain exposed to scammers and malware while navigating the market. The Architecture of Filtering Meanwhile, even after the partial reopening, Iranian authorities continue to impose several complex layers of restrictions that have effectively turned full internet access into a privilege that very few people authorised by the state can enjoy. Many data centres have yet to be fully brought back online, and some internet protocols like IPv6 and HTTP/3 are blocked, while others like UDP are actively disrupted by the authorities, local media reported. Political Conflict Over Internet Policy That has prompted more criticism against Iran's relatively moderate President Masoud Pezeshkian, who campaigned against hardliners, in part, on reopening the internet. The Sazandegi reformist newspaper criticised the government over the "belated opening" in an op-ed on Saturday while the state-linked KhabarOnline news site wrote that the "Internet's technical infrastructure is the victim of the new architecture of filtering". The Tiered-Access Internet System Authorities have also failed to elaborate on what exactly they plan to do with the tiered-access internet system that they began expanding during the war. As part of the system, Iranians get varying degrees of access – or no access at all – to the global internet based on their profession and other classifications made by the state. To implement the scheme, a so-called "Internet Pro" scheme was introduced, which offers slightly less restricted access for about three times the price of a regular, more restricted internet package. Frustration and Limited Normalcy Still, more people have been able to get back on social media, where they have posted more videos from the war, including one that showed a new view as dozens of missiles rained down on the headquarters of Iran's supreme leader in downtown Tehran on February 28. Others are sharing war experiences, including where they were and how they felt when the first bombs hit the capital. But that hasn't alleviated the frustrations for many. "What we have right now is not the internet," said a Tehran resident, who spoke to Al Jazeera on condition of anonymity. "It's a return to the previous half-closed condition that is now being sold as an achievement."

The Strategic Retreat: Trump's Iran Policy EvolutionAfter weeks of stop-start negotiations, the US and Iran now reportedly stand on the verge of a deal to end the fighting, with the most immediate consequence being the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. This development marks a dramatic shift from President Trump's initial maximalist goals, which included regime change, destruction of Iran's nuclear program, and elimination of its regional proxies.The Peace Deal Terms: Ceasefire and NegotiationsThe reported memorandum of understanding, reached with the help of Pakistani and Qatari mediators, would extend the current ceasefire for 60 days, during which negotiations would take place on the two-decades-old dispute over Iran's nuclear program. Iran's closure of the strategically vital waterway—conduit of 20% of the world's crude oil supplies before the war started—has had a baleful effect on the US economy, sending gasoline prices soaring and leading to a shortage of fertilizer that threatens food supplies and prices.From Maximalism to Reality: Strategic ImplicationsThe specter of fudged compromise illustrates how Trump's maximalist goals have shrunk—and in the eyes of some commentators, been defeated. Robert Kagan, a foreign policy fellow at the Brookings Institution, wrote in The Atlantic that "Trump's endgame is surrender," adding that the president "no doubt hopes that he can slip away without Americans noticing the magnitude of this defeat." Despite Trump's initial declarations that only "unconditional surrender" would be acceptable, Iran's military capabilities remain largely intact, with analysts estimating that 70% of their ballistic missiles and 70-80% of drones are still operational.Regional Impact: Shifting Power DynamicsThe evolving situation represents a significant shift in Middle Eastern power dynamics. Contrary to Trump's expectations, the Islamic regime remains intact despite targeted assassinations of its leaders. While Trump publicly proclaims successor leadership figures to be "more reasonable" than before, the regime appears to be more unyielding than ever. Mojtaba Khamenei, who succeeded his father as supreme leader, was recently quoted as predicting that Israel would cease to exist by 2040. The limited military success of Trump's war of choice is now forcing him to address it through the pragmatic type of compromise that he and his rightwing allies once lambasted Obama for.Future Outlook: Trust Deficits and Political ChallengesRobert Litwak, an international relations professor at George Washington University, noted that Trump is being forced to confront a "persistent tension" in US post-cold-war policy between "transformational" approaches meant to topple rogue states and "transactional" agreements intended to change their behavior. "He's in a box because a transformational outcome is not possible," said Litwak. Trump faces significant political challenges in securing support for what essentially amounts to a variant of the JCPOA that he previously opposed. His credibility deficit with Iran, exemplified by his tendency to reverse positions on Truth Social, further complicates negotiations. As Vali Nasr, an international relations professor at Johns Hopkins University, noted: "The reason [Iranians] don't [sign on] is because they don't trust him. It has nothing to do with ideology or fractured leadership or the midterms. It's because of his record."

The Failed Dealmaker: Trump's Iran Dilemma For weeks, Donald Trump has tried to find a way to end the war he started with Iran – a deal that would allow him to declare victory and move past the conflict before it causes severe damage to the global economy and sinks Republican chances in the US midterm elections. But the self-proclaimed master dealmaker can't seem to stop sabotaging his own negotiations or to acknowledge that Iran is now in a better position to demand concessions than it was before the war. Strategic Missteps: From Military Action to Negotiation Deadlock Over the Memorial Day holiday, Trump skipped his eldest son's wedding in the Bahamas and canceled plans to spend the weekend at his New Jersey golf club. The last-minute changes heightened speculation that Trump was ready to unveil a deal to end the war. Trump then announced that he would hold a cabinet meeting at Camp David, the presidential compound in Maryland that has been the site of historic diplomatic summits. But that meeting was moved back to the White House, as it became clear that Trump had not been able to close a deal he could announce with great fanfare. The Art of the Deal: Trump's Negotiation Paradox Why has an agreement eluded the business titan who wrote the bestselling 1987 book The Art of the Deal? Trump admires strongman leaders and is loth to project any sign of weakness – and he's afraid of reaching a deal with Iran that makes him look weak. The president is also sensitive to criticism that any agreement he negotiates will be worse for the US than the 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and six world powers, which was brokered by Barack Obama's administration. Leverage Reversed: How Iran Gained the Upper Hand Trump's main problem is that Iran has more leverage than he does – and Iranian leaders are well aware of that advantage. On 28 February, Trump launched a joint US-Israeli war against Iran, killing the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and other top military and political officials. But Iran retaliated with missile and drone strikes against US military bases across the Middle East, and it targeted the energy infrastructure of its Gulf neighbors. Iran also deployed its most effective economic weapon: it closed the strait of Hormuz, through which more than a fifth of the world's oil supply passed each day. Economic Fallout: Global Disruption and Rising Oil Prices The closure of the Strait of Hormuz – along with Iranian attacks on pipelines and gas fields in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates – disrupted the global economy and increased oil prices. In the US, average gas prices have jumped by 50%, up to nearly $4.50 per gallon, since Trump launched the war. Trump and his ally, the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, could not topple the Islamic regime that rose to power after Iran's 1979 revolution. Instead, they ended up strengthening it – by allowing Tehran to deploy its geographic control of the strait of Hormuz into a weapon that could instigate a global energy crisis and a worldwide recession. The Emerging Deal: Limited Concessions and Unresolved Issues The emerging deal is focused on solving a problem that didn't exist before Trump started this war: fully reopening the strait of Hormuz to commercial shipping so that oil prices can stabilize. Under a draft agreement being circulated to US allies, Washington would also lift its blockade of Iranian ports and allow Tehran to access about $12bn in frozen assets. Once again, Trump seems to be aiming for a limited deal with Iran that defers the most difficult questions to future talks, which could drag out for months or even years. Iran's Resilience: Military Strength Preserved In some ways, Iran has emerged stronger after a war intended to decimate its military capabilities. A CIA report sent to Trump earlier this month found that Tehran had managed to retain a significant part of its missile capabilities. The analysis said Iran preserved about 70% of its prewar stockpile of missiles and about 75% of its mobile launchers. The report also concluded that Iran was more resilient than US officials had claimed, and it could survive a naval blockade for months. Political Calculations: Midterm Elections and Trump's Dilemma At his cabinet meeting, Trump said he didn't care about the midterm elections and wasn't in a rush to reach a deal. "It's got to be perfect," Trump told reporters, adding: "I didn't do this to get a crummy agreement." Despite his weak position, Trump insists that he will strike a better deal with Iran than the one negotiated by the Obama administration in 2015. That agreement provided Tehran with relief from international sanctions in exchange for limits on its nuclear enrichment. The Unintended Consequences: Strengthening the Adversary Trump could have avoided starting a regime-change war that failed, leaving the world to deal with its consequences. Instead, the master negotiator handed Iran a new economic weapon – and more leverage to extract a favorable deal. The worst thing you can possibly do in a deal is seem desperate to make it. That makes the other guy smell blood, and then you're dead. Trump wrote in his famous book. The best thing you can do is deal from strength, and leverage is the biggest strength you can have.