Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

The Limits of Presidential ControlDonald Trump’s fate is to be frustrated by monetary policy. Even assuming he gets his way and Kevin Warsh succeeds Jerome Powell as chair of the Federal Reserve next month, it is unlikely that the president will finally gain control of the Fed. Trump has called Warsh a “central casting” choice, but the structural realities of the central bank suggest that the era of a pliable Federal Reserve is over.The AI Argument and the Greenspan ParallelWarsh’s nomination is driven by a specific economic philosophy: the belief that the AI revolution will act as a productivity booster similar to the IT boom of the late 1990s. He argues that technology will lower prices, allowing the Fed to cut borrowing costs without triggering inflation. This mirrors the reasoning of Alan Greenspan, who successfully argued for low rates during the tech boom. However, Warsh’s argument relies on a premise that is currently unproven in the data.Structural Headwinds: Why the 1990s Analogy FailsWarsh’s contentions are weakened by the stark differences between the current economic landscape and the 1990s. While Greenspan benefited from globalization, a budget surplus, and tight fiscal policy, Trump’s administration is pursuing policies that are structurally inflationary. Tariffs and Deportation: Trump’s trade barriers are raising costs, while aggressive deportation policies are shrinking the labor supply.Fiscal Policy: A budget deficit of 6% of GDP has pushed the national debt to more than twice its level compared to the Clinton era.AI Reality: While there is massive investment in data centers driving demand, there is little evidence that AI is diffusing rapidly enough to boost productivity across the broader economy.The Impossibility of a Unified FedEven if Warsh is confirmed, he faces a significant hurdle: he will not have a majority of votes on the Federal Open Markets Committee (FOMC). The Fed is designed to be insulated from political pressure, and Warsh will struggle to convince the 11 other members to cut rates aggressively. Trump’s attempts to stack the board have been thwarted by courts protecting governors like Lisa Cook from at-will removal and by the reappointment of regional Fed bank presidents who provide the majority of votes on the committee.Why Trump Won't Get the Fed He WantsTrump’s dream of a Fed that cuts rates on command remains out of reach. The combination of structural economic headwinds, the lack of a unified voting bloc on the FOMC, and the judiciary's protection of Fed independence means that the American economy can still sleep at night. Warsh may be Trump’s man in terms of ideology, but he will not be able to deliver the Fed under the president's thumb.

The Lead MasterChef has returned with a significant transformation after the departure of its long-standing judges, bringing a fresh energy to the BBC's cooking competition. The New Era of MasterChef After nearly 20 years with John Torode and Gregg Wallace as judges, MasterChef has undergone an unexpected but necessary refresh. Following allegations that led to investigations and cancellations, both original judges have departed, making way for chef patron Anna Haugh and Guardian restaurant critic Grace Dent. This unplanned change has brought a newfound freedom to the show, with early indications suggesting it has emerged "with a clean pair of heels" – warmer, funnier, and sharper than before. The Judges' Dynamic Haugh and Dent have successfully navigated the unique dynamic required of MasterChef judges. As one is a chef and the other a food critic, they've established a perfect balance where Haugh provides expert technical knowledge while Dent offers insightful critiques. Their contrasting styles – Haugh's friendly precision and Dent's conspiratorial rapport – create a more engaging viewing experience. Unlike the previous judges, they also serve as both critics and presenters, putting contestants at ease while maintaining professional standards. Visual Transformation The show's visual aesthetic has undergone a noticeable transformation with the new judges. Haugh's pristine chef whites contrast with Dent's distinctive lacquered quiff, chunky jewelry, and cocktail-dress combo, bringing a mid-century glam aesthetic largely absent during the Wallace era. This visual refresh complements the show's renewed energy and makes for more interesting viewing in what is, after all, a visual medium. The Contestants' Experience The new judging approach has created more rewarding interactions between judges and amateur cooks. In the premiere episode, six hopefuls brought diverse culinary traditions including Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Nepali, and Caribbean flavors, which mixed with standard British fare. Despite limited time to develop contestant profiles, the show effectively sketches personalities – from Matt, who cooks frequently for his dog, to Sabina, who honors generations of family culinary knowledge. The overall atmosphere suggests contestants feel "cared for a little better now" under the new leadership. The Future of MasterChef With the new judges firmly in control and the show's format successfully refreshed, MasterChef appears poised for a strong future. The departure of its original figureheads, while initially disruptive, has ultimately allowed for a more diverse and dynamic presentation that better reflects contemporary culinary culture. As the competition for this year's MasterChef trophy begins, the show has successfully reinvented itself while maintaining the core elements that have made it a beloved BBC institution for nearly two decades.

The Justice Department has launched a historic legal assault on the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), accusing the renowned civil rights organization of a $3 million fraud scheme involving informants within extremist groups. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche alleges that the SPLC defrauded donors by using their contributions to fund the very extremism it claimed to be dismantling, a stark contradiction of its mission.Key DevelopmentsAlleged Scheme: The DOJ claims the SPLC raised millions through a secret informant program, paying individuals affiliated with groups like the Ku Klux Klan and the National Socialist Party of America.Timeline: Payments occurred between 2014 and 2023, totaling at least $3 million.Charges: The civil rights group faces federal charges including wire fraud, bank fraud, and conspiracy to commit money laundering.Operational Details: Prosecutors allege funds were routed through two bank accounts and loaded onto prepaid cards before being distributed to informants, some of whom were high-ranking members of neo-Nazi organizations.Data & Market ImpactThe $3 million figure represents a significant portion of the SPLC's operational budget, raising questions about the financial transparency of large non-profit watchdog organizations. This lawsuit marks a rare instance of the federal government targeting a major civil rights organization, potentially setting a precedent for how future administrations handle non-profit accountability. The legal action comes at a time when the non-profit sector is already navigating increased scrutiny regarding political bias and financial mismanagement.Why This MattersThis case strikes at the heart of civil rights monitoring in the United States. If the allegations are proven true, they would severely undermine the credibility of an organization that has served as a primary resource for law enforcement and the public regarding hate groups. For donors and the public, the revelation that funds intended for advocacy were used to pay informants within hate groups creates a crisis of trust. Furthermore, the timing of the lawsuit—under a Trump administration that views the SPLC as a partisan adversary—raises concerns about the weaponization of federal law enforcement against political opponents.Expert InsightThe core irony of the indictment lies in the SPLC's own admission: they were using the very tactics of infiltration and surveillance that they often criticize in others. While the group argues the program was necessary to protect lives and share intelligence with law enforcement, the DOJ frames it as a cynical cash grab. Strategically, this move by the Trump administration appears to be a two-pronged attack: it attempts to discredit a powerful liberal watchdog organization while simultaneously signaling a hardline stance against extremism. By targeting the SPLC, the administration may be attempting to delegitimize the broader discourse on hate speech and domestic terrorism.What Happens NextThe SPLC has vowed a vigorous defense, with CEO Bryan Fair stating the organization will fight to protect its staff and mission. The coming months will likely see intense legal battles that could set a major precedent for non-profit transparency. If the DOJ prevails, it could lead to stricter regulations on how civil rights organizations handle informant programs and donor funds. Conversely, a successful defense by the SPLC could reinforce the importance of undercover operations in combating hate groups, though it would likely do little to quell the political polarization surrounding the case.

Peru's political crisis deepened on Tuesday as Piero Corvetto, the head of the National Office of Electoral Processes (ONPE), announced his resignation. His departure comes in response to a surge in public anger and frustration over the prolonged and chaotic vote count following the April 12 general election.Corvetto, who denied any irregularities had occurred, stated that his resignation was a strategic move to restore public confidence in the electoral process ahead of the highly anticipated second round of voting on June 7.Key DevelopmentsResignation of ONPE Head: Piero Corvetto stepped down from his role, citing the need to alleviate public anger over the slow ballot count.Delayed Results: The National Jury of Elections (JNE) has set a deadline of May 15 to finalize the results, though counting continues.Logistical Chaos: The first round was marred by significant logistical issues, including extended voting hours in Lima due to long queues.Tight Race for Second Spot: The battle for the second round spot is razor-thin, with candidates Roberto Sanchez and Rafael Lopez Aliaga separated by just 0.1% of the vote.Data & Market ImpactThe resignation highlights a severe erosion of institutional trust in Peru. A recent poll by the Institute for Peruvian Studies (IEP) and the Institute Bartolome de las Casas (IBC) revealed that 68% of Peruvians have little to no trust in the country's election authorities. This skepticism is compounded by the fact that Peru has seen nine presidents in less than a decade, a period marked by political tumult and instability.While the vote count drags on, the political landscape is fracturing. Keiko Fujimori, the right-wing candidate, maintains a comfortable lead with approximately 17% of the vote. However, the uncertainty surrounding her opponent is palpable; the race for the second position is statistically deadlocked, with Sanchez and Aliaga vying for a spot in the runoff.Why This MattersCorvetto's resignation is more than a personnel change; it is a symptom of a fragile democratic process. The chaotic first round has already triggered unverified claims of fraud from candidates like Lopez Aliaga, threatening to delegitimize the outcome before the second round even begins. For the average Peruvian, the delay in results and the resignation of the election chief signal a lack of competence in governance, potentially fueling further social unrest.Expert InsightThe resignation of Piero Corvetto appears to be a calculated damage-control maneuver. By stepping down, he removes a lightning rod for public anger, potentially allowing the National Jury of Elections (JNE) to regain control of the narrative. However, this move may not quell the skepticism of the electorate. The deep-seated distrust—evidenced by the 68% statistic—suggests that the public is looking for systemic change rather than administrative reshuffling. Furthermore, the razor-thin margin between Sanchez and Aliaga (0.1%) sets the stage for a volatile runoff, where legal challenges and protests could easily disrupt the political calendar.What Happens NextPeru is now on a tight timeline to stabilize its electoral process. The JNE must finalize the results by May 15, followed by a rigorous review of thousands of contested ballots. If the results are confirmed, the country will face a runoff between Fujimori and the winner of the Sanchez-Aliaga contest. Given the polarized nature of the current political climate and the unverified fraud allegations, the period leading up to June 7 will be critical. The government must ensure the review process is transparent to prevent the outbreak of protests that could further destabilize the region.

West Ham United is undergoing a significant boardroom restructuring following the departure of Karren Brady after 16 years as vice-chair. However, the exit is not a mass exodus; David Sullivan, the club's largest shareholder, has no intention of leaving. Instead, Daniel Kretinsky, the Czech billionaire, is moving to match Sullivan's control by buying a portion of the Gold family's 25.1% stake, resulting in a shared power dynamic at the London Stadium. Key Developments Power Consolidation: Sullivan and Kretinsky are lining up deals to buy the Gold family's stake, with both expected to own more than 40% of the club. Board Changes: Brady's departure is accompanied by the exit of Chief Finance Officer Andy Mollett and Executive Director Nathan Thompson. Sullivan's Influence: Despite fan unrest, Sullivan remains the dominant figure, with his sons Jack and Dave Jr. becoming increasingly influential in club operations. Strategic Shift: Kretinsky, who has been seeking greater influence since acquiring a 27% stake in 2021, is now being described as the club's joint-chair. Data & Market Impact The club's current standing highlights the pressure on the new board structure. West Ham is currently 17th in the Premier League with five games remaining, sitting dangerously close to the relegation zone. Financial Strain: The club reported a loss of £104.2m in the last financial year. Transfer Implications: To balance the books, West Ham may be forced to sell key players during the upcoming summer transfer window. Shareholder Structure: The move to match Sullivan's stake prevents a hostile takeover while granting Kretinsky a significant voice in decision-making. Why This Matters This restructuring is critical for West Ham's immediate survival and long-term stability. The board's ability to navigate the relegation battle will determine the club's future trajectory. For fans, the shift represents a consolidation of the very leadership they have been protesting against. The "No More BS" (Brady and Sullivan) campaign has gained traction due to perceived mismanagement, particularly regarding the club's move to the London Stadium and recent on-pitch struggles. Expert Insight The move by Kretinsky to match Sullivan's stake is a strategic consolidation rather than a takeover. Sullivan has long been the most powerful figure, making decisions on manager hiring and firing with little internal opposition. By purchasing the Gold stake, Kretinsky secures a formal partnership, likely to protect his investment and influence. However, the underlying risk remains the volatile relationship with the fanbase. The club's financial losses and potential relegation create a precarious environment where even a stable board structure may struggle to appease a disillusioned supporter base. What Happens Next Summer Recruitment: Kretinsky is expected to play a key role in identifying replacements for Brady's departed executives. Relegation Battle: The new board must quickly stabilize the squad to avoid dropping to the Championship. Player Sales: Financial constraints may force the sale of high-value assets to reduce the wage bill. Board Dynamics: The shared 40%+ ownership model will likely lead to a more collaborative, but still competitive, boardroom environment.

David Bowie's posthumous industry continues its relentless expansion with "You're Not Alone," an immersive 360-degree film experience at London's Lightroom. This hour-long exhibition, directed by Mark Grimmer (lead designer for the V&A;'s 2013 "David Bowie Is" exhibition), attempts to balance appeal to long-time fans while introducing Bowie's legacy to younger audiences. The exhibition showcases unseen footage of Bowie's performances, particularly from his 1978 Earls Court show and the final Ziggy Stardust performance in 1973, while presenting a curated version of his career journey. Key Developments The exhibition features several notable elements: Unseen footage of Bowie performing at Earls Court in 1978 Multiple camera feeds from DA Pennebaker's film of Bowie's final Ziggy Stardust show in 1973 Focus on Bowie's biggest streaming songs like "Let's Dance," while omitting tracks like "Ashes to Ashes" or "Sound and Vision" A distinctly sanitised version of Bowie's career, with early pre-Ziggy years largely expunged No direct references to bisexuality, his flirtation with fascism, the Glass Spider era, or Tin Machine Enhanced surround sound that gives new power to his 90s works like "I'm Afraid of Americans" and "Little Wonder" Why This Matters This immersive exhibition represents a significant cultural moment for several reasons. For long-time fans, it offers new perspectives on familiar performances, revealing details like the "filthy look" bassist Trevor Boulder shot Bowie during "Rock'n'Roll Suicide" at the Ziggy Stardust finale. For younger audiences, it provides an accessible entry point into Bowie's vast legacy without requiring deep knowledge of his career evolution. The exhibition's commercial success indicates the enduring marketability of Bowie's nearly 50-year career, even a decade after his death. It also reflects the growing trend of immersive entertainment experiences that transform passive viewing into active participation. Expert Insight The exhibition's selective presentation of Bowie's career reveals interesting tensions in how cultural legacies are curated. By sanitizing certain aspects of Bowie's persona while emphasizing others, the exhibition presents a version of Bowie that aligns more with contemporary sensibilities. This raises questions about how we balance historical accuracy with accessibility when presenting cultural figures to new generations. The exhibition's focus on his Berlin period also suggests an attempt to position Bowie as an artistically serious figure, potentially overshadowing his more commercially accessible phases. Additionally, the immersive format itself represents a technological evolution in how we experience music history, moving beyond traditional museum displays to create fully enveloping environments. What Happens Next Given the success and reception of "You're Not Alone," we can expect more immersive music experiences to emerge, potentially focusing on other iconic artists. The exhibition may inspire similar projects that reinterpret musical legacies through modern immersive technologies. There might also be increased interest in Bowie's lesser-known works as fans seek deeper connections with his catalog. The commercial viability of such experiences suggests we'll see more collaborations between estates and immersive entertainment companies. Additionally, the exhibition's approach to sanitizing certain aspects of Bowie's legacy may spark broader discussions about how cultural institutions should handle complex historical figures in contemporary contexts.

The LeadOn his show Last Week Tonight, John Oliver delivered a scathing critique of prediction markets, calling out companies like Kalshi and Polymarket for allowing bets on serious events while avoiding gambling regulations through political connections and semantic loopholes.The Rise of Prediction MarketsPrediction markets have seen exponential growth in recent months, with billions of dollars wagered weekly on questions ranging from geopolitical events like "will traffic in the strait of Hormuz return to normal" to trivial matters like "will Mr Beast say 'feastable'." This surge is largely due to aggressive marketing by the two dominant players, Kalshi and Polymarket, which have opened the door to what Oliver describes as a "free-for-all" of questionable betting opportunities.The Financial FacadeBoth companies claim they are not gambling sites but financial exchanges offering "event contracts" that allow people to hedge against future risks. Kalshi CEO Tarek Mansour argued his platform was "very important" because it allowed people to bet on student loan forgiveness. Oliver mocked this claim, showing clips of people betting on phrases Donald Trump would say in speeches, calling it "taking advantage of a sundowning geriatric's rapidly declining verbal abilities" rather than legitimate financial hedging.Political Connections and Regulatory LoopholesThe companies have successfully avoided gambling regulations by insisting they are financial exchanges, allowing them to operate in states where gambling is illegal and bypassing age requirements and taxes. Oliver highlighted their strong connections to the Trump family, noting that Donald Trump Jr is an investor and unpaid adviser to Polymarket and a paid adviser to Kalshi. These connections have paid off, as the Trump administration has effectively stripped the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) of its power to regulate these markets, leaving only one commissioner—Michael Selig, a prediction markets advocate—in charge.Societal Impact and Ethical ConcernsOliver expressed deep concern about the ethical implications of prediction markets, particularly when people bet on tragic events like "will Nancy Guthrie's kidnapper be arrested by 28 February." He noted the "chilling" reality that people might be using insider information to bet on life-or-death events, citing a case where someone made $400,000 after betting on the capture of Nicolás Maduro. Oliver also criticized news organizations for "laundering these companies' reputations" by presenting their odds as actual news.Future Outlook and Calls for ReformOliver called for basic guardrails to be put in place to regulate prediction markets, expressing little faith in the current Supreme Court or Congressional action given the Trump family's involvement. He suggested that individuals should reconsider using these markets for gambling, noting they are statistically likely to lose money. Ultimately, Oliver warned against a society where "every aspect of our lives" becomes a bet, where people engage with news not for its meaning but because they have money riding on it.

The LeadPablo Behrens’ experimental documentary London’s Last Wilderness presents a visually arresting, albeit eccentric, voyage along the Thames estuary. The film draws inspiration from literary figures like Iain Sinclair and JG Ballard, exploring the 'unloved' stretch of water between London and the sea. While the reviewer notes the project is occasionally indulgent and not entirely thought through, it remains largely engaging, offering a unique perspective on the collision between nature and industrial decay.The Aesthetic of DecayThe film creates a 'Mad Max' style landscape where the wildness of mudflats and migrating birds exists in close proximity to power stations, pylons, and abandoned industry. The narrative is driven by an unseen explorer—potentially an alien entity—whose gaze is captured through the camera lens. Viewers are treated to a surreal experience featuring luminous mists, burning sunrises, and knackered fairground rides, creating a world that looks like a post-civilization future.The Cinematic ExperimentBehrens employs several technical gimmicks to immerse the audience in this journey. The screen frequently flashes location coordinates, and scratchy voices from a command centre provide commentary. A key highlight is the discovery of the Maunsell sea forts off the coast of Whitstable, Kent. These rusted steel towers, built during the Second World War, serve as the film's most striking visual anchor, resembling little oil rigs on spindly legs.A Tribute to the UnlovedThis project matters because it taps into a specific British tradition of documenting the overlooked and the marginal. By focusing on the Thames estuary—a place often ignored in favor of central London—Behrens highlights the beauty found in dereliction. The film serves as a modern companion piece to the works of Rachel Lichtenstein, celebrating the resilience of nature amidst the rusted relics of human infrastructure.The Future of Experimental CinemaGiven its release date of 24 April, 'London’s Last Wilderness' is positioned to appeal to niche audiences seeking art-house experiences rather than mainstream blockbusters. The film’s success will likely depend on its ability to sustain the 'spell' it casts without becoming too self-indulgent, potentially paving the way for more documentaries that prioritize atmosphere over traditional narrative structure.

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.