Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

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

Pakistan and Afghanistan have confirmed they are holding talks in China aimed at ending the worst conflict between the South Asian neighbours since the Afghan Taliban returned to power in 2021.Senior officials from both countries are holding preliminary talks in the northwestern Chinese city of Urumqi to try to secure a ceasefire to end months of cross-border attacks, Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Tahir Andrabi said on Thursday.The fighting has killed dozens of people on both sides and disrupted trade and cross-border travel since it started in October.Pakistan accuses Afghanistan of harbouring fighters who carry out attacks inside Pakistan, especially the Pakistani Taliban, known as Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). The group is separate from but allied with the Afghan Taliban, which took over Afghanistan in 2021 following the chaotic withdrawal of United States-led troops.Andrabi told reporters in Beijing that the government hoped for a “durable solution”.“Our participation [in talks] is a reiteration of our core concerns,” he said.“The burden of real process, however, lies with Afghanistan, which must demonstrate visible and verifiable actions against terrorist groups using [its] soil against Pakistan.”Following China’s request for talks, Afghanistan’s Taliban government said it had sent a “mid-level delegation” to Urumqi.The Afghan side “intends to hold comprehensive and responsible talks with the other side on good neighbourliness, strengthening trade relations, and effective management of security issues”, Foreign Ministry spokesman Abdul Qahar Balkhi said.Pakistan described the negotiations as “working-level talks”.“Our delegation has not returned yet,” Islamabad’s Foreign Ministry spokesman said.China, which also borders both countries, has been trying to mediate a negotiated settlement to the conflict.Beijing deployed a special envoy to try to broker a deal last month, but the diplomatic effort was followed by Pakistani strikes on a Kabul rehab centre that prompted international condemnation.More than 400 people were killed in the attack, according to Afghan officials. Islamabad said the strike targeted military installations and “terrorist support infrastructure”.The two sides then announced a pause in fighting to mark the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, at the request of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkiye.But sporadic attacks have been reported in border areas since the temporary truce ended.

Europe’s attention is fixed on Hungary’s parliamentary election scheduled for April 12, a contest many analysts view as a litmus test for the bloc’s cohesion on foreign‑policy, defence, energy and migration. Since coming to power, Prime Minister Viktor Orban has consistently blocked EU initiatives: he has refused to join a common asylum framework, opposed a joint defence scheme, resisted the shift toward renewable‑energy independence while still importing Russian hydrocarbons, and vetoed both Ukraine’s accession talks and a proposed €90 billion low‑interest loan package for Kyiv. These actions have made Hungary the most disruptive member state in the Union, prompting observers to argue that the election’s outcome will reverberate far beyond Budapest’s borders. Greek conservative MP Angelos Syrigos warned that the EU is plagued by “fanatically Trump‑like and pro‑Russian” governments, naming Hungary and Slovakia as examples. He told Al Jazeera that the constant threat of an Orban veto forces other capitals to seek ad‑hoc compromises rather than genuine consensus. Opposition leader Peter Magyar of the Tisza party is campaigning on a pro‑European platform, pledging a binding referendum on Ukraine’s membership, a crackdown on corruption, the release of billions in frozen EU funds, and a reversal of Hungary’s withdrawal from the International Criminal Court. Current polls give Tisza roughly 50 % of the vote, a ten‑point lead over the ruling Fidesz, though the political landscape remains fluid. Even a Magyar victory would not automatically resolve the EU’s structural challenges. Other illiberal leaders—such as Slovakia’s Robert Fico and the Czech Republic’s Andrej Babiš—could step into a vacuum of obstructionism. Nevertheless, some scholars argue that Orban’s habit of breaking consensus has forced the Union to become more pragmatic. At a December 2023 summit, EU leaders temporarily excluded Orban to secure unanimous approval of Ukraine’s candidate status, later offering Hungary a €10 billion release of blocked funds as an incentive. Professor Katalin Miklossy of the University of Helsinki explained that the EU has shifted from a rigid, rule‑bound approach to a more flexible, problem‑solving mindset, saying, “We were weak when we clung to the book; now we act more practically.” Should Orban remain in power, the bloc is considering a workaround: issuing 26 bilateral loans to Ukraine from member states, bypassing any single‑country veto. Historical precedent exists. In 2010, when Greece’s debt crisis threatened the euro, EU members created the Greek Loan Facility—an ad‑hoc series of bilateral loans that compensated for the lack of a common rescue fund. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has warned that delays in funding could leave the Ukrainian army under‑resourced, underscoring the geopolitical stakes of the Hungarian vote. The EU’s inability to move from unanimity to qualified‑majority voting—an ambition thwarted by failed French and Dutch referenda in 2005—has amplified Orban’s leverage. Yet the Union continues to evolve, having launched a common bond in 2020 to revive the pandemic‑hit economy and, since Russia’s 2022 invasion, channeling resources into a nascent European defence union. Orban’s recent reversal on the €90 billion Ukraine loan—after Kyiv refused to repair the Druzhba pipeline damaged by a Russian bomb—illustrates the volatility of his stance. He initially agreed to the loan in December, on the condition that Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic would not be required to co‑sign, only to withdraw support a month later. Even if Magyar secures a parliamentary majority, the promised loan may not materialise immediately. Cambridge‑based expert Victoria Vdovychenko notes that a decision made in December 2025 to disburse funds from January 2026 has already stalled, with the next realistic window possibly in June. Academics stress that a Tisza victory would deliver a psychological boost to the EU and its trans‑Atlantic partners, injecting confidence into a system battling “stealth creep of illiberalism” and economic disenfranchisement. Professor SM Amadae of Cambridge’s Centre for the Study of Existential Risk warned that while a change in Hungary could energise citizens, the entrenched gerrymandering and patronage networks of Fidesz present formidable obstacles to lasting reform. In sum, the April 12 election is more than a domestic contest; it is a pivotal moment that could reshape the EU’s decision‑making architecture, determine the flow of critical aid to Ukraine, and signal the future trajectory of populist politics across Europe.

SpaceX has submitted paperwork for an initial public offering that could debut as early as June or July, targeting a capital raise of $75 billion. If the market pricing aligns with analysts’ forecasts, the launch could lift the company’s valuation to nearly $1.5 trillion, roughly double its worth in December. Such a valuation would place founder Elon Musk on a clear trajectory toward becoming the planet’s first trillionaire, a milestone that would eclipse the $25.6 billion record set by Saudi Aramco’s 2019 IPO. Renaissance Capital’s data analyst Angelo Bochanis told Reuters that, much like Tesla, SpaceX’s market price will hinge on investor confidence in Musk’s long‑term vision. "Investors are clamouring for any exposure to SpaceX," he added. Despite Musk’s controversial public persona and his involvement in multiple high‑profile ventures, industry experts remain bullish. Kat Liu, vice‑president at IPOX, noted that SpaceX is "operationally mature, technologically ahead in several key areas, and profitable," providing a solid foundation for a public listing. The company’s recent merger with Musk’s artificial‑intelligence startup xAI and the continued dominance of its Starlink satellite network—now the world’s largest satellite communications platform—have reinforced investor interest. SpaceX’s ambitious roadmap includes a lunar base and a crewed Mars mission, though timelines remain uncertain. Musk has previously admitted a "50‑50 chance" of delivering an uncrewed Starship to Mars by the end of 2026. Financial data firm Pitchbook estimates the IPO could nearly double the company’s market cap, underscoring the scale of potential investor demand. If realized, the offering would not only reshape the space‑tech sector but also set a new benchmark for public market fundraising.

Recent weeks have been a test of resolve for Chelsea. A humiliating 3‑0 loss to Paris Saint‑Germain in the Champions League last‑16, coupled with a slide in the Premier League, has left the Blues scrambling for answers. Adding to the chaos, two of the squad’s most influential players have gone public. Argentine midfielder Enzo Fernández hinted at a summer move, saying, "I really like Madrid, it’s similar to Buenos Aires," while left‑back Marc Cucurella told The Athletic that the club is paying the price for its inexperience and that the PSG defeat has left the dressing‑room "discouraged". These remarks strike at the heart of Chelsea’s BlueCo‑era project, which has relied on signing young talent to build a sustainable future. Critics point out that, unlike Manchester United’s Class of ’92, Chelsea lacks seasoned veterans to mentor the newcomers. The debate resurfaced when Liam Rosenior was appointed head coach in January, with the club’s hierarchy insisting that a long‑term contract (six‑and‑a‑half years) will give him time to nurture the squad. Leadership dynamics are also under scrutiny. Fernández, who wears the captain’s armband in Reece James’s absence, publicly criticised goalkeeper Filip Jörgensen after a costly error against PSG – a move many view as inconsistent with the culture of a united dressing‑room. Financially, Chelsea has tried to balance ambition with prudence. Fernández’s contract runs until 2032 and is heavily incentive‑based, a strategy designed to keep the wage bill in check. Nonetheless, the club posted a **pre‑tax loss of £262.4 million** for the 2024‑25 season, the largest in English football history, raising questions about the sustainability of its recruitment model. There have been moments of optimism. Chelsea lifted the Club World Cup after beating PSG last summer, but the departure of former coach Enzo Maresca in early January – allegedly after talks with Manchester City figures – destabilised the squad. Players like Fernández and Cucurella recall the impact of that exit on team morale. Despite recent setbacks, the club remains confident in Rosenior’s vision, extending Cucurella’s deal last summer and securing long‑term contracts for key figures such as Reece James, Cole Palmer, and Moisés Caicedo. The Blues still have a realistic chance of qualifying for next season’s Champions League and host Port Vale in the FA Cup quarter‑finals. Looking ahead, sources suggest a possible shift in recruitment strategy, moving away from an exclusive focus on raw talent toward a blend of proven Premier League players and selective signings. While Fernández’s desire for a better contract could spark a transfer saga – with Madrid reportedly unwilling to meet a £100 million fee – the club must decide whether retaining a player whose ambitions no longer align with its project is worth the risk. In sum, Chelsea faces a pivotal moment: restore on‑field performance, manage a record financial loss, and convince both fans and players that the youth‑centred blueprint can deliver the trophies promised under the “trust the process” mantra.

Former Labour adviser Polly Billington – who served under Gordon Brown – has urged Prime Minister Keir Starmer to organise a global energy summit of the scale and urgency that marked the UK’s 2008 financial‑crisis intervention. She argues that the fallout from the US‑Israeli war on Iran is creating an energy shock “as big as the financial crash”, demanding a response of equal magnitude. Billington warned that the economic pain from soaring energy prices is “hurtling down the tracks”, threatening living standards and providing fertile ground for extremist politics. She stresses that the price surge will be neither temporary nor confined to a single region. While she praised the government’s initiative to bring together 35 nations to discuss reopening the Strait of Hormuz, Billington insists that a broader, coordinated effort is required to stabilise energy markets, protect supply chains, and accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels. “We could be bringing together allies to agree emergency cooperation to stabilise energy markets, protect supply chains, coordinate strategic reserves, and accelerate the global transition away from fossil fuels,” she told The Guardian. “Energy security is inseparable from global security; otherwise we face a ‘Hunger Games’ world of resource conflict, scarcity and coercion.” Her call comes amid growing unease among Labour MPs who fear the government is under‑reacting to the domestic impact of the war. Rising petrol prices, higher energy bills and inflation are already prompting concerns about electoral repercussions. At a recent press conference, the Prime Minister announced that the Treasury is drafting targeted support for households most affected by energy costs, should the conflict persist. Yet opposition parties are pushing divergent solutions: Reform UK and the Conservatives advocate increased domestic drilling, the Liberal Democrats propose a 10p fuel‑duty cut and VAT relief for electric‑vehicle charging, while the Greens call for universal energy‑bill support. The Scottish National Party demanded an emergency parliamentary recall, accusing the government of “sleepwalking into a crisis”. Billington argues that a true “war‑footing” approach must focus on reducing Britain’s reliance on fossil fuels. She praises the Treasury’s decision to avoid a blanket bailout, suggesting instead that households install plug‑in solar panels on balconies and gardens – likening them to Anderson shelters in the Second World War – to bolster collective resilience and lower bills. She adds that no policy option should be dismissed as “too radical”, urging the government to consider all measures that could cut exposure to gas and oil. Another Labour MP echoed the sentiment, stating that merely highlighting bill reductions is insufficient when headlines indicate that prices are set to rise sharply due to the Iran conflict. “I want to hear a concrete Labour plan,” he said. On Thursday, Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey branded the rising fuel costs a “Trump‑Farage‑Badenoch tax”, calling for immediate action to mitigate the economic fallout of the war and keep Britain moving.

Police body‑camera video obtained by the Guardian reveals the moment Tiger Woods was handcuffed following a rollover collision in Martin County, Florida. Deputy Tatiana Levenar told the 50‑year‑old golfer that his faculties appeared impaired and placed him under arrest for driving under the influence. When Woods asked, “I’m being arrested?,” the deputy replied succinctly, “Yes, sir.” The footage also captures officers discovering a pill bottle in his pocket, which Woods identified as “a Norco,” a brand name for the prescription opioid hydrocodone used to manage his chronic back pain. Woods explained that he had been looking at his phone and changing the radio when his Land Rover struck a truck and rolled onto its side. He described the incident to deputies as “looked down at my phone, and all of a sudden – boom.” He later denied consuming alcohol, noting a negative breath test, though he refused a urine analysis. During the encounter, Woods mentioned having just spoken with “the president” on his phone, a reference that remains ambiguous. He has been linked to Vanessa Trump, former daughter‑in‑law of former President Donald Trump, who awarded Woods the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2019. Trump, speaking to the New York Post, emphasized Woods’ ongoing physical struggles, stating, “He doesn’t have an alcohol problem, but he does have pain.” He highlighted the golfer’s extensive injury history, including multiple back surgeries and a ruptured Achilles tendon. According to Deputy Levenar’s arrest report, Woods was hiccuping and required prompting to keep his head still during field‑sobriety tests. She concluded that his observed impairment rendered him unfit to operate a vehicle safely. After a breath test showed no alcohol, Woods was released on bail eight hours later. His next court appearance is set for 5 May, where a readiness‑for‑trial hearing will be held. In a statement released on Tuesday, Woods announced he is stepping away from competitive golf to seek treatment and prioritize his health. He has not played on the PGA Tour since July 2024, though he appeared recently in the TGL indoor league he co‑founded with Rory McIlroy.

Kara Lawson watched her Duke Blue Devils fall 70‑58 to the No. 1 UCLA Bruins in the Elite Eight, ending a 20‑year wait for a Final Four appearance. The loss followed a stunning buzzer‑beater upset of No. 2 seed LSU in the Sweet 16, but the Blue Devils couldn’t replicate that performance against UCLA.After the game, Lawson told reporters, "What a great season it’s been for us, and this group has been a joy to coach every day." She highlighted the team’s resilience after a rocky start that saw six defeats between early November and late December.Notre Dame’s season ended similarly, with a 70‑52 defeat to the defending champion UConn Huskies in the Elite Eight. Head coach Niele Ivey reflected on the journey, noting that the roster’s revival after a difficult 2025 season "gave me a lot of joy" and that coaching with joy makes her a better leader.Vanderbilt’s Commodores, coached by Shea Ralph, also saw their tournament run halted, losing 67‑64 to Notre Dame. Ralph, who inherited a program with strong support but limited recent success, deliberately built a culture of joy. Star guard Mikayla Blakes praised Ralph for restoring her love for the game, saying, "She found joy in my life and helped me enjoy basketball again."Looking ahead, the semifinals will feature two marquee matchups: South Carolina vs. UConn and UCLA vs. Texas. Both games promise high‑stakes basketball as the remaining teams vie for the championship.The tournament also underscores broader trends in women’s basketball. A decade ago, the NCAA reported that only 4.5% of high‑school players advance to college, and just 1.4% reach Division I. The WNBA’s expansion to 15 teams this season creates more professional slots, yet demand still outpaces supply, making the focus on joy and development all the more vital.Texas coach Vic Schaefer echoed the sentiment, describing the season as "the most fun" he’s had in over thirty years of coaching. With senior guard Rori Harmon preparing to graduate, Schaefer emphasized the team’s mission‑driven mindset and the pure enjoyment they find on the court.In a sport where the pipeline narrows at every level, the prevailing message from coaches and players alike is clear: joy remains the driving force that sustains teams through triumphs and setbacks alike.

President Donald Trump's recent primetime address on the war with Iran has sparked widespread bewilderment and criticism. The speech, which lasted 19 minutes, was marked by slurred words and stumbling syntax. Trump vaguely stated that the US is 'on track to complete all of America's military objectives shortly,' but failed to provide a clear endgame or sense of direction.During the address, Trump vowed to continue bombing Iran to 'bring them back to the stone ages,' where he claimed they belonged. This statement has been widely criticized, with commentators describing it as a threat of war crimes. Chris Hayes of MSNBC called the speech a 'litany of lies he's told before,' while Robert Malley, a former lead negotiator for the nuclear deal, wrote that Trump's threat to send Iranians 'back to the stone ages' was a cavalier threat of war crimes.The speech has been criticized for lacking a clear endgame or sense of direction. Ian Bremmer, the founder and president of the Eurasia Group, called the address '19 minutes of a rambling, unmoored and unserious commander in chief.' Joseph Cirincione, a veteran arms control negotiator, accused Trump of lying about the 2015 nuclear deal, which Trump abandoned in 2018.The war with Iran has now raged for a month, and the absence of defined goals in Trump's speech has been highlighted by critics. Brian Finucane of the Crisis Group and a former state department legal adviser on military operations noted that the speech merely regurgitated prior social media posts, raising questions about Trump's war aims.