Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

The Diplomatic Pivot in TehranAs the two-month conflict between the United States and Iran enters its 59th day, the strategic landscape is shifting from kinetic warfare to high-stakes diplomacy. The central narrative is no longer just the exchange of fire, but the desperate diplomatic shuttle aimed at de-escalation. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has moved rapidly from Islamabad to Muscat and now to Saint Petersburg, signaling a coordinated effort to secure a diplomatic exit strategy.Araghchi’s Moscow Mission and the US Conditional OfferThe core of the current diplomatic push involves a complex interplay of regional actors and high-level negotiations. Araghchi is expected to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin to discuss bilateral ties and the ongoing US-Israel war on Iran. This meeting is critical as it places Russia at the center of potential mediation efforts.Araghchi’s Schedule: The Foreign Minister arrived in Saint Petersburg early Monday, aiming to secure a framework for negotiations.US Stance: President Donald Trump has signaled a conditional willingness to negotiate, stating Iran can telephone if it wishes to end the conflict, though he reiterated that Tehran cannot possess nuclear weapons.Russia’s Role: Russian envoy Mikhail Ulyanov has warned that the US must abandon "blackmailing" and "ultimatums" if talks are to progress.The Strategic Stalemate: Nuclear Ambitions and the Strait of HormuzThe data points defining the stalemate are stark and alarming. The conflict is currently trapped between two intractable issues: Iran's nuclear ambitions and the control of the Strait of Hormuz.Strategic Blockade: The Strait of Hormuz remains under a de facto Iranian blockade, a move the IRGC claims is a "definitive strategy" to maintain deterrent effects.Human Cost: On the ground, the conflict has claimed at least 14 lives in southern Lebanon on Sunday alone, including women and children, despite a US-brokered ceasefire.Nuclear Sticking Point: Both sides remain deadlocked on the issue of Iran's nuclear program, which serves as the primary trigger for the US military involvement.Regional Escalation: The Lebanon FrontThe diplomatic maneuvering in Moscow is happening against a backdrop of severe regional instability. The conflict is spilling over into Lebanon, where the situation is deteriorating rapidly.Israeli Operations: Israeli forces have raided southern Lebanon, cutting off roads and intensifying strikes.Hezbollah's Response: The militant group has rejected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's accusations of jeopardizing the ceasefire, framing its attacks as a "legitimate response" to continued Israeli violations.Outlook: A Fragile Path to NegotiationThe immediate future of the Iran war hinges on whether the diplomatic shuttle in Moscow can translate into a concrete framework. While the US has left the door open for a phone call, the conditions—specifically regarding the nuclear program and the Strait of Hormuz—remain largely unchanged. The coming days will determine if the diplomatic efforts in Russia can bridge the gap between the US's military posture and Iran's strategic demands, or if the violence in Lebanon will force a return to open warfare.

The LeadThe oil crisis triggered by the Iran war has fundamentally and permanently changed the fossil fuel industry, turning countries away from fossil fuels to secure energy supplies, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA) chief. Fatih Birol, executive director of the IEA, warns that the damage is irreversible and will have permanent consequences for global energy markets for years to come.The Permanent Energy ShiftSpeaking exclusively to the Guardian, Birol emphasized that the US-Israel war on Iran has caused countries to lose trust in fossil fuels and reduce demand for them. "Their perception of risk and reliability will change. Governments will review their energy strategies. There will be a significant boost to renewables and nuclear power and a further shift towards a more electrified future," he said. "And this will cut into the main markets for oil."Birol stressed that there is no going back from this crisis: "The vase is broken, the damage is done – it will be very difficult to put the pieces back together. This will have permanent consequences for the global energy markets for years to come."The UK North Sea DilemmaWhile focused on the global picture, Birol also addressed the UK's potential plans for North Sea expansion. The oil industry and its allies have called for increased drilling, including giving the go-ahead to the Jackdaw and Rosebank fields. However, Birol cautioned that these fields would not significantly impact the UK's energy security or prices."They won't provide any significant quantities of oil and gas for many years to come," Birol said. "They will not lower the bills, the UK will remain a significant importer and price taker on international markets. I am not even talking about the climate change effects – just from a business point of view, making a major investment in exploration might not make business sense."Birol did support tiebacks—extending existing oilfields—as a different matter that should proceed.The Renewable Energy OpportunityThe vastly changed energy outlook presents expanded opportunities for renewable energy, according to Birol. He highlighted that continuing high fossil-fuel prices could tempt developing countries to turn to coal, but solar is now competitive with coal on cost and growing faster."Renewables offer a no-regrets alternative and nuclear power is also likely to be increased," Birol said. "Building renewables was an option 'I never heard that anybody ever regretted,' he said. 'I don't see any downsides for renewable energy.'"The Global Energy OutlookBirol characterized this crisis as "bigger than all the biggest crises combined, and therefore huge." He expressed surprise that "the world was so blind-sided, that the global economy can be held hostage to a 50km strait."Despite the challenges, Birol sees a path forward: "This crisis will accelerate the energy transition. The question is not whether we will transition away from fossil fuels, but how fast and how well we manage this transition."More than 50 governments, including the UK, the EU, big oil producers and scores of developing countries will meet in Colombia for the world's first international conference on the transition away from fossil fuels, where the global response to the oil crisis and the push for renewable energy will be discussed.

The Global Medicine Crisis UnfoldsThe United States and Israel's war on Iran has pushed up the price of nearly everything, with recent days seeing pharmacists note a spike in the price of medicines and contraceptives. In the United Kingdom, pharmacies are charging 20 to 30 percent more for over-the-counter medicines, while the common painkiller paracetamol has more than quadrupled in price. In India, chemists are reporting price rises of common painkillers of as much as 96 percent.Supply Chain Disruption Behind Medicine Price HikeSince the early days of the war, Iran has blocked the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of the world's oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies are shipped in peacetime. This has disrupted pharmaceutical supply chains, which are reliant on oil supplies. Pharmaceuticals are tied to petrochemical feedstocks, with many logistics routes between East Asia and Europe having important sea and air transhipment stops in the Gulf, particularly in Dubai.Furthermore, 35 percent of pharmaceuticals move by air, and about 90 percent of critical or life-saving pharmaceuticals and vaccines do so too. With the US-Israel war on Iran causing severe disruption for airlines, featuring widespread cancellations, airspace closures and a looming jet fuel crisis, approximately 22 percent of global air cargo flows are exposed to Middle East disruptions.Soaring Prices for Essential MedicationsPharmacies in the UK and India have noted significant increases in the price of paracetamol, a drug commonly used to treat headaches and the flu. In India, a former board member of the Visakha Chemists Association reported that paracetamol is rising by approximately 96 percent, with potential further increases of 30 to 40 percent due to spikes in raw material costs.In the UK, the price of paracetamol has also increased substantially. Olivier Picard, chair of the National Pharmacy Association, noted that the price he pays wholesalers for a pack of 100 500mg paracetamol tablets had jumped 41 pence to 1.99 pounds by the end of March, though it has since eased back to 1.09 pounds.Unequal Impact Across NationsThe impact of this pharmaceutical crisis varies significantly across different countries. The United States has domestic hydrocarbon and petrochemical supply, while China can source most of its demand from elsewhere. India, however, is a major producer of pharmaceuticals and depends on supplies from the Gulf, making it particularly vulnerable.The European Union has a 'solidarity mechanism' with stockpiling strategies including pharmaceuticals, with country-specific stockpiling requirements of two-10 months' worth of medicines. However, the problem is more acute for Global South countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, that have fewer or no stockpiles and limited financial resources to afford the price increases.Future Outlook for Global Medicine SupplyWhile the situation remains challenging, there are signs that some pharmaceutical supply chains may be stabilizing. The countries most likely to continue suffering are those directly touched by the conflict and regional disruption, including Lebanon, Palestine, and Iran. Fragile, aid-dependent countries that were already under severe pressure before this war also face significant risks.Import-dependent Gulf markets represent another conditional risk group, particularly for cold-chain and cancer medicines. However, in the Middle East region (excluding conflict zones), the situation remains more manageable than feared, with risks and delays rather than a generalized collapse. Pharmaceutical shipments continue to receive priority in air cargo due to their critical nature.

The LeadLebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam has accused Israel of crimes against humanity for killing journalist Amal Khalil and wounding her colleague Zeinab Faraj in an air strike in the village of al-Tayri in southern Lebanon. The journalists were reporting on an earlier Israeli attack when they were targeted while fleeing to take shelter.The Attack DetailsKhalil and Faraj were covering an earlier Israeli attack on a vehicle when they came under fire. Paramedics rescued Faraj and recovered Khalil's body from the rubble hours later. The incident occurred in what Lebanese officials described as a "double-tap" strike in al-Tayri.Rescue workers initially tried to reach the veteran Al Akhbar journalist but came under Israeli fire and were forced to withdraw. A second strike then hit the house where the two journalists had sought refuge. Khalil's body was recovered shortly before midnight, more than seven hours after the attack.The Journalist's BackgroundBorn in 1984 in Baysariyyeh, southern Lebanon, Khalil had covered the region for Al Akhbar since the 2006 war. Her latest reporting focused on Israeli demolitions of homes in villages where Israeli troops are positioned inside Lebanon.In an interview earlier this year with The Public Source, Khalil said her reporting sought to highlight the resilience of residents in Lebanon's border villages. "I debunk the enemy's narrative of targeting only military sites by showing evidence of them bombing homes, farms, and killing children," she said. "Through my work, I have tried to be in solidarity with these people – the people of the land."International CondemnationIn a statement to Al Jazeera, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) said Khalil's killing "must be a wake-up call for the international community to enforce international law, urgently investigate Israel's 262 killings of journalists across the region, and hold all those responsible to account".Lebanese President Joseph Aoun offered his condolences over Khalil's death and wished Faraj a swift recovery. In a post on X, Aoun accused Israel of the "deliberate and consistent targeting of journalists" in an effort to "conceal the truth of its aggressive acts against Lebanon".The Israeli military denied reports it had prevented rescue teams from reaching the scene and said it does not target journalists. However, this incident follows a pattern where three journalists were killed in another reported "double-tap" attack in southern Lebanon less than a month ago.Escalating CrisisKhalil is the ninth journalist killed in Lebanon this year as she was covering a renewed escalation of hostilities between Israel and the Lebanese group Hezbollah, which resumed in early March amid wider regional tensions linked to the US-Israel war on Iran.Reporting from Tyre, southern Lebanon, Al Jazeera's Heidi Pett said Khalil had received direct threats during the last war from an Israeli phone number on WhatsApp, warning her to stop reporting. "In fact, [they were] telling her that she should leave Lebanon if she wanted her head to remain on her shoulders," Pett said.Lebanon's Information Minister Paul Morcos described the latest attack as a flagrant violation of international humanitarian law, highlighting the growing international concern over the targeting of journalists in the region.

The United States has escalated financial pressure on Baghdad by blocking a $500m shipment of Iraqi oil dollars and pausing security cooperation, signaling a hardline stance against Iran-aligned militias during the ongoing conflict with Iran.Key DevelopmentsFinancial Blockade: The US Department of the Treasury blocked a recent cargo plane shipment carrying nearly $500m in US banknotes, which were proceeds from Iraqi oil revenues held at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.Security Pauses: Washington has paused some security cooperation programmes with the Iraqi military, a move aimed at increasing pressure on Baghdad.Repeated Action: This is the second scheduled dollar shipment to Iraq’s central bank delayed by Washington since the US-Israel war on Iran began in late February.Targeting Proxies: The move follows attacks claimed by Iran-aligned groups inside Iraq targeting US military facilities and neighboring countries.Data & Market ImpactThe suspension of these transfers represents a significant economic lever. Since the 2003 invasion, Washington has managed tens of billions of dollars of Iraqi oil proceeds at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Large shipments of cash are sent back to Baghdad annually to stabilize the economy, creating a system where Iraq’s financial stability is heavily dependent on US-controlled channels.By holding these funds, the US effectively controls the flow of hard currency into Iraq, allowing it to influence the country’s economic stability and political alignment without direct military occupation.Why This MattersThis move places Iraq in a precarious geopolitical position. As the war with Iran intensifies, Iraq is caught between its historical reliance on Iranian support and its need for US security guarantees and economic aid.Economic Stability: Iraq’s government relies on these dollar shipments to function. A prolonged halt could lead to liquidity shortages, affecting public services and the exchange rate of the Iraqi Dinar.Regional Tensions: The pressure is designed to force Iraq’s hand against powerful Iran-aligned groups, such as those within the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF). Failure to comply could lead to further US military strikes against these factions.Historical Leverage: The US is utilizing a legacy of the 2003 invasion—control of oil revenues—to exert influence over a sovereign nation, highlighting the enduring complexity of post-war Iraq.Expert InsightAnalysts suggest this is a calculated strategy to isolate Iraq from Tehran. Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani faces a difficult balancing act; he requires US support for a second term while simultaneously needing to appease Iran-backed militias to maintain internal stability.The blocking of funds serves as a warning that continued attacks on US interests will result in economic isolation. It forces Iraq to choose a side in the broader regional conflict, potentially alienating its powerful domestic militias if it bows to US pressure.What Happens NextNegotiations: Iraq’s central bank will likely seek to negotiate with the US Treasury to restore the flow of funds, citing the need to maintain economic stability.Escalation of Proxy Attacks: Iran-aligned groups may respond to the financial pressure by increasing attacks on US interests in the region to force Baghdad to resist US demands.Policy Shift: Iraq may be compelled to take more aggressive action against PMF factions to prove its loyalty to Washington, potentially destabilizing the country’s internal security apparatus.

Political Vacuum in Iraq: Five Months Without a Government More than five months after parliamentary elections, Iraq's Coordination Framework - the largest parliamentary bloc of Shia parties - has failed to choose its prime ministerial candidate amid intense internal power struggles. The country faces a constitutional deadline of April 26 to form a government while balancing delicate diplomatic ties between the United States and Iran, both of whom exert significant influence over Iraqi politics. The Power Struggle Within Iraq's Shia Bloc The Coordination Framework, which commands approximately 185 of 329 seats in parliament, is locked in a battle between incumbent Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani, who seeks a second term, and the bloc led by former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki - a pro-Iran figure whose candidacy is opposed by the United States. The Framework's general secretariat has called a meeting with a single agenda item: selecting the prime ministerial candidate, as previous meetings were postponed due to disagreements among leaders. The Iranian and American Mediation Efforts Iran's Quds Force head, Ismail Qaani, made an unannounced visit to Baghdad aimed at breaking the leadership deadlock. The visit came at the request of caretaker Prime Minister al-Sudani to convince the Shia Coordination Framework not to nominate Bassem al-Badri, who is aligned with Maliki. Meanwhile, the US has explicitly opposed al-Maliki's candidacy, with President Trump threatening to halt support for Iraq if he's elected, citing concerns about Iran's influence through his leadership. Economic Pressures and Constitutional Deadlines Iraq faces mounting economic challenges with customs tariffs reaching as high as 30% on some goods, a reinstated 20% sales tax on mobile phone recharge cards, and over 90 trillion dinars ($69 billion) in debt. The country's state budget remains dependent on oil for roughly 90% of revenues, all while being without a fully functioning government for over five months. Adding to the pressure, a US presidential executive order protecting Iraqi oil revenues at the Federal Reserve Bank is set to expire in May, potentially exposing those assets to creditors. Regional Power Dynamics and Iraqi Sovereignty The political crisis in Iraq reflects the broader regional power struggle between the United States and Iran. Pro-Iranian armed groups have carried out attacks on US assets in solidarity with Tehran during the US-Israel war on Iran, while the US has designated seven militia commanders from Iran-aligned factions. This delicate balancing act has exposed Iraq's vulnerability to external influences and raised questions about the country's sovereignty as political actors appear to be waiting for the outcome of regional conflicts to determine the next government. Sectarian Divisions and Power-Sharing System The political appointments highlight Iraq's persistent sectarian and ethnic divisions under the power-sharing system (Muhasasa) established after the 2003 US-led invasion. With the presidency now filled by Kurdish politician Nizar Amedi, the speakership reserved for Sunni Arabs, and the prime minister position designated for Shia Arabs, the formation of a government remains critical to maintaining this delicate balance. The prolonged vacuum risks exacerbating existing tensions and potentially destabilizing the country's fragile democratic institutions. Path Forward: Weak Prime Minister or Strong Leadership? As the April 26 deadline approaches, the Coordination Framework appears to be leaning toward selecting a weaker prime minister candidate like Bassem al-Badri who would not challenge the bloc's authority, rather than stronger figures like al-Sudani or al-Maliki. However, the final outcome may depend on the results of negotiations between Iran and the United States regarding the regional conflict. Regardless of who is chosen, the next Iraqi government will face the monumental task of addressing economic crises, rebuilding international relations, and asserting greater independence from external influences while navigating the complex regional power dynamics.

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.

Iran has reclosed the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway for global oil supplies, in retaliation to the United States' ongoing blockade of Iranian ports. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) announced on Saturday that control of the strait had 'returned to its previous state,' with Iranian gunboats reportedly firing at a merchant vessel attempting to cross.The strait's closure comes after a brief reopening, during which over a dozen commercial ships passed through. This development has cast doubt on US President Donald Trump's optimism about a potential peace deal to end the US-Israel war on Iran, which Trump claimed was 'very close.'The IRGC statement emphasized that the blockade represented 'acts of piracy and maritime theft,' and warned that the strait would remain under strict control until the US restores full freedom of navigation for Iranian vessels. Oil prices have been impacted, with at least eight oil and gas tankers crossing the strait by 10:30 GMT, while several others turned back.The situation has created uncertainty for maritime shipping, with specialist John-Paul Rodrigue noting that contradictory information from all parties has deterred many vessels from crossing. Al Jazeera's Tohid Asadi reported from Tehran that Iran seeks a comprehensive end to the regional war, including security assurances, sanctions relief, and a resolution to its nuclear dossier.

France and the United Kingdom are convening dozens of countries to advance plans for a multinational maritime force to secure the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway that has been closed since Iran imposed a blockade on February 28.The meeting, taking place at the Elysee presidential palace in Paris, is being chaired by French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, with around 30 to 40 countries participating in person or by video conference.The talks will focus on the Strait of Hormuz Maritime Freedom of Navigation Initiative, a defensive mission aimed at restoring free passage through the waterway once a lasting ceasefire in the US-Israel war on Iran is in place.European leaders have warned that the ongoing closure threatens consumers with higher inflation, food shortages, and flight cancellations as jet fuel supplies dwindle. Over 20,000 seafarers are trapped on board hundreds of vessels caught in the blockade.“The unconditional and immediate reopening of the strait is a global responsibility, and we need to act to get global energy and trade flowing freely again,” Starmer said, accusing Iran of “holding the world’s economy to ransom”.The initiative mirrors Europe’s earlier efforts to assemble a security force for Ukraine and carries similar conditions: deployment only when the conflict ends and security conditions allow.A French presidential official stated that allies would need “an Iranian commitment not to fire on passing ships and a US commitment not to block any ships leaving or entering the Strait of Hormuz” before any mission could proceed.Washington’s absence from the discussions is deliberate, with Macron emphasizing that the mission to provide security for shipping through the strait would be “strictly defensive” and limited to non-belligerent countries.