Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Donald Trump announced over the weekend that he wants to "take the oil in Iran" by seizing control of Kharg Island, the strategic outpost through which roughly 90% of Iran’s oil exports flow. Experts say the remark underscores a blatant disregard for international law and exemplifies what they term “fossil‑fuel imperialism.” Patrick Bigger, co‑director of the Transition Security Project, described the approach as a "might‑makes‑right" logic that is both "abhorrent and spectacularly miscalculated." Trump is slated to give an update on the Iran‑U.S. conflict on Wednesday. He previously claimed the war could end within weeks, a statement that sent the stock market soaring on expectations of de‑escalation. Iran, however, has insisted it needs guarantees against future attacks before halting its counter‑offensive. The fighting continues, highlighted by an Iranian strike on a fully loaded crude tanker in Dubai and threats to "blow up and completely obliterate" Iran’s energy infrastructure if the Strait of Hormuz is not reopened promptly. Kharg Island, a five‑mile strip that handles the bulk of Iran’s oil shipments, along with its power plants and oil wells, has been singled out by Trump. He told the Financial Times that U.S. forces should take over the island and the oil stored there. "My favorite thing is to take the oil in Iran," Trump said, adding that critics in the United States are "stupid people." Amir Handjani, an energy lawyer at the Quincy Institute, warned that the statement "completely discredited" the war’s stated objectives and revealed a classic play for natural resources. Handjani noted that Trump’s desire to seize Iranian oil is not new; he voiced similar ambitions in a 1988 interview while promoting The Art of the Deal, saying he would "do a number on Kharg Island" if elected. The former president has also floated comparable ideas for Iraq, Syria and Venezuela, suggesting the United States could appropriate their oil to offset war costs or bolster strategic reserves. Handjani emphasized that international law provides no framework for waging war to capture sovereign nations' natural resources. From a military perspective, taking Kharg Island would be extremely challenging. Iranian missile defenses have rendered regional U.S. bases inoperable, meaning any assault would likely require a parachute insertion of Marines into heavy fire, with the risk of massive Iranian retaliation. Handjani warned that such retaliation could target oil export terminals across the Persian Gulf, potentially driving crude prices to $200‑$300 per barrel and destabilising the global economy. The conflict has already caused the largest-ever disruption to global energy supplies, killing thousands and sparking sharp fuel‑price shocks. While consumers bear the brunt, major fossil‑fuel companies are enjoying windfall profits. Bigger noted that higher oil prices benefit oil majors and are being used as a pretext to expand U.S. drilling, further entrenching reliance on carbon‑intensive fuels. According to Bigger, Trump’s rhetoric reveals a belief that "fossil fuels are a linchpin of his domestic industrial strategy," and that controlling oil equates to controlling global power. He argues that this mindset threatens the international order and hampers the transition to cleaner energy.

Palantir’s claim that opposition to its NHS contract is driven by ideology was rebuked by Chi Onwurah, the Labour MP who chairs Parliament’s science, innovation and technology select committee. Onwurah said it is appropriate for ministers to explore a break‑clause option in the deal, underscoring the seriousness of the concerns raised. Louis Mosley, Palantir’s UK executive vice‑chair, had urged the government not to succumb to “ideologically motivated campaigners” as officials weighed a way out of a £330 million contract to deliver the Federated Data Platform (FDP) for NHS England. Ministers have now asked for advice on triggering the contract’s break clause amid growing scrutiny of Palantir’s expanding role in the public sector. The FDP is an AI‑enabled platform designed to integrate disparate health information across the NHS. Palantir already holds contracts with the Ministry of Defence, several police forces and the UK’s financial watchdog, the FCA. Onwurah’s cross‑party committee is set to publish its report in the coming weeks, covering the digital reorganisation of government services and the role of AI after a series of hearings that included experts, NHS leaders and representatives from companies such as Palantir. She identified three core issues: the manner in which the contract was awarded, the handling of patient data and the resulting trust deficit within the NHS, and the involvement of Peter Mandelson through his firm Global Counsel. “These are not fringe ideological concerns,” Onwurah told the Guardian. “They relate to contract transparency, vendor lock‑in, value for money and data security – matters that should concern everyone pushing the NHS towards digital transformation.” She added that the NHS’s post‑COVID fatigue and austerity‑driven burnout make any additional trust‑related resentment a significant barrier to progress. Onwurah noted that Palantir secured the contract after providing services to the NHS at a nominal cost – a tactic often used by large tech firms to position themselves as the most attractive government supplier. “It is right for the government to explore all options, including breaking the contract, given ongoing concerns about FDP uptake while Palantir remains at the helm,” she said. Liberal Democrat MP Martin Wrigley, also on the committee, urged the government to commission a new consortium of UK‑based tech experts to build a home‑grown NHS platform. During a previous committee appearance, Mosley accused British doctors of placing “ideology over patient interest” after they challenged the data‑processing contract. Speaking to the Times, Mosley warned that removing Palantir could jeopardise patient care and stall solutions to the NHS’s biggest challenges, arguing that the campaign against the firm would do more harm than good.

BP's new chief executive, Meg O'Neill, has told staff that the oil giant is operating in a world of significant complexity, marked by geopolitical tensions, conflict, rapid technological change, and shifting global energy demand. In her first message to employees, O'Neill promised a clear direction and consistency after a tumultuous period for the 117-year-old fossil fuel company. This period has seen BP pivot away from a failing green strategy and experience leadership changes. O'Neill, BP's third CEO in under five years, takes the helm during a critical time, with the ongoing Iran war triggering the global industry's biggest supply shock. She emphasized the company's role in delivering energy safely, reliably, and efficiently. The company previously aimed to cut its oil production this decade, which put BP at a financial disadvantage compared to other large oil companies like Shell when wholesale prices surged after Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022. O'Neill is expected to focus on making disciplined investments in new fossil fuel projects to revive BP's market value. This strategy comes as the Iran war has driven oil prices to near $118 a barrel and gas prices are at historic highs across Asia and Europe. BP's share price has reached an almost 16-year high amid the current geopolitical tensions. However, it saw a nearly 3.5% slump on Wednesday as Brent crude prices fell below $100 a barrel. In her memo, O'Neill expressed her excitement about BP's next chapter, highlighting the company's strength, remarkable people, and world-class assets. She emphasized BP's vital role in supplying energy to customers worldwide, underpinning economic growth and human development.

Just before sunset on Florida’s Space Coast, an estimated 400,000 people are expected to line the beaches and causeways to watch NASA’s Artemis II lift off at 6:24 p.m. ET, weather permitting. The launch will be the first crewed departure from low‑Earth orbit since the Apollo 17 mission in December 1972. Commander Reid Wiseman told reporters at the Kennedy Space Center that the nation and the world have been waiting “a long time” for this moment. The four‑person crew—Americans Christina Koch and Victor Glover, Canadian astronaut Jeremy Hansen, and Wiseman himself—have entered quarantine ahead of the flight. During the 10‑day test flight, which will not attempt a lunar landing, Koch and Glover will become the first woman and first person of color to travel into cislunar space, the region between Earth and the Moon. Hansen will be the first non‑American to do so. The Orion capsule is expected to travel more than 4,600 miles (7,400 km) beyond the Moon’s far side on day six, reaching a total distance of just under 253,000 miles from Earth—surpassing the Apollo 13 record of 248,655 miles set in 1970. Beyond the historic milestones, Artemis II serves as a critical stepping stone for NASA’s broader lunar ambitions. Administrator Jared Isaacman has outlined a $20 billion Moon base program slated for completion by the end of the decade, and the mission will capture high‑resolution images of the Moon’s south‑pole region—potential sites for future landings and the base. Technical preparations have addressed previous setbacks, including a resolved heat‑shield issue from Artemis I and a helium‑leak that delayed Artemis II’s rollout in February. NASA’s final weather briefing gave the launch an 80 % chance of favorable conditions, with a five‑night launch window available should a scrub be required. Inside the capsule, the crew will spend ten days in a confined space roughly the size of a small camper van, testing life‑support systems, radiation exposure, and microgravity effects. Wiseman noted the psychological challenges of close‑quarters living, saying, “By day six or seven we’ll all be thinking, ‘I need a little space,’ but we’re a good crew.” The launch has sparked a surge of tourism in Cape Canaveral and Cocoa Beach, with hotels filling quickly as spring‑breakers add the event to their itineraries. Despite schedule delays and cost overruns—NASA acknowledges the program is “billions of dollars over budget”—the agency remains confident that Artemis II will demonstrate the capabilities needed for the next crewed landing, scheduled for Artemis IV in 2028. As Wiseman summed up, “NASA was founded to tackle the near‑impossible. This mission is the next step in America’s return to the lunar environment, and when we get there, we intend to stay.”

A recent study published in Nature Communications by the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (UKCEH) has sounded the alarm on the precarious state of Britain's native species. The merlin, Britain's smallest bird of prey, is among more than 200 species that could become extinct in the UK if immediate action is not taken to address climate change and unsustainable land use. The study, led by senior ecologist Dr. Rob Cooke, indicates that the next 20 years will be decisive in determining the fate of dozens of native species. By 2050, the British Isles, already one of the most nature-depleted regions in the world, may reach an ecological "point of no return." The researchers modeled six future scenarios with varying levels of greenhouse gas emissions and land management practices. The worst-case scenario, which involves environmentally damaging agricultural and urban intensification and 4C of global heating above pre-industrial levels, could lead to the extinction of 196 plant species, 31 bird species, and seven butterfly species in Britain. This represents losses at more than three times the historical extinction rate. In such a scenario, many areas of the country could lose up to 20% of their existing local species. The merlin, mountain ringlet and large heath butterflies, as well as plants like burnt orchid, grass-of-Parnassus, and Alpine gentian, are among those at risk of being lost. However, the study also offers a glimmer of hope. If society adopts more sustainable climate and land use policies, 69 fewer species could become extinct compared to the worst-case scenario. This underscores the critical importance of immediate action to curb emissions and adopt sustainable practices to protect Britain's biodiversity.

Ethiopian women's rights activists are facing a rising tide of digital violence, including online threats, doxing, and deepfake abuse, forcing some to flee the country. Yordanos Bezabih, an Ethiopian women's rights activist, had faced online threats for years, including acid attacks, gang-rape, and death. However, in 2025, the threats became more menacing, with an anonymous Telegram group organizing an effort to track down her location.The group shared deepfakes of her – nude images and videos. A stranger started filming her in the streets, calling her by her social media handle. Thieves broke into her house and stole her laptop. Soon after, her Telegram account was hacked, and her private photos and messages were circulated on social media. The perpetrators later circulated her address, demanding she be found and “executed”.In August, Bezabih left Ethiopia on a fellowship for human rights defenders. She has not returned since; it is too dangerous. “I have been forced to remain outside the country in order to protect my safety and continue my work,” she says.Bezabih is one of a small but growing number of feminists and women’s rights defenders who have left Ethiopia over the past two years, as online violence has become all-pervasive and uncontrolled. Three years after Facebook was accused of allowing hate speech to spread unchecked in Ethiopia, amid genocidal violence against ethnic Tigrayans during the civil war – claims rejected by Meta – social media inciters in Ethiopia have found a new target: women online.Research by the Centre for Information Resilience (CIR) bears out the scale of online gendered abuse in Ethiopia. Its 2024 report, Silence, Shamed and Threatened, found that technology-facilitated gender-based violence (TFGBV) has become “normalized to the point of invisibility” and is a daily occurrence with severe offline impacts, including psychological harm, physical assault, and arrests.Activists say the government and social media platforms are not doing enough to protect them. “I don’t think the government is much concerned about online harassment. It is barely a government agenda,” says Befekadu Hailu, an Ethiopian civil society leader and former director of Ethiopia’s Centre for the Advancement of Rights and Democracy.Bezabih says the online platforms that enable the violence also do little about it. “Even though they claim to have all these community guidelines, tech platforms never respond to reports, claims or even appeals.”

Palantir’s senior UK representative has warned ministers against yielding to ideologically motivated campaigners as they explore the possibility of terminating a £330 million NHS contract for the company’s Federated Data Platform (FDP).The FDP, an AI‑enabled system intended to unify patient information across the health service, is part of a broader portfolio that includes contracts with the Ministry of Defence, several police forces and the UK’s financial regulator.Louis Mosley, executive vice‑chair of Palantir UK, told The Times that abandoning the deal would jeopardise patient care and hinder progress on the NHS’s most pressing challenges. He highlighted that the platform is projected to generate £150 million in benefits by the end of the decade, delivering a £5 return for every pound spent.According to the Financial Times, senior officials have begun informal discussions about activating a break clause that would allow the FDP’s operation to be transferred to an alternative provider once the system becomes fully operational next year.Palantir, a US‑based data‑analytics firm with ties to the Israeli and US militaries and former U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement contracts, has faced sustained opposition from the British Medical Association, which has long criticised the use of its technology in patient‑care settings.Health officials acknowledge the reputational risk, noting that the controversy now extends beyond traditional Labour‑left and Green Party critics. A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson emphasised that the FDP is designed to improve care coordination, accelerate cancer diagnoses and increase treatment capacity, while maintaining strict data‑security safeguards.Health Secretary Wes Streeting, speaking on the Guardian Politics Weekly podcast, recognised public unease about Palantir’s political affiliations, referencing founder Peter Thiel’s right‑wing connections. He reassured listeners that Palantir does not have direct access to patient data, stating, "The platform is operated by us; Palantir never sees the data."Adoption of Palantir’s technology within the NHS has risen from 118 to 151 organisations since June, though it remains short of the government’s target of 240 organisations by year‑end. Labour backbencher Clive Lewis noted that the issue is becoming a visible concern for voters, reflecting broader anxieties about AI and foreign‑owned infrastructure in critical public services.

The Drama, directed by Norwegian filmmaker Kristoffer Borgli, is a jeu d'esprit of outrage, a psychological meltdown that is more astutely articulated than in many another more solemnly intended film.The film centers around Charlie, played by Robert Pattinson, a young British art historian based in the US, and Emma, played by Zendaya, a beautiful and charming young woman who is deaf in one ear. Their whirlwind romance leads to a wedding, but their relationship is put to the test when Emma reveals a dark secret from her past: at 14, she planned a high school shooting but was thwarted when another shooting occurred at a local mall, killing a friend.The film's tone is a delicate balance of satire and thriller, leaving viewers questioning whether it's a black-comedic absurdity or a serious commentary on the darker aspects of human nature. The film's ingenuity lies in its generic ambiguity, making it difficult to categorize as solely a romantic comedy or a thriller.The Drama has sparked controversy and debate, with some critics praising its bold and insouciantly offensive approach, while others have expressed discomfort with its handling of sensitive topics like gun violence and mental health.Despite some critics arguing that the film slightly falls down in its portrayal of the aftermath of Emma's non-crime, it offers a thought-provoking exploration of the human psyche and the complexities of relationships.The Drama is set to release in Australia on April 2, and in the UK and US on April 3.

Islamabad became the focal point of a new diplomatic track when the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt arrived this weekend, joining Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar. The quartet pledged to channel U.S. and Iranian confidence in Pakistan’s ability to host direct talks aimed at a comprehensive settlement. At the close of the meeting, Dar announced the creation of a Committee of Four—senior officials from each foreign ministry tasked with ironing out the procedural details of the peace process. The gathering marks the evolution of a broader Arab‑Islamic consultative effort that began in Riyadh on March 19 into a focused four‑nation push, with Pakistan positioned as the primary conduit between Washington and Tehran. In a candid interview with the Financial Times, U.S. President Donald Trump declared his “favourite thing is to take the oil in Iran,” hinting at a possible seizure of Kharg Island, which handles roughly 90 % of Iran’s crude exports. He reiterated an April 6 deadline for Tehran to accept a deal or face U.S. strikes on its energy infrastructure, yet on Air Force One he added, “I do see a deal in Iran, yeah. Could be soon,” describing the negotiations as “extremely well” progressing. Analysts stress that these mixed signals underscore the central tension confronting Pakistan’s initiative. While Islamabad and its partners are building a multilateral framework to curb escalation, Israeli strikes continue and the U.S. military presence in the region expands. Key diplomatic insights came from former Pakistani officials. Former information minister Mushahid Hussain Sayed highlighted the meeting as the first institutional Muslim‑world effort to open a dialogue pathway, noting that Pakistan and Turkey are among the most credible interlocutors—one a nuclear power, the other a NATO member. He cautioned, however, that the steps are “baby steps” in a war that is rapidly complicating. Former ambassador Masood Khan described the Committee of Four as a structured back‑channel enabling a “step‑by‑step, layered, and calibrated process.” He outlined four potential stages: trust‑building measures, cease‑fire negotiations, direct talks on the nuclear programme and the Strait of Hormuz, and finally reciprocal commitments. Khan warned that Iran’s demands for war reparations and sovereignty over the Strait could prove the toughest hurdles. High‑level outreach extended beyond the region. Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif held a 90‑minute call with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, while China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi pledged full backing for the initiative. A senior Pakistani diplomat confirmed Dar’s planned visit to China on March 31, underscoring the strategic weight of the Pakistan‑China relationship. On the economic front, Iran’s agreement to allow 20 Pakistani‑flagged vessels through the Strait of Hormuz represents the most immediate confidence‑building measure. The strait remains effectively closed to regular shipping, prompting the International Energy Agency to label the disruption as the “worst oil shock in history,” surpassing the crises of 1973 and 1979. Brent crude surged above $116 per barrel, up more than 50 % since the war began on February 28, while WTO Director‑General Ngozi Okonjo‑Iweala warned of the “worst trade disruptions in the past 80 years.” Nevertheless, experts argue that the Strait should not become the centerpiece of any settlement. The long‑term resolution will likely involve all eight littoral states under UNCLOS and established legal precedents, with the immediate priority being a broader halt to hostilities. Military dynamics remain volatile. U.S. Central Command reported that an amphibious task force of roughly 3,500 Marines and sailors aboard the USS Tripoli arrived in the region, with an additional 2,200 Marines and 2,000 soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division slated to deploy. Trump affirmed that military options are still on the table, and reports suggest the Pentagon is preparing for potential ground operations. Iran’s leadership remains skeptical. A spokesperson for Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs described the U.S. 15‑point plan—calling for a one‑month cease‑fire, handover of highly enriched uranium, a halt to enrichment, missile curbs, and an end to proxy support—as “unrealistic, illogical and excessive.” Tehran’s counter‑proposal, aired on Press TV, demands a halt to aggression, concrete guarantees against recurrence, reparations, and formal recognition of Iranian sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz. Analysts such as Reza Khanzadeh of George Mason University argue that the burden of compromise falls on Washington, noting that Iran will not sacrifice regime survival. Meanwhile, former diplomat Masood Khan identified the most decisive confidence‑building measure as a U.S. commitment to halt Israeli attacks on Iran and Lebanon—a step he admits is “easier said than done.” In sum, Pakistan’s diplomatic corridor offers a glimmer of hope, but deep mistrust, divergent demands, and an accelerating military buildup render the path to a lasting settlement precarious.