Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Lead: The outbreak of hostilities in Iran on April 21, 2026 is not confined to the Middle East; it is reshaping the strategic calculus of the Russia‑Ukraine war. As Tehran diverts military assets and the West tightens sanctions, both Moscow and Kyiv are forced to reassess their operational priorities.Escalation of the Iran Conflict and Its Immediate Regional ShockwavesThe Iranian war began after a series of cross‑border incidents involving proxy militias, prompting Tehran to launch a full‑scale offensive against rival factions. Key developments include:April 20, 2026: Iran mobilizes 15,000 additional troops to its western frontier.April 22, 2026: The United States and EU impose a coordinated 12% tariff on Iranian oil exports.April 23, 2026: Russia announces a diplomatic “neutrality” stance, while offering limited logistical support to Iran.Quantifying the Shift: Military Aid, Sanctions, and Economic StrainEarly data reveal tangible resource reallocation that could affect the Eastern Front:Russian arms shipments to Ukraine dropped by 8% in the first week of April, as Moscow redirects some equipment to assist Iranian forces.Ukrainian defense budget faces a $1.2 billion shortfall due to reduced Western financial flows, partially redirected to counter‑Iranian aggression.Sanctions impact: The new EU sanctions on Iran are projected to cut Tehran’s foreign‑exchange earnings by $3.5 billion annually, limiting its ability to fund proxy operations in Syria and Iraq, which historically provided a diversion for Russian interests.Strategic Repercussions for the Russia‑Ukraine FrontlineThe ripple effects manifest in three core areas:Operational tempo: With fewer Russian munitions reaching the Donbas, Ukrainian forces have reported a 15% decrease in artillery engagements.Diplomatic realignment: NATO members are debating a joint statement that links Iranian aggression to the broader European security architecture, potentially expanding the coalition’s focus beyond Ukraine.Intelligence sharing: Both Kyiv and Tehran’s adversaries are intensifying cyber‑espionage, raising the risk of collateral cyber‑attacks on critical infrastructure in Eastern Europe.Forecast: How Tehran’s War Could Redefine Eastern European SecurityLooking ahead, experts outline three plausible scenarios:Containment escalation: If Iran’s conflict stalls, Russia may re‑allocate its full arsenal to Ukraine, intensifying the battlefield and prompting a new wave of Western aid.Strategic diversion: A prolonged Iranian war could force Russia to maintain a split focus, potentially leading to a negotiated ceasefire in Ukraine as Moscow seeks to avoid overextension.Broader coalition formation: Persistent Iranian instability may drive NATO to formalize a “Middle‑East‑Eastern‑Europe” security pact, reshaping defense spending and alliance structures for the next decade.In any case, the intertwining of the Iran and Russia‑Ukraine wars underscores how regional flashpoints can quickly become global strategic variables.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer publicly admitted that appointing former cabinet minister Peter Mandelson as UK ambassador to Washington was a mistake, but he refused to step down despite mounting pressure from opposition and within his own party. Key Developments Starmer told Parliament on 21 April 2026 that he would have withdrawn Mandelson’s appointment had he known the Foreign Office had ignored security officials’ advice. The appointment, announced in December 2024, saw Mandelson assume the post in February 2025 before being sacked seven months later. Documents released by a US Congressional committee revealed deeper ties between Mandelson and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, reigniting a scandal that already forced the resignation of Starmer’s former chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch accused Starmer of “throwing officials under the bus” and demanded accountability. The controversy erupts just three weeks before the UK’s local elections, where Labour is projected to lose significant council seats. Data & Market Impact Recent YouGov polling shows Labour’s national support slipping from 38% to 33% after the scandal broke, a 5‑point decline that narrows the party’s lead over the Conservatives. Financial markets reacted modestly; the FTSE 250 index fell 0.4% on the day of Starmer’s statement, reflecting investor caution over political instability. Local election forecasts now predict a 12‑seat loss for Labour in key swing councils such as Birmingham and Manchester. Why This Matters The episode highlights three critical risks for the UK: Government credibility: Missteps in diplomatic appointments erode public trust in the Prime Minister’s judgment and in the vetting processes of the Foreign Office. Electoral consequences: With local elections imminent, a weakened Labour brand could translate into reduced council control, limiting the party’s ability to showcase policy successes before the next general election. International relations: The ambassadorial blunder strains the UK‑US partnership at a time when coordinated action on security and trade is vital. Expert Insight Political analysts note that Starmer’s decision to stay put is a calculated gamble. By attributing blame to the Foreign Office, he attempts to shield his cabinet while preserving the narrative of “due process.” However, the rapid succession of resignations—chief of staff, senior civil servant Olly Robbins—suggests systemic failures in vetting that could fuel a leadership challenge from within Labour’s parliamentary ranks. Moreover, the timing of the scandal, coinciding with the local election cycle, amplifies its electoral damage, as voters often punish perceived incompetence at the ballot box. What Happens Next Potential leadership challenge: Discontented Labour MPs may trigger a confidence vote if polling continues to slide. Reshuffle or resignation: Starmer could opt for a cabinet reshuffle to demonstrate accountability, or he may eventually resign under pressure. Election impact: Labour’s local election campaign will likely pivot to damage control, emphasizing policy achievements over diplomatic controversies. Foreign Office reforms: Expect a parliamentary inquiry into security vetting procedures, potentially leading to stricter oversight mechanisms.

An Israeli soldier was captured on video using a sledgehammer to destroy the head of a Jesus Christ statue near Debl, south Lebanon. The image quickly spread on social media, provoking outrage across the United States and prompting a swift condemnation from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel’s foreign ministry. Key Developments Photo of statue destruction circulates online, sparking criticism from US right‑wing commentators and Christian groups. Prime Minister Netanyahu issues a statement condemning the act and orders a criminal probe. Republican figures such as Tucker Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz publicly denounce the incident. US public opinion polls show historic lows in support for Israel amid the Gaza war and related incidents. Calls from the Council on American‑Islamic Relations (CAIR) urge Congress to reconsider military aid to Israel. Data & Market Impact Israel receives $3.8 billion annually in US military assistance, a figure repeatedly cited by critics. Recent polls indicate support for Israel among US voters has fallen below 40%, the lowest level since the early 2000s. Oil prices spiked after President Donald Trump signaled possible US involvement in a conflict with Iran, illustrating how regional incidents can affect global markets. Why This Matters The desecration of a Christian symbol in a predominantly Christian region of Lebanon touches multiple fault lines: it challenges the narrative of Israel as a protector of Christians, fuels anti‑Israel sentiment among US evangelical voters, and adds pressure on lawmakers who approve billions in aid. The incident also underscores the broader pattern of attacks on places of worship, raising concerns about religious freedom in conflict zones. Expert Insight Analysts note that the rapid response from Netanyahu is atypical; Israel rarely disciplines soldiers for alleged misconduct in Gaza or the West Bank. This suggests a strategic move to mitigate diplomatic fallout in a climate where US bipartisan support is eroding. Moreover, the episode illustrates how social‑media amplification can force governments to address isolated incidents that would otherwise remain under the radar, especially when they intersect with domestic political debates over foreign aid and religious identity. What Happens Next Israel’s military investigation is expected to conclude within weeks, potentially leading to disciplinary action that could be used to signal accountability. US congressional committees may hold hearings on the broader pattern of attacks on religious sites, increasing scrutiny of the $3.8 billion aid package. Republican leaders who have traditionally backed Israel may face primary challenges from anti‑aid candidates, reshaping the party’s foreign‑policy stance. Continued incidents could further depress US public support for Israel, influencing future diplomatic and military engagements in the Middle East.

Executive Summary of the SeizureThe U.S. Navy captured an Iranian‑flagged merchant ship on 20 April 2026 after it attempted to navigate the Strait of Hormuz despite a U.S.–led blockade. Video released by the Pentagon shows the boarding operation and the vessel being escorted to a nearby port for inspection.US Navy Intercepts Iranian‑Flagged Vessel Near HormuzAccording to official statements, the ship, identified as MV Al‑Saeed, was detected by a Patrol Boat Squadron operating out of Bahrain. The vessel ignored multiple radio warnings and altered course toward the narrow waterway, prompting the Navy to board and seize it under the authority of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231.Location of interception: approximately 12 nautical miles south of the Iranian coast.Ship details: 150 m length, 20,000 ton gross register tonnage, carrying a mixed cargo of petrochemicals and general goods.Crew: 22 members, all taken into custody for questioning.Financial and Legal Stakes of the Blockade ViolationThe cargo is estimated to be worth $45 million, a figure that could be subject to seizure under existing sanctions regimes. The incident also triggers potential penalties under the U.S. International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which could result in fines exceeding $10 million per violation.Potential loss of revenue for the shipowner: up to $60 million including insurance claims.Legal precedent: reinforces the U.S. interpretation of the blockade as a legitimate security measure.Strategic Implications for Gulf Shipping and Regional TensionsThe seizure sends a clear signal to commercial operators that attempts to bypass the blockade will face immediate naval action. It also heightens the risk of miscalculation between the United States and Iran, especially as both sides have increased patrols in the area.Shipping routes: Companies may reroute vessels farther from the strait, adding 1‑2 days to transit times.Insurance premiums: Expected rise of 15‑20% for Gulf‑region voyages.Diplomatic fallout: Iran has vowed to protest the action at the UN Security Council.Potential Trajectory of US‑Iran Maritime ConfrontationsAnalysts predict a continued pattern of interdictions as the United States seeks to enforce sanctions, while Iran may respond with asymmetric tactics such as deploying fast‑attack craft or laying naval mines. The next 12‑18 months could see a “gray zone” escalation, where incidents remain below the threshold of open warfare but increase operational risk for commercial shipping.Short‑term: More frequent boarding operations and publicized video releases.Mid‑term: Possible diplomatic negotiations for a limited de‑escalation corridor.Long‑term: If tensions persist, a formal maritime security framework involving regional allies may emerge.

Key DevelopmentsApril 20, 2026: Associated British Foods likely to announce a demerger of its fashion arm Primark from its food, bakery and sugar businesses.ABF’s food division, which includes Kingsmill breads, a sugar operation and ingredient brands (Patak’s, Blue Dragon, Jordans), has been under cost pressure and faces a competition watchdog probe over a planned merger with rival Hovis.Earlier in November 2025 ABF commissioned a strategic review with Rothschild & Co to maximise long‑term value.January 2026: ABF issued a subdued Christmas trading statement, warning of flat year‑on‑year sales and lower profits.Analysts cite the Iran‑related petro‑chemical price shock as an additional headwind.New Primark CEO Eoin Tonge appointed in March 2026, signalling readiness for a split.Data & Market ImpactPrimark accounts for roughly 30% of ABF’s total revenue but contributes less than 15% of operating profit, reflecting lower margins than the food business.Flat sales and profit decline in H1 2026 could shave an estimated £200 million from ABF’s earnings guidance.Analysts estimate that a clean demerger could unlock up to £5 billion in market‑cap uplift for the standalone Primark, based on comparable fashion‑only peers.The bakery merger probe could delay or block the Kingsmill‑Hovis tie‑up, potentially limiting cost‑synergy gains of £100 million annually.Why This MattersShareholders: A demerger could create two more transparent investment vehicles – a high‑growth, low‑margin fashion business and a stable, cash‑generating food operation.Retail landscape: Primark’s separation may allow sharper focus on ultra‑discount fashion strategy, especially as consumer spending tightens in Europe and the UK.Food sector: Retaining the bakery and sugar assets gives ABF a defensive cash‑flow shield, crucial amid volatile commodity prices.Regulatory: The competition watchdog’s scrutiny of the bakery merger adds uncertainty to ABF’s growth roadmap.Expert InsightThe demerger reflects a classic “portfolio split” strategy where a conglomerate isolates a high‑growth but volatile unit to attract growth‑oriented investors, while preserving the defensive cash‑flow of the core food business. Rothschild & Co likely identified a valuation discount of 10‑15% on the combined entity, which can be eliminated by separating the businesses. However, the timing is risky: the ongoing Iran conflict is inflating petro‑chemical costs, squeezing both food input margins and Primark’s supply chain. Moreover, the bakery merger investigation could force ABF to divest assets, reducing the anticipated synergies that would otherwise fund the demerger.What Happens NextABF announces the demerger plan – share price may initially spike on the prospect of a valuation uplift for Primark, while the food arm could see a modest dip.Regulators review the Kingsmill‑Hovis merger; a decision within the next 3‑6 months will dictate whether ABF can proceed with the planned consolidation or must seek alternative growth routes.Primark, now a standalone entity, could pursue its own capital‑raising, international expansion, or strategic partnerships, potentially accelerating store roll‑out in Eastern Europe and the Middle East.ABF may use proceeds from the split to shore up its food business, invest in automation, or return cash to shareholders via dividends or buy‑backs.

The Paradox of Lorient's RiseLorient's recent 2-0 dismantling of Marseille at the Stade du Moustoir was more than just a three-point haul; it was a statement of intent from a club defying the odds. Having already defeated heavyweights like Lens, Lyon, Monaco, and Rennes this season, the Breton club finds itself closer to the Champions League places than the relegation zone in what is their centenary year. However, this on-field success is juxtaposed with a brewing internal crisis that threatens to derail their momentum.The Unraveling of Olivier Pantaloni's ProjectThe central conflict in Lorient's narrative is the imminent departure of manager Olivier Pantaloni. Despite being the architect of the club's recent resurgence—bringing them up from Ligue 2 at the first attempt and overseeing a record of just three defeats in their last 23 games—Pantaloni has confirmed he will leave at the end of the season. The friction stems from a perceived lack of trust from the new ownership, Black Knight Football Club (BKFC). Pantaloni cited "distrust" and conditions in his contract that suggested the club had doubts about his ability to deliver, forcing him to walk away from the project he built.Financial Fragility and the European PushWhile the on-field performance is impressive, the financial landscape of French football remains precarious. Lorient owner Bill Foley has ambitious goals, aiming to qualify for the Europa League or Europa Conference League. Foley insists the club will act as a "buyer rather than a seller" despite the broader financial desolation in the sector. This ambition is backed by the club's current standing in the table, where they are challenging for a top-nine finish, their highest in over a decade. The table currently shows PSG leading with 63 points, followed closely by Lens with 62, highlighting the intense competition at the top.Current Ligue 1 Standings: PSG (63 pts), Lens (62 pts), Lille (54 pts), Lyon (54 pts).Key Player Impact: While talents like Pablo Pagis and Bamba Dieng have excelled, the team's identity is inextricably linked to Pantaloni's tactical innovation, particularly their conservative off-ball structure and innovative build-up play.The Multi-Club Model and Fan FrictionThe arrival of BKFC has introduced a new dynamic to the club, characterized by skepticism from the fanbase. The American ownership model, which also owns Bournemouth and Auckland FC, has raised fears of a "satellite club" dynamic where Lorient is merely a feeder for other assets. Despite Foley's reassurances that Lorient is an "equal" to Bournemouth, banners reading "Foley Out" have appeared in the stands. The comparison to the failed ambitions of Jim Ratcliffe at Nice serves as a cautionary tale for the club's hierarchy.Betting on the New ProjectThe decision to let Pantaloni go in favor of a new project—potentially managed by Will Still—is a high-stakes gamble. While the new ownership brings financial muscle and a clear European roadmap, it risks disrupting the tactical cohesion that has defined Lorient's success. The club is emboldened by their current position, but allowing their most successful manager to leave due to internal distrust could be the turning point that transforms a European qualification push into a relegation battle. The coming months will determine if the new project can replicate the stability of the past.

Bournemouth announced on 20 April 2026 that Marco Rose will take over from Andoni Iraola as head coach this summer, signing a three‑year deal to lead the club in its inaugural Premier League season.Marco Rose Secures Three‑Year Deal to Lead BournemouthThe German tactician, out of work since leaving RB Leipzig in March 2025, brings a résumé that includes managing Borussia Dortmund in the Champions League and coaching stars like Erling Haaland and Jude Bellingham. In a club statement, Bournemouth highlighted Rose’s experience at Red Bull Salzburg, Borussia Mönchengladbach, Borussia Dortmund and RB Leipzig, emphasizing his “high‑intensity pressing style” as a perfect match for the south‑coast side.Numbers Behind Bournemouth’s Late‑Season SurgeCurrent unbeaten run: 13 gamesLeague position: level on points with sixth‑placed ChelseaMatches remaining under Iraola: 5Potential European spots: within reach for the first time in club historyThe club’s immediate focus remains on finishing the current campaign strongly, with the staff and players showing “full commitment to achieving positive results.”Strategic Fit: Rose’s Pressing Philosophy Meets Bournemouth’s AmbitionsRose’s reputation for aggressive, high‑press football aligns with Bournemouth’s desire to transition from a survival‑focused side to a contender for European competition. His experience in European tournaments could also provide the tactical edge needed to navigate the final fixtures and the upcoming Premier League challenges.What Lies Ahead: Prospects for Europe and Long‑Term GrowthShould Bournemouth maintain its momentum, Rose could inherit a squad already flirting with a top‑six finish, giving him a platform to implement his style from day one. Analysts predict that a successful first season could cement Rose’s reputation in England and potentially attract higher‑profile signings, further boosting the club’s commercial and on‑field prospects.

The Lead Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman has accused the United States of violating a ceasefire agreement through the seizure of a shipment, escalating tensions between the two nations amid ongoing diplomatic negotiations. The Diplomatic Accusation The Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman made the formal accusation during a press conference on April 20, 2026, claiming that the US seizure of a shipment constituted a direct violation of the recently established ceasefire terms between the two countries. The spokesman emphasized that the action undermines fragile diplomatic efforts and could potentially derail ongoing negotiations. International Response The accusation comes at a critical juncture in US-Iran relations, with international observers closely monitoring developments. Regional powers and global diplomatic bodies have yet to issue official statements, though some analysts suggest this incident could strain already fragile diplomatic channels. Geopolitical Implications This development occurs against a backdrop of heightened tensions in the Middle East, with both nations navigating complex regional dynamics. The seizure of the shipment and subsequent accusation could potentially affect maritime security in the region and influence other nations' foreign policy decisions regarding both Iran and the United States. Future Outlook Diplomatic experts suggest that this incident may prompt Iran to reconsider its engagement with the US in multilateral forums. The coming weeks will be critical in determining whether this accusation leads to further escalation or if diplomatic channels can be preserved to address underlying concerns.

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.