Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

The Origins of 'Mogging' Until recently, if someone had said "mog" to me, I probably would have assumed they were talking about the children's book cat created by the late great Judith Kerr. If asked about "mogging" or being "mogged," I would have been completely baffled. But for many members of gen Z and gen Alpha (or anyone who is just a bit too online), the slang term, which means to outdo or outshine others, is everywhere. From Manosphere to Mainstream Mogging's origins are in the manosphere, where it began as a verb derived from the acronym "Amog" (alpha male of the group). In misogynistic forums in the 2010s, to "mog" came to mean to outdo someone in terms of sexual desirability. Mogging has been adopted by "looksmaxxing" influencers such as Braden Peters, known online as Clavicular, who encourage men to try to alter their looks – sometimes in extreme ways – to increase their "sexual market value". Such an influencer might talk of "frame mogging" another person in a photo or video – a variation on mogging that specifically refers to being more muscular. The Evolution of Competitive Language Even now, as the term has begun to be used much more widely, and in a tongue-in-cheek way, it is still typically associated with looks (a friend of mine, for example, was described by her boyfriend's younger siblings as "mogging him" in a photo). But increasingly, mogging can mean besting others at basically anything. The gold medal Olympic figure skater Alysa Liu said in an interview last year that her main competition strategy was "to mog", while a 23-year-old colleague of mine tells me that she and her friends joke about "walk-mogging" when they overtake people on the street. Linguistic Analysis of Modern Slang Tony Thorne, director of the slang and new language archive at King's College London, says a lot of new slang terms "have come recently from the same kind of male-based internet culture", referencing the words "simp" (someone who is excessively attentive), "soy boy" (a derogatory term for a man who is not stereotypically masculine) and "sigma" (someone cool and successful). Not to mention "maxxing," now such an established part of the lexicon that it was tweeted by the US Department of Defense earlier this year. The Cultural Impact of Competitive Slang Thorne thinks it is significant that "mogging" in particular has become fashionable at this time. "What it implies – hyper-competitive, hyper-individualist, aggressive selfishness" has become "mainstream behaviour", he says. Which is why Will Adolphy, a psychotherapist who was himself once an ardent follower of manosphere influencers, has concerns about the word. "Part of me can see how it's a kind of handy, even entertaining word," he says. But the idea of mogging "reinforces this sense that there are certain people that will dominate others based off their physical appearance and status", he says. Psychological Concerns About Competitive Language Dr Emily Sehmer, an NHS child and adolescent psychiatrist, worries too about the "constant sense of competition" that concepts such as mogging help to foster, especially for teenagers, who are developing their socio-emotional skills and typically "have a desire to fit in and to get peer approval". Apart from anything else, she adds, wanting to mog someone is "kind of mean, isn't it?" The Ironical Reappropriation of 'Mogging' "I think people are right to be concerned," about the rise in usage of slang that originates from a toxic subculture, Thorne says – and notes that some of his fellow linguists feel uncomfortable about researching it. But, he adds, "mogging" has moved well beyond its origins, and many people who use it now "tend to understand it and laugh at it, and they use it themselves, but ironically". Certainly, plenty of mogging content on social media now has an irreverence to it: such as the trend of posing for the photo on a rollercoaster in order to "mog" the screaming riders next to you. Making what started as an aggressive concept into something very silly pokes fun at the ridiculousness of the manosphere, my younger colleague explains. She shows me a picture of herself on a recent holiday, standing next to a statue of Napoleon, that she sent to a group chat of her friends. The caption? "I mogged Napoleon!"

The Growing Concern Over AI's Economic ImpactOne in three university students in Great Britain believe that artificial intelligence will eliminate jobs so rapidly that it will trigger civil unrest, according to a new survey by King's College London (KCL). This significant finding highlights the deep concerns among educated young people about the potential societal consequences of rapid technological advancement.The poll, conducted by the King's Institute for Artificial Intelligence and the KCL Policy Institute, represents the first major tracking study of attitudes toward AI across different segments of British society. It compares responses from university students, young people aged 16 to 29, employers, and the general public.Student Usage Patterns and PessimismUniversity students emerge as among the heaviest users of AI technology, with 77% reporting using it at least a few times a month—substantially higher than the 46% of workers who do so. Additionally, 27% of students use AI daily or almost daily, indicating deep integration of these tools into academic life.Despite their familiarity with AI, students express significant pessimism about its economic consequences. More than half are convinced that job losses resulting from AI will be more severe than those in a typical recession. This pessimism is particularly notable given that students generally hold more positive views about AI's overall impact on humanity compared to the general public.Key Statistics from the AI Attitudes Survey34% of university students believe AI will eliminate jobs fast enough to cause civil unrest (compared to 22% of the general public)77% of university students use AI at least a few times a month (compared to 46% of workers)27% of university students use AI daily or almost daily52% of male university students believe AI is positive for humanity (compared to 24% of the general public)9 out of 10 university students have encountered problems with AI, most commonly factual errors (37%) and made-up sources (31%)78% of students would still choose to attend university, though 30% would have selected a different subjectImplications for Education and the WorkforceThe survey reveals a significant gap between students' perceptions of their preparedness for an AI-shaped job market and their actual experiences. While 60% believe universities are capable of preparing them for this future, only 36% report actually receiving adequate preparation.This disconnect suggests that educational institutions may be struggling to adapt curricula and teaching methods to address the rapidly evolving technological landscape. The findings also highlight gender differences in how students perceive AI's impact on their cognitive abilities, with male students more likely to believe AI enhances their thinking skills while female students tend to hold the opposite view.Divergent Views on AI's FutureThe poll captures contrasting perspectives on AI's potential impact. Bobby Duffy, director of the KCL Policy Institute, emphasizes the widespread concern about AI's effect on employment, particularly at entry-level positions, and its broader implications for young people and the economy.In contrast, Bouke Klein Teeselink, a lecturer in philosophy, politics, and economics at KCL, offers a more optimistic outlook. He suggests that with appropriate training, policies, and institutional support, AI could lead to increased productivity, expanded opportunities, higher incomes, and accelerated scientific progress.These divergent views reflect the broader societal debate about artificial intelligence—balancing legitimate concerns about displacement and inequality against the potential benefits of technological advancement.

The Rise of AI Chatbots in UK Healthcare A UK study has found that one in seven people are using AI chatbots for health advice instead of seeing their GP. The poll of more than 2,000 people revealed that 15% of respondents are turning to chatbots, with one in four having done so because of long NHS waiting lists. The Risks of AI in Healthcare The study, analysed by researchers at King's College London, highlighted the potential risks of using AI for health advice. A fifth of respondents who used chatbots said the technology did not encourage them to seek a professional opinion, and a similar proportion said they decided against seeking a consultation because of something an AI chatbot had told them. The Concerns of Medical Professionals Prof Graham Lord, the lead author of the study, said the growing individual use of chatbots was creating “an unregulated AI healthcare system alongside the NHS”. He added that there is a need for greater transparency about what works, what is safe, and how issues are handled. The Debate on AI in Clinical Decision-Making Respondents were split on whether AI should be used in clinical decision-making, with 37% in favour and 38% against. Prof Victoria Tzortziou Brown, the president of the Royal College of General Practitioners, said it would be “highly concerning” if people were using AI instead of seeing a GP. The Future of AI in Healthcare The research signals how the technology is changing the way people are dealing with health problems. Medical professionals stress that AI can provide quick answers, but it cannot examine a patient, fully understand their medical history, or make safe clinical judgments based on evidence.

The US-Iran Conflict Escalation Two months since the US and Israel launched a joint surprise attack on Iran, negotiations appear deadlocked, as competing blockades of the Strait of Hormuz continue to disrupt global energy supplies, and the future of Iran's nuclear programme remains unresolved. The Frozen Conflict Scenario All military options remain on the table, despite a ceasefire in force since April 8 having paused the conflict. Qatar's Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Tuesday cautioned against the possibility of a 'frozen conflict', where the critical waterway is used as a pressure card amid the possibility of violent flare-ups. The Cost of a 'Frozen' War The war between the US and Iran can already be described as 'frozen', but this no-war-no-deal scenario comes at too high a cost for both parties, Mehran Kamrava, an expert on Iran at Georgetown University in Qatar, told Al Jazeera. The American foreign policy think tank Quincy Institute estimated that Washington's costs incurred over the first month of the war were between $20bn and $25bn. A large-scale ground operation in Iran similar to that of Iraq in 2003 would require at least 500,000 personnel and some $55bn a month, or more than $650bn a year. Prolonged versus Protracted Conflict In Trump's initial projection, the war in Iran was intended to last 'four to five weeks'. Two months into the conflict, Chandler Williams, researcher at the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO), says the prolonged conflict has lasted longer than forecast. The Impact of a Protracted Conflict Washington is betting on sustained economic and diplomatic pressure backed by Trump's constant threat to renew strikes to see if it can 'finish what air strikes alone cannot achieve', Williams said. For its part, Iran is aware of the US's military superiority and has opted for leveraging the Strait of Hormuz until the US decides that a negotiated settlement is preferable. 'Mowing the Grass' in Iran On Tuesday, the US Department of Defense requested $53.6bn for autonomous drones for the 2027 fiscal year, a roughly 24,000 percent increase from last year. If the tactics of the conflict shift towards drone warfare and towards a low-intensity conflict, this has lower costs for the attacker but a higher impact for the recipient as we've seen in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, Michael Kerr, a historian and political scientist at King's College London, told Al Jazeera.

The Lead: Trump's Warning to IranUnited States President Donald Trump has issued a stark warning to Iran, declaring they must "get smart soon" following a proposal from Tehran that would postpone a deal on Iran's nuclear programme. The president took to his Truth Social platform to criticize Iran's inability to "get their act together" and sign a nonnuclear deal, accompanied by an AI-generated image of himself carrying an assault rifle with the banner "NO MORE MR. NICE GUY!"The Event Details: Stalled Nuclear TalksThe latest threats from Trump come as uncertainty surrounding the fragile US-Iran ceasefire grows, days after the president called off the latest round of talks with Tehran. Although Washington stated it was reviewing Tehran's proposal, it received a lukewarm response, with the White House emphasizing Trump would "not be rushed into making a bad deal" and that "Iran can never possess a nuclear weapon."The Data Analysis: Economic Impact of SanctionsWashington has claimed to have imposed additional financial pressure on Tehran. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced his department has "targeted Iran's international shadow banking infrastructure, access to crypto, shadow fleet, and weapons procurement networks." Last week, the Treasury sanctioned an independent Chinese oil refinery for buying Iranian oil, along with 40 shipping firms and vessels alleged to be operating as part of Iran's shadow fleet.Bessent claimed these actions "have disrupted tens of billions of dollars in revenue" and helped to "rapidly" depreciate Iranian currency. On Wednesday, the Iranian rial dropped to a new record low against the US dollar, losing about 6 percent of its value since the war began. According to currency-tracking websites, the rial was trading at about 1.8 million rials against the dollar on the black market, compared to about 1.7 million rials when the war began at the end of February.The Impact Analysis: Geopolitical StandoffRob Geist Pinfold, a lecturer in international security at King's College London, told Al Jazeera that "we've gone past the stage ... for a physical war," but both Tehran and Trump were in a stage of "intense competition." He explained that both sides are "trying to signal to the other that they have more resilience, that time is on their side."Tehran's proposal is "deferring all of the difficult issues until later" by prioritizing the end of the war and reopening the Strait of Hormuz. However, Pinfold noted this tactic "simply doesn't work for the Americans because they feel like if they give up on basically the leverage they have – the physical force leverage – the war could resume."The Prediction: Escalating Tensions and Human CostAs talks stall, Iranian authorities have stepped up efforts to prosecute protesters and dissidents. United Nations human rights chief Volker Turk reported that at least 21 people have been executed and more than 4,000 arrested since the start of the war on Iran. Nine executions were related to Iran's mass January protests, 10 for alleged membership in opposition groups, and two on espionage charges."I am appalled that – on top of the already severe impacts of the conflict – the rights of the Iranian people continue to be stripped from them by the authorities, in harsh and brutal ways," Turk stated. According to the UN, many of the 4,000 people arrested have disappeared, been tortured, or subjected to other forms of illegal punishment. With Iran's newly enhanced espionage law allowing authorities to execute and seize property of people accused of activities related to "hostile states and groups," the human cost of the standoff continues to rise.

The Research Findings on Prenatal Pollution ExposureBabies exposed to higher levels of air pollution in the early stages of pregnancy take longer to learn to speak than those exposed to lower levels in the womb, according to new research from King's College London. The study found that exposure to nitrogen dioxide and fine particulate matter during the first trimester specifically delayed speech development at 18 months of age.For premature babies, the impact was even more severe, with not only delayed speech development but also impaired motor skills observed in those exposed to higher pollution levels.Methodology and Study DesignResearchers studied 498 infants born at St Thomas' Hospital in central London between 2015 and 2020. Of these, 125 were born prematurely, with 54 classified as "very and extremely preterm" (born before 32 weeks).Using the mothers' home postcodes, the team estimated exposure to various pollutants—nitrogen dioxide, PM10, and PM2.5 particulate matter—during each trimester of pregnancy. When the infants reached 18 months, researchers administered standard clinical tests to measure cognitive, language, and motor skills.Statistical Analysis of Developmental DelaysThe study revealed significant statistical differences in developmental outcomes based on pollution exposure. Infants exposed to high pollution levels in the first trimester scored on average five to seven points lower on language tests compared to babies exposed to low pollution levels.For premature babies, the impact was more pronounced. Those exposed to the highest pollution levels across all pregnancy trimesters scored on average 11 points less for motor skills than those with low exposure levels.Environmental Justice and Public Health ImplicationsThe research highlights how air pollution is not merely an environmental issue but a matter of justice and equality, particularly affecting working-class and marginalized communities. In cities like London, these communities are often forced to live near busy roads with higher pollution levels.Agnes Agyepong, chief executive of Global Child and Maternal Health, emphasized that "exposure to polluted air is not randomly distributed, but shaped by longstanding inequalities in housing, planning and power." This creates a situation where "lawful pollution levels are still associated with measurable differences in outcomes," raising questions about whether current standards truly protect all children equally.Globally, the World Health Organization reports that almost the entire population breathes air exceeding pollutant guideline limits, with air pollution now considered "the world's largest single environmental health risk." The burden falls disproportionately on people in low- and middle-income countries and on racialized communities within wealthier nations.Future Research Directions and Long-term ConsequencesLead researcher Dr. Alexandra Bonthrone noted that at this stage, it's unclear whether these developmental differences will persist: "At this stage, it is too early to say whether these babies will catch up with their peers. The only way will be to study them later in childhood. It could be that the development differences have effects into education and information processing, but we won't know for sure until we do future studies."Roy Harrison, professor of environmental health at the University of Birmingham, praised the study as "well-planned and executed" and noted that his own research has estimated air pollution is causing a collective loss of around 65 billion IQ points globally. This underscores the "massive benefits of air pollution abatement for public health" and the need for systemic changes to address environmental inequality.

The Diplomatic Standoff: Why US-Iran Talks Are Stalled but Not OverTensions between the United States and Iran have reached another critical juncture. While a fragile ceasefire is holding, efforts to translate the nearly three-week truce into a permanent agreement appear to have stalled. The breakdown of direct talks in Islamabad highlights the widening gap between Washington's demands and Tehran's red lines.The Collapse of the Islamabad InitiativeThe latest diplomatic rupture occurred after President Donald Trump cancelled a visit by his top envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, to Pakistan. Trump cited the excessive travel costs associated with what he described as an inadequate offer from the Iranians.In response, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi blamed the US for the failure, stating that "excessive demands" caused the previous round of negotiations to fail. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian reinforced this stance, declaring that his country would not enter "imposed negotiations" under threats or blockade.Direct Engagement: Trump offered a phone call as an alternative to in-person meetings, reiterating that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.Indirect Channels: Diplomacy continues via "written messages" to the US through Pakistani mediators.Regional Diplomacy: Araghchi is actively consulting with Russia and visiting regional allies to coordinate strategy.Economic Impact of the Hormuz BlockadeThe impasse has had immediate and severe economic consequences. Since early March, Iran has effectively shut down the Strait of Hormuz, a vital chokepoint through which 20% of the world's oil and natural gas supplies previously passed.The US has responded with a naval blockade of Iranian ports and ships. This dual pressure has disrupted global energy markets, forcing countries to seek alternative supplies and implement austerity measures to mitigate rising fuel prices.The Strategic Calculus of a StandoffExperts argue that the current deadlock is not a collapse of diplomacy, but a strategic pause. Emma Shortis of the Australia Institute noted that meaningful diplomatic endeavours take years to build and are rarely linear. She highlighted that there is room for progress, particularly on uranium enrichment, though this is subject to the volatility of leadership.Rob Geist Pinfold of King's College London described the current situation as a "standoff of neither peace nor war." He explained that Iran's deterrent strategy worked; by causing chaos in the Gulf, Iran managed to affect the global economy, thereby disincentivizing the US from continuing the war. Both sides are now calculating that a return to full-blown conflict is too costly.The Path Toward a Semipermanent CeasefireLooking ahead, the most likely scenario is the solidification of a fragile, semipermanent ceasefire. Historical precedents suggest that diplomacy often proceeds through deadlocks and backdoor engagement rather than straight lines.The 2015 Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) took roughly two years to negotiate, including secret backchannel talks. Similarly, the 1973 Paris Peace Accords between the US and Vietnam took years to finalize despite immediate violations. The current situation may endure indefinitely until one side manages to coerce the other into making a compromise, but for now, the status quo offers a volatile but stable path forward.

The Petrochemical Achilles Heel of Modern MedicineThe escalating conflict in Iran has triggered a critical vulnerability within the NHS, revealing that modern healthcare is inextricably linked to the volatile petrochemical industry. As the war disrupts shipping lanes and energy infrastructure, the health service is bracing for a potential 'huge shock' of price increases and supply shortages that could impact everything from basic surgical gloves to complex cancer treatments.The Strategic Bottleneck at the Strait of HormuzThe core of this crisis lies in the dependency on naphtha, a byproduct of crude oil used to manufacture the raw materials for millions of medical products. Approximately 60% of naphtha used in Asia is sourced from or routed through the Middle East, making the Strait of Hormuz a choke point for global healthcare logistics. This disruption is not merely theoretical; it is already causing shutdowns at Asian chemical makers and forcing suppliers to declare force majeure.Quantifying the Cost of DisruptionNHS Spending Scale: The NHS is one of the world's largest bulk buyers, spending £21.6bn on medicines and £8bn on equipment and consumables annually.Petrochemical Price Surge: Naphtha prices in north-west Europe have soared from $560 to over $900 per tonne since February.Medical Equipment Inflation: The average price of a box of 1,000 synthetic rubber gloves has jumped 40% to $29.Material Cost Increases: Polyester fibre, used for surgical masks and gowns, has surged by 28% in recent months.The Fragility of NHS Supply ChainsExperts warn that the supply chains for essential treatments are 'absolutely Byzantine' and often rely on just a single supplier. Richard Sullivan, a professor at King's College London, highlights that while the NHS has built buffers to mitigate immediate risks, the thinness of these chains means that prolonged disruption could lead to severe stockouts. Furthermore, the disruption of airspace hubs like Dubai and Doha is complicating the air freight of medicines from India, the world's pharmacy.Navigating the Post-Conflict Healthcare LandscapeThe immediate future for the NHS will likely involve a shift toward more prudent resource management. With suppliers like Polyco Healthline and Karex signaling further price hikes of up to 50%, the health service may be forced to enforce stricter waste reduction protocols. Jim Mackey has already warned that the NHS will require extra government funding to absorb these cost shocks, suggesting that the war in Iran could fundamentally alter the financial structure of the UK's healthcare system for years to come.

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.