Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

The Lead US Secretary of State Marco Rubio broke from standard diplomatic protocol during a congressional hearing by acknowledging that "most of the world assesses" Israel possesses nuclear weapons, though he stopped short of confirming the official US position on this sensitive issue. Breaking the Nuclear Taboo The exchange occurred when Democratic Congressman Joaquin Castro pressed Rubio for clarity on whether Israel has nuclear weapons. Rubio initially declined to share Washington's official position but acknowledged global assessments that Israel does possess such capabilities. "Most of the world assesses that they do," Rubio told Castro at the hearing on Wednesday, suggesting instead that the issue should be discussed in private settings. The dialogue underscored a decades-long taboo in US politics against publicly discussing Israel's nuclear program, which Rubio himself acknowledged is a "feature" of US foreign policy. Geopolitical Implications The questioning took on particular significance as the United States is currently engaged in a joint war with Israel against Iran. Castro emphasized that understanding Israel's nuclear capabilities is crucial for oversight bodies making decisions about the conflict. "If they, in fact, possess nuclear weapons — and you're right, in open-source reporting, that has come across — we don't know what their red lines are for using those nuclear weapons," Castro stated. "I'm shocked that our government wouldn't make an effort to know, to understand and then to give our oversight body the information that we need." Rubio conceded the question was "fair" and offered to provide a more complete answer in a classified format, noting the need for "delicate balancing acts between different equities." Israel's Nuclear Status Israel, whose Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crime charges in Gaza, is widely believed to possess a nuclear arsenal despite never officially confirming this. The country is not a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). In November 2023, Israel's Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu suggested that dropping a nuclear bomb on Gaza was "an option." Several pro-Israel politicians in the US, including Congressman Randy Fine, have also made similar statements. Key Developments February 28: US President Trump joined Israel in attacking Iran with the stated objective of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons May 2026: Congressman Castro and 30 other lawmakers sent a letter to the US Department of State seeking clarification on Israel's nuclear program November 2023: Israeli Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu suggested nuclear weapons could be used against Gaza Policy of Silence The US policy of not commenting publicly on Israel's nuclear capabilities has come under increasing scrutiny from lawmakers. Castro's letter to the State Department argued that this official hinders the development of coherent nonproliferation policy for the Middle East. "We cannot develop coherent nonproliferation policy for the Middle East, including with respect to Iran's civil nuclear program and Saudi Arabia's civil nuclear ambitions, while maintaining a policy of official silence about the nuclear weapons capabilities of one party central to the ongoing conflict," the lawmakers wrote. Future Outlook As tensions in the Middle East continue to escalate, the question of Israel's nuclear capabilities may face increased public scrutiny. The current US administration's close alignment with Israel, combined with the ongoing conflict with Iran, suggests this long-standing diplomatic taboo may face further challenges in the coming months. Lawmakers like Castro appear determined to push for greater transparency, potentially forcing a reevaluation of the decades-old policy of silence regarding Israel's nuclear program.

Trump Halts Military Action Amidst High-Stakes DiplomacyUnited States President Donald Trump has announced a significant reversal in his administration's approach to the conflict with Iran, postponing a 'scheduled attack' at the request of key regional leaders. The decision comes as the administration attempts to pivot from military posturing to diplomatic engagement, though the underlying threat of force remains palpable.The Strategic Reversal and Regional MediationThe postponement of military action was formally communicated to the military leadership, specifically instructing Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Daniel Caine to stand down. Trump credited the intervention of influential figures, including Qatari Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, for facilitating the change in strategy.Current Status: Attack on Iran is delayed.Military Posture: Forces remain on high alert for a 'full, large scale assault' if negotiations fail.Mediator: Pakistan is currently facilitating talks between the US and Iran.The Economic and Political Toll of the ConflictThe decision to pause the attack highlights the mounting economic and political costs of the ongoing war. Pentagon officials have estimated the cost of the conflict to be at least $29bn, a figure that analysts suggest could be significantly higher. Domestically, the war has become a political liability for the Republican Party as it approaches the November midterm elections.A recent poll from The New York Times revealed that 64% of US adults believe the decision to go to war with Iran was incorrect. This public sentiment, combined with the financial burden, has likely pressured the administration to seek a diplomatic resolution.Gulf States Prioritize Stability Over Nuclear Non-ProliferationWhile the US focuses on preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, analysts suggest that Gulf allies have a different set of priorities. Dania Thafer, executive director of the Gulf International Forum, noted that for Gulf states, the nuclear issue is not the primary concern.The core issues for regional leaders include the security of the Strait of Hormuz and the defense against Iran's missile program, which has launched thousands of missiles at Gulf countries. The intervention of these allies indicates that the US cannot pursue a military solution without their direct support, complicating the administration's strategic options.A Fragile Ceasefire with an Imminent Escalation RiskThe situation remains highly volatile. Despite the announcement of negotiations, Iran has maintained a defiant stance, with President Masoud Pezeshkian stating that dialogue will not mean surrender. The ceasefire established in April has been fragile, with both sides accusing the other of violations.Trump's latest message, posted on Truth Social, signals a 'carrot and stick' approach: offering a potential deal while keeping the military option on the table. As Pakistan's mediation faces limits and trust remains low, the window for a successful diplomatic resolution is narrowing, raising the risk of a sudden return to full-scale war.

The Trump-Xi Summit: A New Era in US-China Relations? The highly anticipated summit between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping has concluded, marking a significant moment in the complex relationship between the world's two largest economies. Key Areas of Discussion Trade: The two leaders discussed ways to address the ongoing trade tensions between the US and China, with a focus on finding mutually beneficial solutions. Security: The summit also touched on security issues, including the situation on the Korean Peninsula and the growing presence of China in the Asia-Pacific region. Bilateral Ties: Trump and Xi emphasized the importance of strengthening bilateral ties, including cooperation on issues like climate change, counter-terrorism, and non-proliferation. The Impact on US-China Relations The outcome of the summit is expected to have far-reaching implications for US-China relations, which have been strained in recent years due to trade tensions and security concerns. The Future of US-China Cooperation As the world's two largest economies, the US and China have a critical role to play in shaping the global economy and addressing pressing global challenges. The success of the Trump-Xi summit will depend on the ability of both leaders to find common ground and work towards mutually beneficial solutions.

The Lead In a significant development for international diplomacy, Iran has indicated it may provide formal assurances regarding the use of its nuclear facilities. This potential move comes amid heightened tensions and ongoing negotiations with world powers over the country's nuclear program. The Diplomatic Shift in Iran's Nuclear Policy The reported willingness to offer assurances represents a notable potential shift in Iran's stance on transparency regarding its nuclear activities. While specific details remain limited, such assurances could include commitments about the peaceful nature of nuclear development, enhanced monitoring protocols, or limitations on certain types of nuclear research. Regional and Global Implications This development carries significant weight for regional stability and global non-proliferation efforts. Iran's nuclear program has long been a point of contention in Middle Eastern geopolitics, with neighboring states and international powers expressing concerns about potential weapons development. Any assurances offered by Tehran could potentially ease tensions and create a foundation for renewed diplomatic engagement. The Path Forward for International Negotiations If Iran follows through with providing assurances, it could mark a turning point in stalled negotiations with world powers. Such a move might pave the way for renewed dialogue, potentially leading to updated agreements or modifications to existing frameworks governing Iran's nuclear activities. The international community, particularly European signatories to previous agreements, would likely view such assurances as a positive step toward de-escalation. Future Outlook for Iran's Nuclear Program Looking ahead, the implementation and verification of any assurances will be critical. The coming months will likely see intensified diplomatic efforts to establish concrete mechanisms that address international concerns while respecting Iran's stated right to peaceful nuclear development. The outcome of these developments could reshape the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East and influence global non-proliferation efforts for years to come.

The 2026 Review Conference: A Historic DeadlockThe Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is currently navigating its most perilous period since its inception in 1968. The upcoming 2026 Review Conference has exposed a deep chasm between the 'nuclear haves' and the 'have-nots,' effectively freezing the global disarmament agenda. While the treaty remains the cornerstone of international security, recent diplomatic failures suggest that the consensus required to prevent a nuclear disaster is rapidly evaporating.Stalled Negotiations: Discussions on the fissile material cut-off treaty (FMCT) have been suspended indefinitely.Withdrawal Threats: Several key signatories have signaled potential withdrawal if their security concerns are not addressed.Regional Tensions: Escalating conflicts in the Middle East and East Asia have reignited fears of nuclear adoption by regional powers.The Arithmetic of Modernization vs. DisarmamentThe core of the current crisis lies in the divergence between modernization programs and disarmament commitments. While the five recognized nuclear-weapon states (P5) continue to modernize their arsenals, the number of states actively pursuing nuclear capabilities has increased.Recent data indicates a 15% increase in global nuclear warhead stockpiles over the last decade, driven primarily by modernization efforts in the US and Russia. This trend suggests that the NPT's central bargain—peaceful use of nuclear energy in exchange for disarmament—is breaking down.Erosion of the Global Non-Proliferation RegimeThe integrity of the NPT relies on trust and reciprocity. However, recent geopolitical shifts have eroded this trust. The breakdown of the New START treaty and the lack of progress on a successor agreement have left the world without a binding cap on strategic arsenals.This vacuum has emboldened non-state actors and rogue nations to pursue clandestine programs, viewing the NPT as a tool of containment rather than a framework for security. The resulting environment is characterized by heightened alert levels and an increased risk of miscalculation.The Path to a New Nuclear EraLooking ahead, the NPT is unlikely to collapse entirely, but it will likely transform into a much weaker, more fragmented instrument. The international community must pivot from a purely legalistic approach to a security-based framework that addresses the legitimate security concerns of emerging powers.If the 2026 Review Conference fails to produce a consensus, the world risks sliding into a new era of nuclear anarchy, where the absence of a binding treaty leaves the global community defenseless against the proliferation of nuclear technology.

The Physics of Power: Decoding the ProcessUranium enrichment is the industrial process of increasing the percentage of the fissile isotope Uranium-235 (U-235) from its natural state to a level suitable for nuclear applications. Since natural uranium consists of only 0.7% U-235, the remaining 99.3% is U-238, which is not fissile. The enrichment process is technically complex and energy-intensive, relying on the slight mass difference between the two isotopes.From Centrifuges to GasThe modern standard for enrichment is the Gas Centrifuge method. Uranium is first converted into a volatile compound, usually Uranium Hexafluoride (UF6), which is a gas at relatively low temperatures. This gas is fed into a series of spinning cylinders. The centrifugal force causes the heavier U-238 to migrate outward, while the lighter U-235 concentrates near the center. This cycle is repeated thousands of times to achieve the desired purity.Quantifying the ThresholdsThe enrichment level dictates the end use of the material, creating a clear binary in global security:3% to 5%: This is the standard concentration for fuel in commercial nuclear power plants.20%: Known as Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU), this level poses a significant proliferation risk and complicates reactor fuel.90%: Weapons-grade uranium, capable of sustaining a rapid nuclear chain reaction.Geopolitical ImplicationsThe ability to enrich uranium is the single most significant indicator of a nation's nuclear ambitions. International bodies like the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) closely monitor enrichment facilities to ensure compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Discrepancies in declared enrichment levels often trigger diplomatic crises and sanctions.The Future of Enrichment TechnologyAs nations seek to secure energy independence, the demand for enrichment technology is expected to rise. Future developments are focusing on more energy-efficient centrifuge designs and advanced monitoring technologies to prevent the diversion of material for illicit purposes.

The Strategic Failure of the Iran Conflict: How War Undermines Non-Proliferation The ongoing conflict against Iran has evolved beyond a localized dispute, marking a decisive turning point in the global effort to curb nuclear proliferation. What began as a diplomatic standoff regarding the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) has now metastasized into a full-scale security crisis. The erosion of non-proliferation norms is no longer a theoretical risk; it is a tangible reality driven by the breakdown of international oversight and the resurgence of centrifuge activity. The Collapse of the JCPOA Architecture The core of the crisis lies in the systematic dismantling of the 2015 nuclear deal. Military strikes and economic blockades have forced Iran to abandon the strict monitoring mechanisms that once kept its nuclear program in check. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has reported a significant withdrawal of inspectors from key sites, creating a 'black hole' in the verification process. Breakdown of Oversight: The physical removal of monitoring equipment from enrichment facilities. Enrichment Levels: Reports indicate a rapid increase in uranium enrichment to 60%, a level previously only pursued for research. Stockpiling: A surge in the accumulation of fissile material, moving closer to weapons-grade thresholds. Quantifying the Erosion of Global Security The financial and strategic costs of this breakdown are staggering. Analysts estimate that the collapse of the non-proliferation framework has cost the global community over $500 billion in potential future sanctions relief and diplomatic leverage. Furthermore, the geopolitical instability has driven a 15% increase in regional defense spending among neighboring states. Regional Instability Index: A sharp rise in proxy conflicts and military posturing across the Middle East. Black Market Risks: Increased likelihood of nuclear technology leakage to non-state actors. Diplomatic Deadlock: The failure of the UN Security Council to enforce a unified response. A Regional Arms Race Unfolds The most profound impact of the war on Iran is the psychological shift it has caused in the region. Neighboring powers, no longer confident in the containment of Iranian capabilities, are actively pursuing their own deterrent strategies. This creates a vicious cycle where security is sought through acquisition rather than cooperation. Strategic Deterrence: Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states are reportedly accelerating their own missile defense programs. Alliance Realignment: Traditional alliances are fracturing as nations prioritize immediate survival over long-term diplomatic cohesion. The Path to a Dangerous New Equilibrium Looking ahead, the international community faces a stark choice: return to the negotiating table with a weakened hand or accept a new era of nuclear ambiguity. The war has proven that military pressure alone cannot dismantle a nuclear program; instead, it often accelerates it. The future of global security now hinges on whether a new diplomatic framework can be constructed from the ashes of the current conflict before the threshold of no return is crossed.

The phrase 'war on Iran' has moved beyond political slogans to become a defining framework for current geopolitical operations. As diplomatic channels remain strained, the vocabulary used by both state and non-state actors has become a critical barometer for escalation. Understanding the specific terms—such as 'maximum pressure,' 'existential threat,' and 'red lines'—is essential for grasping the true nature of the conflict. Key Developments Shift in Terminology: Recent statements from regional leaders have abandoned soft diplomacy in favor of direct, combative language. Strategic Messaging: The use of 'existential threat' indicates a pivot from containment to regime change rhetoric. Operational Code: 'Maximum pressure' is now being operationalized through targeted sanctions and cyber warfare. Data & Market Impact The linguistic escalation has a tangible economic footprint. Regional markets have reacted sharply to the rhetoric, with oil prices fluctuating by nearly 4% in the last 48 hours. Investors are pricing in a higher probability of supply chain disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, a vital chokepoint for global energy flows. Why This Matters This shift in language is not merely semantic; it carries real-world consequences for millions. The rhetoric signals a potential collapse of the nuclear non-proliferation framework, threatening to drag the entire Middle East into a broader conflict. For regional businesses, the uncertainty is stifling investment, while civilians face the looming threat of increased military activity. Expert Insight Political analysts suggest that this specific vocabulary is designed to bypass traditional diplomatic constraints. By framing the conflict in existential terms, leaders can mobilize public support for aggressive measures that might otherwise be deemed too risky. The use of 'red lines' serves as a psychological tool to test the resolve of adversaries, creating a volatile environment where miscalculation is a significant risk. What Happens Next Looking ahead, the focus will likely shift from verbal sparring to kinetic actions. We can expect a continued tightening of economic sanctions and an increase in cyber-operations. The coming weeks will determine if these rhetorical threats translate into sustained military engagements or if they remain a tool of coercion.

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.