Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Iran has issued a threat to close the Bab al-Mandeb shipping route, a vital waterway connecting the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden, in response to escalating tensions with the US. Ali Akbar Velayati, a top adviser to Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, warned that Iranian allies could shut the route, similar to Iran's effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz.The Bab al-Mandeb is a crucial passage for global oil trade, with 4.1 billion barrels of crude oil and refined petroleum products passing through it in 2024, accounting for 5% of the global total. A closure of both the Bab al-Mandeb and the Strait of Hormuz would block 25% of the world's oil and gas supply.The strait is effectively controlled by the Iran-backed Houthis, who have already demonstrated their ability to disrupt shipping in the region. During Israel's conflict in Gaza, the Houthis blocked the Bab al-Mandeb for ships associated with Israel or the US.A closure of the Bab al-Mandeb would have significant implications for global trade, particularly for Saudi Arabia's oil exports to Asia and global container shipping from China, India, and other Asian countries to Europe. It could also exacerbate the ongoing global energy supply crisis.Experts warn that a blockade of the Bab al-Mandeb would create a 'nightmare scenario,' disrupting trade toward Europe and potentially leading to a broader conflict in the region.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision on Monday that removes a procedural obstacle, allowing the Justice Department to proceed with a motion to dismiss the criminal case against Steve Bannon. The case stems from a 2022 conviction on two counts of contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with a subpoena issued by the House committee investigating the January 6, 2021 Capitol attack. Bannon, a former chief strategist for President Donald Trump, served a four‑month prison term after the conviction. Although the sentence is now complete, the Justice Department argues that dismissing the case is "in the interests of justice" and has asked the high court to overturn the lower‑court ruling that kept the conviction in place. Attorney Evan Corcoran, representing Bannon, welcomed the development, stating, "It has been one battle after another for five years, but today the Supreme Court vacated an unjust conviction, reaffirming that politics and prosecution don’t mix." A dismissal would expunge Bannon’s conviction from the record, but the practical impact is minimal because he has already completed his sentence. The move is part of a broader pattern of the Justice Department taking actions that benefit allies of the former president since his return to office in 2024. Background: Bannon, now 72, was a key adviser to Trump’s 2016 campaign and served as the White House’s chief strategist in 2017. After a brief fallout, he reconciled with Trump and was released from Danbury federal prison a week before Trump’s victory over Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election. Upon release, Bannon declared himself “far from broken” and resumed hosting his "War Room" podcast, continuing to promote the “America First” brand of right‑wing populism. Legal arguments raised by Bannon’s team centered on claims of executive privilege and challenges to the congressional committee’s authority to issue the subpoena. The case unfolds against a backdrop of numerous pardons granted by Trump to individuals convicted in connection with the Capitol riot and other allies facing charges related to attempts to overturn the 2020 election.

Article 52 of the first Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions bars attacks on civilian targets. The International Criminal Court has already issued arrest warrants for Russian officers involved in strikes on Ukraine’s energy grid, a precedent that would apply to the United States if President Donald Trump’s threats to bomb Iran were carried out. Trump, alongside Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, has adopted a tone that resembles a “blood‑thirsty fever dream.” Hegseth framed the proposed Operation Epic Fury as a 21st‑century crusade, while Trump unleashed a profanity‑laden tirade demanding the immediate reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, warning that “Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day… Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell.” This rhetoric, emerging just before the United States’ 250th independence anniversary, undermines the credibility of the presidency and the nation’s moral standing. The editorial notes that, in a more restrained political climate, senators like Chris Murphy might explore constitutional avenues to remove Trump, but the current cabinet’s “craven complicity” makes such prospects remote. The international community now watches anxiously, fearing that a broader escalation between the United States, Israel, and Iran could trigger “unknowable and spiralling consequences.” Iran has signaled it could widen its attacks across the region, and the recent closure of the Hormuz Strait demonstrates that Trump’s threats are not merely rhetorical. NATO allies have declined to endorse Trump’s approach, citing the absence of a coherent strategy and a lack of legal justification. They hope the president’s apocalyptic language masks a genuine search for a rapid de‑escalation, especially as global economic pressure mounts. Trump later claimed there was a “good chance” of a cease‑fire with Iran before his deadline, yet hours later Israel bombed a key petrochemical plant in Iran’s largest gas field, contradicting any notion of imminent peace. During a White House press briefing, Trump and Hegseth highlighted the rescue of a missing U.S. fighter crew shot down over Iran, a moment that starkly contrasted with the looming threat to thousands of lives and the stability of the global economy, now hanging on the whims of a president driven by self‑aggrandizement and an echo chamber of advisers.

Conservationists and scientists have warned that the Minerals Council of Australia’s proposal to employ artificial intelligence for faster national environmental approvals could generate “Robodebt‑style” failures, further endangering already vulnerable species.The council has asked the federal government to allocate $13 million for a pilot that would use AI to help companies draft assessment applications and assist regulators in decision‑making.The Biodiversity Council – a consortium of independent experts from eleven universities – told Guardian Australia that while AI may assist with routine tasks, automating whole environmental assessments could lead to opaque, flawed decisions that push threatened species closer to extinction.“Robodebt” refers to the automated welfare‑debt recovery scheme that, between 2015 and 2019, wrongly accused hundreds of thousands of Australians of overpayments, highlighting the danger of opaque algorithmic judgments.Lis Ashby, the Biodiversity Council’s lead on policy and innovation, noted that the cornerstone of Australia’s environmental protection, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act, is riddled with vague language and broad ministerial discretion, which hampers rule‑based decision‑making and would be even more problematic for an AI tool.She added that establishing clear rules in the National Environmental Standards, including explicit definitions of unacceptable outcomes, would accelerate assessment times even without AI and is essential for any future automation.Brendan Sydes, national biodiversity policy adviser at the Australian Conservation Foundation, expressed scepticism, stating that “technology can be a good servant but a poor master.” He urged the government to focus on closing existing data gaps on threatened species and habitats rather than relying on AI.Prof. David Lindenmayer, a forest ecologist at the Australian National University and Biodiversity Council member, highlighted that one‑third of Australia’s threatened species have not been monitored and many others suffer from patchy data, gaps traditionally filled by expert consultation.He warned that AI decisions are only as reliable as the data they are fed, and most threatened species lack publicly available information, even basic location data, risking decisions based on outdated or incomplete evidence.The Albanese government recently passed reforms to the EPBC Act after a 2020 review found the legislation failing to protect species and habitats.Prof. Hugh Possingham, a leading conservation biologist at the University of Queensland, argued that AI models need robust training material, and the past two decades of EPBC approvals are “clearly unsuitable” because the Act has demonstrably failed to safeguard the environment. He suggested that hiring more human assessors would be a more effective way to speed up evaluations.Tania Constable, chief executive of the Minerals Council, dismissed the Robodebt comparison as “disappointing,” insisting the proposal is innovative and could strengthen environmental protection while improving efficiency. She said the AI tools would support human decision‑making for both regulators and project proponents, helping navigate the complexity of EPBC assessments.A federal government spokesperson said budget decisions on the AI trial will be made “in due course,” but the environment department is exploring how AI could simplify application processes. The statement emphasized that “decisions about whether to approve projects must, and will, always be made by assessment officers, not by AI.”Nonetheless, officials acknowledged that AI tools have the potential to save time, reduce uncertainty, and translate technical language for stakeholders.

Former Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif presented a comprehensive peace roadmap in Foreign Affairs on Friday, seeking to move beyond a temporary cease‑fire in the war that erupted on February 28 after coordinated US‑Israeli strikes on Iran. The plan urges Iran to place limits on its nuclear program under international monitoring, including a commitment to never pursue nuclear weapons and to blend its enriched uranium below 3.67 %. This would address the International Atomic Energy Agency’s estimate that Iran holds roughly 440 kg (970 lb) of uranium enriched to 60 %—a level close to the 90 % threshold needed for a bomb. Zarif also proposes a mutual non‑aggression pact with the United States, coupled with the immediate lifting of all US sanctions and United Nations Security Council resolutions against Tehran. To secure regional stability, he suggests forming a regional fuel‑enrichment consortium that would involve China, Russia and the United States alongside Iran and its Gulf neighbours, using West Asia’s sole enrichment facility. Additionally, a broader security framework could include Gulf states, UN Security Council powers and possibly Egypt, Pakistan and Turkey to guarantee freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran has largely blocked since the conflict began. Beyond security, Zarif calls for “mutually beneficial trade, economic and technological cooperation” between Iran and the United States, framing the roadmap as a “well‑timed off‑ramp” for President Donald Trump, who recently warned Iran it had 48 hours to negotiate a deal or face “all hell”. Gulf officials reacted sharply. UAE diplomatic adviser Anwar Gargash dismissed the proposal as ignoring Iran’s aggressive missile and drone attacks on Gulf infrastructure, calling the strategy “hubris & strategic failure.” Former Qatari Prime Minister Hamad bin Jassim Al Thani acknowledged the plan’s cleverness but warned that the war has “eroded the trust built over years” and increased regional danger. The United States has offered a 15‑point cease‑fire plan, while Pakistan, Turkey and Egypt continue to push for direct talks, yet no substantive progress has emerged. Should the roadmap gain traction, it could reopen the Strait of Hormuz—through which one‑fifth of global crude oil and natural gas normally flows—alleviate the economic shockwaves rippling through world markets, and reshape the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East.

The United States has long honored past presidents by naming airports, dams and monuments after them, but President Donald Trump is pushing the practice to an extreme, seeking to become the most commemorated leader in American history. Less than a year and a half into his second term, Trump’s brand has proliferated across government buildings, federal agencies and even consumer platforms. In February, the administration unveiled TrumpRx, a prescription‑drug website that listed only 43 medications—most of which are available as cheaper generics elsewhere—yet proudly displayed the former president’s signature and logo. Just weeks later, the White House and the U.S. Navy announced a new "Trump class" of battleships, billed as the "largest ever built." A Pentagon release noted that the Navy has not used battleships in combat for 35 years, suggesting the project is more a vanity exercise than a strategic necessity. Federal institutions have not been spared. In December 2025 the U.S. Institute of Peace was renamed the "Donald J. Trump United States Institute of Peace," a move the White House framed as a reminder of "strong leadership" for global stability—just weeks before the administration launched a military strike on Iran. Trump’s influence extended to the arts when, in February 2025, he appointed a new board to the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and installed himself as chair. The board voted in December to rename the venue the "Donald J. Trump and John F. Kennedy Center," a change that immediately faced a legal challenge. Republican lawmakers have largely embraced the naming spree. One congressman introduced legislation to carve Trump’s likeness onto Mount Rushmore, while another proposed naming a major airport after him, underscoring the party’s willingness to reward the president’s personal brand. Political scientist Steven Levitsky of Harvard warned that Trump operates "unconstrained" by advisers or party elders, noting that today’s Republican ambition often hinges on pleasing the president, including attaching his name to public projects. Visual propaganda has also surged. Giant banners bearing Trump’s image now hang from the Department of Justice and the Department of Labor buildings, a rarity for a sitting president and a practice more typical of authoritarian regimes, according to Princeton sociologist Kim L. Scheppele. Beyond buildings, the administration has pursued numismatic honors. A 24‑karat gold coin featuring Trump standing over a desk was approved by a hand‑picked arts commission, and drafts of a new $1 coin displayed an air‑brushed profile of the former president. The Treasury Department announced that Trump’s signature will appear on U.S. paper currency later this year, a move Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent described as a "powerful way to recognize historic achievements" of the nation. Critics argue that the public does not share the president’s enthusiasm. The 2026 National Parks Pass, which traditionally showcases natural scenery, sparked outrage when a draft featured Trump’s stern face with a spectral George Washington behind him. A cottage industry of stickers emerged to cover the image, forcing the National Park Service to warn that such alterations could void the pass. White House spokesperson Davis Ingle defended the branding, claiming it reflects Trump’s “vast accomplishments,” including the largest tax cut in history and border security measures. Yet scholars and opponents contend that the relentless self‑promotion blurs the line between public service and personal aggrandizement. As the branding campaign continues, legal challenges, public pushback, and questions about fiscal priorities suggest that Trump’s quest to name everything after himself may soon encounter more than just decorative resistance.

More than 100 United States‑based international law scholars have signed an open letter denouncing the recent US‑Israeli strikes on Iran as a violation of the United Nations Charter and potentially amounting to war crimes. The letter, released on Thursday, asserts that the campaign – launched on February 28 – proceeded without UN Security Council authorization and without credible evidence of an imminent Iranian threat. According to the scholars, the legal basis for force against another state exists only in self‑defence against an actual or imminent armed attack, or when expressly sanctioned by the Security Council. Iran has not attacked the United States or Israel, and the Security Council did not approve the operation. The experts organize their concerns into four categories: the legality of the war decision, the conduct of hostilities, threatening rhetoric from senior officials, and what they describe as the dismantling of civilian‑protection safeguards within the US defence establishment under Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s “gloves‑off” approach. Among the most alarming incidents highlighted is the strike on a primary school in Minab, Iran on the first day of the conflict, which killed at least 175 people, the majority of them children. The letter also cites attacks on hospitals, water treatment facilities, and energy infrastructure, emphasizing that schools, health facilities, and homes have been targeted. The signatories condemn public statements by senior US officials, including a mid‑March remark by former President Donald Trump that the United States might strike Iran “just for fun,” and early‑March comments from Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth dismissing “stupid rules of engagement.” They argue that such rhetoric reflects an “alarming disrespect” for international humanitarian law, which is designed to protect civilians and combatants alike. Financially, the letter notes that the war is costing US taxpayers up to $2 billion per day, underscoring the broader economic burden of the conflict. The open letter was co‑authored by prominent legal scholars such as Yale Law School’s Oona Hathaway, former State Department legal adviser Harold Koh, NYU’s Philip Alston, and former Human Rights Watch chief Kenneth Roth. While the authors focus on the United States’ conduct, they warn of a heightened risk of atrocities throughout the region. Emphasizing the need for consistent application of international law, the scholars write: “We urge US government officials to uphold the UN Charter, international humanitarian law, and human rights law at all times, and to publicly make clear US commitment to and respect for norms of international law.”

Iranian military units have launched a coordinated search for the two pilots of a United States F‑15 fighter jet that was struck by an Iranian air‑defence system over the country's southwest region. The operation, reported by the state‑run Fars news agency, is the first documented crew‑recovery effort since the US‑Israeli war with Iran began on 28 February. State media released images showing the aircraft's wreckage, including an ejection seat attached to a parachute, underscoring the seriousness of the incident. Reuters cited two U.S. officials confirming that a fighter jet was downed and that a search‑and‑rescue mission is underway for any survivors. Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad‑Bagher Ghalibaf used the event to mock President Donald Trump’s repeated claims of victory, posting on social media that the conflict had been reduced from "regime change" to a plea for the location of the pilots. According to Iranian reports, the downed aircraft was an F‑15 likely crewed by two pilots. The Pentagon and U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) have not issued an immediate comment, a pattern consistent with past Iranian claims that CENTCOM swiftly denied. Local Iranian television broadcast footage of the jet's debris, and officials appealed to civilians to remain vigilant for any survivors. The governor of Kohgiluyeh and Boyer‑Ahmad province announced that anyone who captures the crew would receive special commendation, as relayed by the semi‑official ISNA news agency. U.S. lawmakers responded with statements of support. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer posted on X, "I’m praying for the safe return of the crew aboard the fighter jet and all of those working to rescue them in these dangerous conditions." Since the war's onset, the United States has reported the loss of three F‑15s in a friendly‑fire incident over Kuwait and a refuelling aircraft that crashed in Iraq, killing six crew members. Iran, meanwhile, claims to have downed dozens of U.S. drones and continues to assert that its new air‑defence system, introduced after the 12‑day war, remains operational. While President Trump and his advisers repeatedly assert that the United States has neutralised Iran’s air‑defences, the downing of the jet and the ensuing search highlight the ongoing volatility of the conflict.

Former Labour adviser Polly Billington – who served under Gordon Brown – has urged Prime Minister Keir Starmer to organise a global energy summit of the scale and urgency that marked the UK’s 2008 financial‑crisis intervention. She argues that the fallout from the US‑Israeli war on Iran is creating an energy shock “as big as the financial crash”, demanding a response of equal magnitude. Billington warned that the economic pain from soaring energy prices is “hurtling down the tracks”, threatening living standards and providing fertile ground for extremist politics. She stresses that the price surge will be neither temporary nor confined to a single region. While she praised the government’s initiative to bring together 35 nations to discuss reopening the Strait of Hormuz, Billington insists that a broader, coordinated effort is required to stabilise energy markets, protect supply chains, and accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels. “We could be bringing together allies to agree emergency cooperation to stabilise energy markets, protect supply chains, coordinate strategic reserves, and accelerate the global transition away from fossil fuels,” she told The Guardian. “Energy security is inseparable from global security; otherwise we face a ‘Hunger Games’ world of resource conflict, scarcity and coercion.” Her call comes amid growing unease among Labour MPs who fear the government is under‑reacting to the domestic impact of the war. Rising petrol prices, higher energy bills and inflation are already prompting concerns about electoral repercussions. At a recent press conference, the Prime Minister announced that the Treasury is drafting targeted support for households most affected by energy costs, should the conflict persist. Yet opposition parties are pushing divergent solutions: Reform UK and the Conservatives advocate increased domestic drilling, the Liberal Democrats propose a 10p fuel‑duty cut and VAT relief for electric‑vehicle charging, while the Greens call for universal energy‑bill support. The Scottish National Party demanded an emergency parliamentary recall, accusing the government of “sleepwalking into a crisis”. Billington argues that a true “war‑footing” approach must focus on reducing Britain’s reliance on fossil fuels. She praises the Treasury’s decision to avoid a blanket bailout, suggesting instead that households install plug‑in solar panels on balconies and gardens – likening them to Anderson shelters in the Second World War – to bolster collective resilience and lower bills. She adds that no policy option should be dismissed as “too radical”, urging the government to consider all measures that could cut exposure to gas and oil. Another Labour MP echoed the sentiment, stating that merely highlighting bill reductions is insufficient when headlines indicate that prices are set to rise sharply due to the Iran conflict. “I want to hear a concrete Labour plan,” he said. On Thursday, Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey branded the rising fuel costs a “Trump‑Farage‑Badenoch tax”, calling for immediate action to mitigate the economic fallout of the war and keep Britain moving.