Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

The United States has a long history of threatening to carpet bomb countries, with President Donald Trump recently warning Iran that he would bomb the country 'back to the stone ages.' This rhetoric is not new, as US leaders have made similar threats in the past.During his prime-time address to the nation, Trump said, referring to Iran: 'We are going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks, we're going to bring them back to the stone ages, where they belong.' Trump also said 'discussions are ongoing,' adding that the conflict could end over the same period.The current war on Iran began on February 28 when the US and Israel launched their attacks. Tehran hit back, targeting Israel and Gulf countries. More than 2,000 Iranians have been killed in the war so far. Thousands of civilian sites, including hospitals, schools, universities, and pharmaceutical factories, have been attacked by Israel and the US.Janina Dill, a global security professor at the University of Oxford, told Al Jazeera that if Trump's 'stone ages' threat implies that the US will destroy structures and buildings that characterise a modern society, 'then this would be illegal because it implies directing attacks against civilian objects.'The phrase 'bombing back to the stone ages' is widely associated with US Air Force officer Curtis LeMay, in the context of US threats against North Vietnam in LeMay's 1965 book, Mission with LeMay. LeMay wrote: 'We're going to bomb them back into the Stone Age.'The US carried out intensive bombing in South Vietnam, as well as in Cambodia and Laos, claiming to target enemy bases and supply routes. Overall, millions of Vietnamese soldiers and civilians were killed or wounded in the war.In January 1991, the US led a global coalition to force out Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Former US Secretary of State James Baker threatened that the US would bomb Iraq 'back to the Stone Age' if it did not withdraw from Kuwait.During World War II, the US carpet bombed Japanese cities, as well as cities in Asia that were controlled by Japanese forces. During the Korean War, the US carried out heavy bombing in North Korea, which some officials said destroyed almost every town.

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

President Donald Trump is reportedly weighing a request for Arab countries to fund the U.S.–Israel war on Iran, White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday. Leavitt said the president is "quite interested" in calling on regional partners to share the expense.The idea mirrors the financing arrangement of the 1990‑91 Gulf War, when a coalition of Arab and Western nations covered roughly 88% of the $61 billion cost, leaving the United States to foot only about 12%.Trump also hinted that, even if the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, other export‑dependent partners should manage the crisis. The strait carries about 20% of the world’s oil and LNG shipments; its shutdown has pushed Brent crude to **$116 per barrel**, up from pre‑war levels near **$65**.Iran, meanwhile, has demanded that the United States pay reparations to Iranian victims as a precondition for any cease‑fire.So far, there is no clear commitment from Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members—countries that have themselves been hit by Iranian strikes—to finance the conflict. Analysts estimate the total bill could run into tens of billions of dollars, though exact figures remain uncertain.Experts note a shift in regional attitudes: GCC states opposed the war before it began and continue to call for diplomacy, according to Zeidon Alkinani of the Arab Perspectives Institute. He added that Israel appears to be the primary driver pushing the United States into the confrontation.History shows the United States has repeatedly sought external funding for wars it leads. During the Gulf War, Saudi Arabia contributed $16.8 billion (27% of total costs) and Kuwait $16 billion (26%). Japan, Germany, the UAE and South Korea also supplied sizable sums.Post‑World War II, the U.S. administered the Marshall Plan, providing over $13 billion to rebuild Europe, while Germany and Japan paid reparations and later funded the upkeep of U.S. bases—about $1 billion annually each.In the ongoing Ukraine war, the United States once delivered the largest aid package—€114.64 billion (≈$134 billion) by mid‑2025. Since Trump returned to office in 2025, he has withdrawn **99% of U.S. support**, shifting the financial load to European allies and turning the U.S. into a major arms supplier, with weapons sales reaching a record **$318.7 billion in 2024**. Recent deals, such as a $10 billion weapons package for Ukraine financed by European partners, illustrate this new model.These precedents underscore a pattern: when U.S. leadership faces costly overseas engagements, it often looks to allies—especially those with strategic interests—to share or assume the fiscal burden.

President Donald Trump took to his Truth Social account on Tuesday to lambaste several European governments for declining to support the United States’ military campaign against Iran. He told nations struggling with fuel shortages to “go get your own oil” by force, a statement that immediately pushed global oil markets higher. European leaders pushed back. France barred Israeli aircraft carrying weapons from traversing French airspace, while Italy reportedly denied a last‑minute request for U.S. bombers to land in Sicily. Spain’s defence minister announced that Madrid would no longer tolerate “lectures” from any foreign power after refusing U.S. use of its bases and airspace. The United Kingdom, despite allowing U.S. forces to operate from its bases, faced a public rebuke from Trump, who singled out the UK for its inability to secure jet fuel through the Strait of Hormuz. U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth echoed the president’s hard‑line stance, suggesting that allied navies should be ready to intervene in the strategic waterway. Analysts warn that any attempt to seize the Strait of Hormuz by force would be highly risky and likely unrealistic. Nonetheless, the rhetoric has already contributed to a surge in fuel costs: U.S. gasoline prices have crossed the $4‑per‑gallon threshold for the first time in four years, and Brent crude slipped below $104 a barrel after Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian hinted at a possible de‑escalation. The conflict, now in its fourth week, has claimed more than 3,000 lives and triggered a worldwide economic shock. Irish Taoiseach Micheál Martin described the oil‑supply disruption as “probably the worst ever,” reflecting growing anxiety over inflation, stagnant growth, and a cost‑of‑living crisis that many nations are already grappling with. In a parallel diplomatic development, Pakistan and China unveiled a joint five‑part proposal aimed at ending hostilities and reopening the Strait of Hormuz, though it remains unclear how this aligns with recent U.S. diplomatic overtures through Islamabad. Meanwhile, the war’s regional dimensions have intensified. Israel announced plans to permanently occupy a swath of southern Lebanon up to the Litani River, a move that would cement its military presence well beyond the current confrontation with Hezbollah. Even the Vatican entered the fray. Pope Francis expressed hope that the fighting would cease by the upcoming Easter weekend, urging world leaders to find “ways to reduce the amount of violence.” His comments were widely interpreted as a subtle rebuke of the Trump administration’s aggressive posture. Overall, Trump’s incendiary remarks have highlighted a widening fissure between Washington and its traditional European partners, while the escalating oil price volatility underscores the broader economic ramifications of the Iran conflict.

Spain has taken a firm stance against the US-Israel war on Iran by closing its airspace to US military aircraft involved in attacks. This decision, confirmed by Defence Minister Margarita Robles, underscores Spain's position as a leading critic of the conflict in Europe. The move forces military planes, including those based in the UK and other European countries, to bypass Spain when heading to targets in the Middle East, except in emergency situations. This development comes after Spain denied the US permission to use its military bases for operations related to the war. “We don’t authorise either the use of military bases or the use of airspace for actions related to the war in Iran,” Robles stated, emphasising Spain's clear stance. She described the war as “profoundly illegal and profoundly unjust.” Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has been vocal in his opposition to the war, calling for the US, Israel, and Iran to cease hostilities. His statements have previously drawn criticism from former US President Donald Trump, who threatened to cut off trade with Spain. The decision to restrict airspace access could potentially worsen Spain's already strained relations with the White House. However, Economy Minister Carlos Cuerpo reiterated that Spain's stance is part of its broader refusal to participate in or contribute to a war initiated unilaterally and against international law. While US military aircraft can still use Spanish bases for logistics support under a bilateral agreement, 15 American KC-135 refuelling planes were recently diverted from bases in Spain to those in France and Germany.

Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has claimed responsibility for conducting missile and drone attacks on aluminium facilities in Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). According to a statement carried by Iran's state broadcaster IRIB, the IRGC targeted sites on Saturday that were allegedly linked to US military bases in the Gulf states.The attacks resulted in injuries to two employees at Aluminium Bahrain (Alba) and significant damage to one of Emirates Global Aluminium (EGA) sites in Abu Dhabi, with six people injured. The IRGC stated that the strikes were in retaliation for a US-Israeli attack on Iranian industrial infrastructure launched from military bases hosting US forces in the Gulf states.The attacks have raised concerns about the global aluminium supply, with estimates suggesting that between 4 to 9 percent of the global supply comes from this region. The escalation of attacks in the Middle East has led to increased tensions, with Saudi Arabia intercepting and destroying 10 drones and the Kuwaiti National Guard shooting down four drones.Analysts warn that if Iran continues to match attack for attack, the situation could become very concerning, potentially leading to further escalation in the Gulf Cooperation Council. The attacks have also prompted Oman's Foreign Ministry to condemn the attacks on its territory, with authorities investigating the sources and motives behind the assaults.

The possibility of US ground troops being sent into combat on Iranian soil is growing, driven by President Trump's desire to avoid being personally and politically humiliated in a war he started, mismanaged, and cannot end. Such a self-serving escalation could prove catastrophic for Trump and the American people, given the history of US military interventions in the region.Trump insists that the war is all but won, Iran is suing for peace, and talks are making good progress. However, in the real world, Iran is still fighting on all fronts, Israel is still bombing, the Strait of Hormuz remains largely closed, and the Iran-allied Houthi militia in Yemen has joined the war, attacking Israel and potentially blocking Red Sea trade routes.The US and Iran have each issued maximalist demands, but there is no sign of actual negotiations. They are even further apart than they were before Trump, egged on by Benjamin Netanyahu, abandoned diplomacy last month. Sometime soon, Trump will be forced to confront the huge gap between what he wants and what's on offer. At that point, he could turn to the troop buildup in the Gulf and order ground attacks.It's incredible to think that after all the mortal agony and anguish of Iraq and Afghanistan, a US president is once again seriously contemplating boots on the ground in the Middle East. Trump's stumped, hoist by his own petard, stuck between a rock and a hard place, and up the creek without a paddle. The creek in question is, of course, the Strait of Hormuz.Trump is increasingly isolated and out on a limb. His wealthy Arab business cronies no longer trust him. US bases on their territory now resemble a liability, not a defence. When he demanded NATO's help, Europe said: we'll let you know. Likewise, Iran's ethnic Kurds are less than keen to die for a muppet. Support for the war among the US public and the Maga right, always weak, is a fast-vanishing mirage.If Trump were to order ground attacks – both he and Netanyahu have publicly discussed the possibility – the targets would most likely be the coastal batteries, missile defences, and concealed armed speedboat bases dotting the northern flank of the Hormuz strait. An attack on the Kharg oil export terminal further up the Gulf is also predicted.The inherent, inescapable military risks are daunting. Casualties would be inevitable. Even if operations went well in the short term, questions would immediately arise about potential escalation when Iran counterattacked, expansion of the operational area, and duration of the occupation.

US investors are making significant inroads into Indian cricket, with two separate deals worth a combined $3.41 billion being announced on the same day for teams in the Indian Premier League (IPL).The deals involve the acquisition of the Rajasthan Royals for $1.63 billion by a consortium backed by US businessmen Kal Somani and Rob Walton, the former Walmart chairman. Additionally, the reigning champion Royal Challengers Bengaluru was bought for $1.78 billion by another consortium that includes US billionaire David Blitzer’s Bolt Ventures and US asset manager Blackstone.These transactions underscore the increasing allure of India’s national pastime among international investors seeking to tap into the most popular sport in the world’s most populous country. The valuations for the two teams represent a substantial jump from their original 2008 sales, when liquor baron Vijay Mallya bought RCB for $111.6 million, and Rajasthan sold for $67 million.The IPL, which features the sport’s shortest format called Twenty20, has developed into cricket’s hottest property. In 2022, the broadcast rights for the 2023-27 cycle were bought for $6.4 billion by Disney Star and Reliance Viacom18.“It’s mind-boggling numbers,” Indian cricketing great Sourav Ganguly told local reporters. “But great news for Indian cricket and the way forward. I think it’s already as big as the NBA.”Sport teams overall have become a major target of global investments, as businesses try to tap into new markets abroad and spending from their fan bases. Deloitte analysts wrote in an outlook published last month that the industry is “entering an age of expansion” — and that private equity deals across sports leagues have jumped in recent years.

The economic fallout of the US and Israel's war with Iran is being felt across the globe, with Gulf economies suffering some of the worst damage. Iran has launched continuous attacks on Gulf states since the onset of the conflict on February 28, arguing that it is targeting military bases used by the US for the war.Gulf nations have rejected Tehran's claims, insisting the attacks on them are unjustified. The Iranian strikes have upended energy production and inflicted major disruptions to tourism and travel, putting the region at risk of some of the most severe economic harm since the 1990-1991 Gulf War.According to Khaled Almezaini, an associate professor of politics and international relations at Zayed University in Dubai, the region is likely losing hundreds of millions of dollars per day in economic activity due to disruptions to aviation, tourism, shipping routes, and energy exports.Middle Eastern oil producers' daily output declined from 21 million barrels to 14 million barrels after a little more than a week of conflict, according to Rystad Energy. Output is expected to drop substantially further if commercial shipping continues to avoid the Strait of Hormuz due to Tehran's threats.Goldman Sachs estimated that Qatar and Kuwait could see their GDPs plunge 14% if the war lasts until the end of April, with the UAE and Saudi Arabia facing contractions of 5% and 3%, respectively. Meanwhile, S&P; Global Ratings has affirmed a 'stable outlook' for Qatar, citing the country's large financial buffers.The war has also spilled over into other critical sectors, particularly tourism and travel, which accounts for about 11% of the GCC's GDP. Airspace closures and restrictions led to 37,000 flight cancellations from February 28 to March 8 alone.In an analysis published last week, the World Travel & Tourism Council estimated that the conflict was costing the region $600m in daily spending by international visitors. The economic fallout could be comparable to historic regional crises if the war drags on.