Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Iraq is facing a balancing act as the US-Israeli war on Iran exposes deep divisions within the country. The conflict has highlighted the divisions between those who view the attacks on Iran as a means to end Tehran's longstanding influence over Iraqi politics and those who are loyal to the Islamic republic. The war has struck Iraq during a precarious power vacuum, following the stepping aside of caretaker leader Mohammed Shia al-Sudani, whose coalition won the largest share of seats in November's parliamentary elections. This power vacuum has exacerbated tensions, with factions from the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, an umbrella body of Iran-backed armed groups, vowing to drag the US into a long war of attrition. The group has claimed responsibility for numerous drone and missile attacks on targets in Iraq and neighboring countries, including the US base in Erbil and the city's international airport. In response, unclaimed airstrikes attributed to US and Israeli forces have hit positions across the country, killing several commanders and fighters. Iraqi leaders are attempting to maintain a balancing act, denouncing the killing of Iran's supreme leader Ali Khamenei while rejecting attempts by Tehran to draw Iraq into the conflict. However, this balancing act is complicated by the fact that pro-Iran groups are also members of the Popular Mobilisation Units (PMU), a sprawling institution that operates with its own agenda. The conflict has significant implications for Iraq's stability and economy, with a looming financial disaster hanging over the country due to the crisis over the strait of Hormuz and the loss of oil revenue. The US pressure and threat of sanctions have forced some members of the pro-Iran Shia alliance in Iraq's parliament to distance themselves from more militant factions. The killing of Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, has also had a profound impact on the Iraqi resistance factions, which have struggled to respond effectively to the recent war. The insider close to the pro-Iran factions noted that the killing of Nasrallah has affected the Iraqi resistance factions more than the killing of Khamenei, as Nasrallah had a direct appeal to many commanders.

At least 43 civilians were killed and 44 houses set ablaze during an assault by the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF) in Bafwakoa, located in Mambasa territory of Ituri province, according to the Congolese army.Lieutenant Jules Tshikudi Ngongo, the army’s regional spokesperson, said the attack occurred on Thursday and that the death toll could rise as search operations continue.The ADF, a rebel outfit that pledged allegiance to ISIL, has been increasingly targeting civilians in Ituri and the neighboring North Kivu province, despite joint Congolese‑Ugandan military campaigns launched in 2021.Witnesses reported that victims were killed with machetes, some perished in house fires, and two individuals were abducted, according to local customary official Christian Alimasi.The incident underscores the army’s difficulty in containing the ADF, which operates alongside other insurgent groups such as the Rwandan‑backed M23, responsible for seizing the major eastern city of Goma last year.Data from research firm Insecurity Insight indicates the ADF accounted for roughly 25% of civilian‑targeted violence in eastern DRC between 2020 and 2025, reflecting its significant presence in the region.Last year, the ADF’s attacks resulted in 66 deaths and multiple abductions, signalling a troubling escalation in its campaign against local populations.

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.

Pakistan reaffirmed its commitment to steer the United States and Iran back to the negotiating table, even as it faces "obstacles" that were not disclosed by Foreign Office spokesperson Tahir Andrabi during a weekly briefing in Islamabad.The statement came hours after U.S. President Donald Trump warned he would bomb Iran "back to the Stone Ages" if Tehran rejected Washington’s peace terms, underscoring the volatile backdrop to Pakistan’s diplomatic push.Andrabi emphasized that Pakistan will continue to "promote facilitation and dialogue" and is working to create conditions for meaningful negotiations among relevant stakeholders. He noted that both Washington and Tehran view Pakistan as a neutral intermediary.In a tangible sign of confidence, Iran has permitted 20 Pakistani‑flagged vessels to transit the Strait of Hormuz. Andrabi described this as "a harbinger of peace" and a positive step for regional stability, though he did not confirm whether any ships have already sailed.The Hormuz corridor has been largely blocked since Iran curtailed oil and gas shipments after the outbreak of the US‑Israel‑Iran conflict on February 28, driving up energy prices and straining economies across the region.High‑level contact between Islamabad and Tehran continues. Andrabi cited a March 28 call between Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, during which both leaders stressed the need to "build trust" and praised Pakistan’s "supportive role for peace".Regional diplomacy intensified after Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar returned from Beijing, where he met Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi. The two sides produced a joint five‑point initiative calling for an immediate ceasefire, urgent diplomatic engagement, and the restoration of normal maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.Andrabi said the China‑Pakistan proposal has been shared with the United States, Iran and other stakeholders, receiving appreciation "across the region and beyond". The plan aligns with outcomes from a four‑nation ministerial meeting in Islamabad that included Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt.Despite a hairline fracture sustained during the Islamabad talks, Dar travelled to Beijing, underscoring Pakistan’s strategic partnership with China. He later announced that Pakistan is ready to host direct US‑Iran negotiations in the coming days, a proposal reiterated by Andrabi at the briefing.While Pakistan positions itself as a facilitator, Andrabi acknowledged that Iran has so far limited mediation to indirect messages and has not committed to direct talks, stating, "Iran, as a sovereign country, determines its own policies."In a separate diplomatic track, Pakistan sent senior officials to Urumqi, China, for discussions with Afghanistan – the first substantive contact since Islamabad launched cross‑border strikes in late February. Andrabi stressed that Afghanistan must demonstrate "visible and verifiable actions" against terrorist groups operating from its territory.Pakistan continues its Operation Ghazab lil‑Haq, launched on February 26 to target terrorist sanctuaries in Afghanistan after alleged cross‑border fire from Taliban forces. Following a five‑day Eid‑ul‑Fitr pause, the operation remains ongoing.Islamabad accuses the Taliban‑run Kabul government of allowing the Tehrik‑i‑Taliban Pakistan (TTP) to use Afghan soil for attacks inside Pakistan, a claim the Afghan side denies. China has also facilitated Pakistan‑Afghanistan engagement, hosting meetings in Beijing and Kabul earlier in the year.

Three United Nations experts have urged for a thorough and independent investigation into Israel's recent killing of three journalists in Lebanon, condemning the incident as 'another egregious attack on press freedom by Israeli forces.'The UN special rapporteurs, Irene Khan, Morris Tidball-Binz, and Ben Saul, emphasized that journalists carrying out their professional duties in armed conflict are civilians and must not be targeted or made the object of attack.They stated that the deliberate killing of journalists not directly participating in hostilities constitutes a serious violation of international human rights and humanitarian law and a war crime. The experts also stressed that working for media outlets affiliated with an armed group does not mean journalists are directly participating in hostilities under international law.The Israeli military killed Al Mayadeen journalist Fatima Ftouni, her brother Mohamad Ftouni, and Al-Manar's Ali Shoaib in a targeted strike on their car in southern Lebanon on March 28. Israel accused Shoaib of being a fighter with the Lebanese armed group Hezbollah, but provided no evidence and was rejected by Shoaib's colleagues and the UN experts.The UN experts warned that Israel's killing of Lebanese journalists is part of an effort to silence reporting on Israel's military action in Lebanon and shut down news coverage of war crimes, similar to what occurred in Gaza. They also noted that Israel was responsible for two-thirds of all killings of journalists in 2024 and 2025, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ).At least 1,345 people have been killed and 4,040 wounded in intensified Israeli attacks across Lebanon since early March, according to the Lebanese Ministry of Health.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) released a comprehensive report titled None Can Run Away, concluding that Burkina Faso’s military, its allied Volunteers for the Defence of the Homeland (VDPs), and the al‑Qaeda‑linked Jama’at Nusrat al‑Islam wa al‑Muslimin (JNIM) have perpetrated war crimes and crimes against humanity since the coup that brought the junta to power in September 2022. Through in‑person and telephone interviews with more than 450 witnesses across Burkina Faso, Benin, Ivory Coast, Ghana and Mali, HRW verified 57 distinct incidents involving wilful killing, attacks on civilians and civilian objects, pillage, looting, and forced displacement. The report estimates that 1,837 civilians were killed between January 2023 and August 2025, with over 1,200 deaths directly linked to government forces. The United Nations estimates that the conflict has displaced approximately two million people, underscoring a humanitarian crisis of regional magnitude. Among the deadliest attacks, the military and VDP militias slaughtered more than 400 civilians across 16 villages near the northern town of Djibo in December 2023. In November 2023, allied militias killed 13 Fulani civilians—including six women and four children—in the western village of Basse, employing methods described by survivors as “blindfolded, hands tied, and riddled with bullets.” JNIM’s own atrocities were highlighted by the August 24, 2024 massacre in Barsalogho, where at least 133 civilians, many of them children, were shot indiscriminately. HRW’s findings point to a systematic targeting of the Fulani ethnic group, whom the junta accuses of supporting armed insurgents, resulting in what the report characterises as an ethnic cleansing of entire communities. HRW calls for urgent investigations into President Ibrahim Traoré, the supreme commander of the armed forces, and six senior military commanders for “grave abuses.” The organization also urges scrutiny of Iyad Ag Ghaly, JNIM’s supreme leader wanted by the International Criminal Court, and four of his commanders under the principle of command responsibility. “The scale of atrocities taking place in Burkina Faso is mind‑boggling, as is the lack of global attention to this crisis,” said Philippe Bolopion, executive director of HRW. “The junta is committing horrific abuses itself, failing to hold those responsible on all sides to account, and curtailing reporting to obscure the suffering of civilians caught in the violence.” Survivors recount harrowing details: a 41‑year‑old father described his son’s body “shot in the back of the neck,” while a 39‑year‑old witness to the Barsalogho attack said, “People were falling like flies. They came to exterminate us. They did not spare anyone.” These revelations amplify calls from the international community for accountability and for renewed humanitarian assistance to the millions displaced by the protracted Sahel conflict.

French authorities detained European Parliament member Rima Hassan on Thursday, accusing her of "apology for terrorism" after a social‑media post referenced Kozo Okamoto, a participant in the 1972 Ben Gurion Airport attack. The detention, reported by Le Parisien, marks a rare instance where a sitting MEP’s parliamentary immunity appears to have been set aside. According to the newspaper, Hassan had already removed the contentious post from X, but the investigation continued. Police also reported finding a small quantity of synthetic drugs in her possession during the arrest. Jean‑Luc Mélenchon, founder of the left‑wing La France Insoumise (LFI) party, condemned the move on X, stating, "There is no longer parliamentary immunity in France. Intolerable." He and other LFI colleagues argue the action is designed to silence supporters of Palestine. LFI parliamentarians Sophia Chikirou and Mathilde Panot echoed the criticism, accusing the French police and justice system of being weaponised against activists. Panot warned that President Emmanuel Macron’s France is witnessing a "new level" of criminalisation of political opponents. The controversy follows Hassan’s recent denial of entry to Canada, which she described as censorship, and a prior alert by far‑right National Rally politician Matthias Renault to Paris prosecutors about the same X post. Renault welcomed the detention, calling it "the beginning of the end of impunity for the LFI MP." Hassan, a 33‑year‑old French‑Palestinian lawyer elected to the European Parliament in 2024, is a vocal critic of Israel’s war in Gaza and participated in a Gaza‑bound flotilla intercepted by Israeli forces in October 2025. Her advocacy has repeatedly drawn ire from pro‑Israel groups across Europe. While Hassan and her legal team have not responded to Reuters’ requests for comment, the incident raises broader questions about the balance between anti‑terrorism legislation and political freedoms within the EU, especially as debates over Palestine intensify across the continent.

The United States is reportedly contemplating a daring military operation to confiscate Iran's reserves of highly enriched uranium, a move that experts warn would be fraught with significant challenges and risks.Ensuring Iran does not possess nuclear weapons or the capability to produce them using enriched uranium has been a primary objective for the US during negotiations with Iranian officials over the past year. This goal was also cited as a justification for the US bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities during last year's 12-day war with Israel and for initiating the ongoing conflict in February, despite ongoing talks with Iran at the time.Iran possesses approximately 440 kilograms (970 pounds) of uranium enriched to 60 percent, a level at which it becomes considerably easier to reach the 90 percent threshold required to produce a nuclear weapon. This amount theoretically could be used to produce more than 10 nuclear warheads, according to International Atomic Energy Agency chief Rafael Grossi.Iran asserts that its nuclear program is exclusively for civilian energy purposes, despite enriching uranium far beyond the required threshold. Iranian officials have expressed openness to discussing a reduction in the level of enrichment during past negotiations but have refused to dismantle the country's nuclear program entirely, citing national sovereignty concerns.In 2015, the former Obama administration negotiated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran and other nations, under which Iran agreed not to enrich uranium to high levels and to undergo frequent inspections. However, Trump withdrew the US from this agreement during his first term as president.Challenges in Accessing and Transporting the UraniumAny military ground operation to extract the uranium would face substantial chemical, logistical, and tactical hurdles. Isfahan, where about half of the enriched uranium is believed to be stored, is over 480 kilometers (about 300 miles) inland, far from the nearest US naval ships. This would necessitate transporting US forces, possibly alongside Israeli troops, over a long distance through an active warzone, accompanied by heavy equipment.Securing a substantial perimeter around the site and holding that territory for the duration of the operation would be required, all while mitigating the risk of constant fire from Iran. Experts describe this as a risky and infeasible operation.Storing and Handling the UraniumIf the US were to successfully extract the uranium, it would likely be stored in the form of hexafluoride gas, which is difficult to handle and reacts with water to produce extremely toxic chemicals. The uranium hexafluoride must be stored in small, separated canisters to prevent neutrons from multiplying out of control.Any damage to these canisters could trigger the release of toxic chemicals, posing a radiological hazard. An alternative would be to destroy the cylinders on the spot using Army Nuclear Disablement Teams, but this would result in chemical contamination and environmental hazards.Previous Operations and Potential AlternativesIn 1994, US forces undertook a secret operation dubbed Project Sapphire to remove weapons-grade uranium from Kazakhstan. A similar operation for Iran is being considered, but it would require coordination with Iranian authorities and the IAEA, and a cessation of hostilities.A less risky approach would be for the US to negotiate a deal with Iran, resulting in the stockpile being left in place but under international oversight, being downblended, or being removed with Iranian agreement.

Europe’s attention is fixed on Hungary’s parliamentary election scheduled for April 12, a contest many analysts view as a litmus test for the bloc’s cohesion on foreign‑policy, defence, energy and migration. Since coming to power, Prime Minister Viktor Orban has consistently blocked EU initiatives: he has refused to join a common asylum framework, opposed a joint defence scheme, resisted the shift toward renewable‑energy independence while still importing Russian hydrocarbons, and vetoed both Ukraine’s accession talks and a proposed €90 billion low‑interest loan package for Kyiv. These actions have made Hungary the most disruptive member state in the Union, prompting observers to argue that the election’s outcome will reverberate far beyond Budapest’s borders. Greek conservative MP Angelos Syrigos warned that the EU is plagued by “fanatically Trump‑like and pro‑Russian” governments, naming Hungary and Slovakia as examples. He told Al Jazeera that the constant threat of an Orban veto forces other capitals to seek ad‑hoc compromises rather than genuine consensus. Opposition leader Peter Magyar of the Tisza party is campaigning on a pro‑European platform, pledging a binding referendum on Ukraine’s membership, a crackdown on corruption, the release of billions in frozen EU funds, and a reversal of Hungary’s withdrawal from the International Criminal Court. Current polls give Tisza roughly 50 % of the vote, a ten‑point lead over the ruling Fidesz, though the political landscape remains fluid. Even a Magyar victory would not automatically resolve the EU’s structural challenges. Other illiberal leaders—such as Slovakia’s Robert Fico and the Czech Republic’s Andrej Babiš—could step into a vacuum of obstructionism. Nevertheless, some scholars argue that Orban’s habit of breaking consensus has forced the Union to become more pragmatic. At a December 2023 summit, EU leaders temporarily excluded Orban to secure unanimous approval of Ukraine’s candidate status, later offering Hungary a €10 billion release of blocked funds as an incentive. Professor Katalin Miklossy of the University of Helsinki explained that the EU has shifted from a rigid, rule‑bound approach to a more flexible, problem‑solving mindset, saying, “We were weak when we clung to the book; now we act more practically.” Should Orban remain in power, the bloc is considering a workaround: issuing 26 bilateral loans to Ukraine from member states, bypassing any single‑country veto. Historical precedent exists. In 2010, when Greece’s debt crisis threatened the euro, EU members created the Greek Loan Facility—an ad‑hoc series of bilateral loans that compensated for the lack of a common rescue fund. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has warned that delays in funding could leave the Ukrainian army under‑resourced, underscoring the geopolitical stakes of the Hungarian vote. The EU’s inability to move from unanimity to qualified‑majority voting—an ambition thwarted by failed French and Dutch referenda in 2005—has amplified Orban’s leverage. Yet the Union continues to evolve, having launched a common bond in 2020 to revive the pandemic‑hit economy and, since Russia’s 2022 invasion, channeling resources into a nascent European defence union. Orban’s recent reversal on the €90 billion Ukraine loan—after Kyiv refused to repair the Druzhba pipeline damaged by a Russian bomb—illustrates the volatility of his stance. He initially agreed to the loan in December, on the condition that Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic would not be required to co‑sign, only to withdraw support a month later. Even if Magyar secures a parliamentary majority, the promised loan may not materialise immediately. Cambridge‑based expert Victoria Vdovychenko notes that a decision made in December 2025 to disburse funds from January 2026 has already stalled, with the next realistic window possibly in June. Academics stress that a Tisza victory would deliver a psychological boost to the EU and its trans‑Atlantic partners, injecting confidence into a system battling “stealth creep of illiberalism” and economic disenfranchisement. Professor SM Amadae of Cambridge’s Centre for the Study of Existential Risk warned that while a change in Hungary could energise citizens, the entrenched gerrymandering and patronage networks of Fidesz present formidable obstacles to lasting reform. In sum, the April 12 election is more than a domestic contest; it is a pivotal moment that could reshape the EU’s decision‑making architecture, determine the flow of critical aid to Ukraine, and signal the future trajectory of populist politics across Europe.