Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Barcelona demolished rivals Real Madrid 6-0 to progress to the women’s Champions League semifinals with a convincing 12-2 aggregate score. The Catalan football giants, led by Alexia Putellas, shone in their first game at the rebuilt Camp Nou, building on their 6-2 quarterfinal first leg victory. Caroline Graham Hansen netted twice and Putellas also scored in Thursday’s rout, as three-time winners Barca reached an eighth consecutive semifinal. Pere Romeu’s dominant side, runners-up to Arsenal last year, will face Bayern Munich in the semifinals after the German side knocked out Manchester United on Wednesday. Despite missing key player Aitana Bonmati, Barca put on a tour de force to entertain a 60,000-strong crowd, the fourth-highest attendance in the competition’s history. Putellas put Barca ahead on her 500th appearance for the club early on, turning home a rebound after Misa Rodriguez saved from Ewa Pajor. Graham Hansen swiftly added the second for the Liga F leaders with a header from a Putellas cross, as Irene Paredes headed home from a corner for Barca’s third. Polish striker Pajor grabbed the fourth with a close-range finish, while Graham Hansen netted Barca’s fifth early in the second half. Esmee Brugts notched the sixth with a tap-in after a neat move involving Patri Guijarro and Clara Serrajordi. Barca’s jubilant fans gave Putellas a deserved ovation as she was replaced late on, with the 32-year-old star out of contract at the end of the season.

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.

Following US and Israeli strikes that killed senior Iranian figures, concerns have emerged about the power dynamics within Iran's leadership. The country's response to these actions and the implications for the region are significant.This episode of 'The Take' examines the key players in Iran's system, how decisions are made, and the potential impact of losing top figures on Iran's response to the ongoing conflict with the US and Israel.Key topics include:The structure of Iran's leadership and decision-making processesThe role of senior figures and their influence on policyThe potential consequences of their loss for Iran's stance on the US-Israel conflictThe analysis features insights from Ali Hashem, a senior Al Jazeera correspondent, providing a deeper understanding of the complexities at play.

In Zimbabwe, a proposed constitutional amendment has sparked widespread debate and concern among citizens. The amendment, known as CAB3, aims to extend President Emmerson Mnangagwa's term from 2028 to 2030, changing presidential and legislative terms from five to seven years.Critics argue that this move will consolidate power in the hands of Mnangagwa's ruling ZANU-PF party, making it increasingly difficult for opposition leaders to assume power. Currently, the president is elected through a popular vote, but the proposed changes would allow parliament to elect the president, potentially paving the way for a dynastic succession.Public hearings on the bill have been marred by chaos and allegations of bias, with many citizens expressing concerns about the rushed and limited consultation process. Opponents of the bill, including former finance minister Tendai Biti and opposition leaders, have been arrested and intimidated.Supporters of the bill, however, argue that it will enhance political stability and allow Mnangagwa to complete his development projects. But critics counter that term limits are essential to preventing authoritarianism and ensuring peaceful transfers of power.As the bill moves forward, Zimbabweans are worried about the future of their democracy and the potential for further repression. The country's economy is in shambles, and many believe that Mnangagwa's extended term will only exacerbate the situation.

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.

Rumors surrounding the health of Mojtaba Khamenei, a prominent figure in Iran, have sparked speculation about the potential impact on the country's trajectory. However, analysts suggest that Iran's overall direction is unlikely to change significantly regardless of the outcome. The speculation about Mojtaba Khamenei's health has garnered significant attention, but experts argue that the country's political landscape is robust enough to withstand such developments. Iran's political structure and policies are deeply ingrained, reducing the likelihood of drastic shifts in response to individual events or changes in leadership. The stability of Iran's political system is a key factor in maintaining the country's trajectory. Despite rumors and speculation, the fundamental pillars of Iran's governance and strategic direction remain intact, ensuring continuity in its policies and actions on the global stage.

Israel's death penalty law has significant implications for Palestinians, potentially leading to increased tensions and human rights concerns. The law, which allows for the imposition of the death penalty for certain crimes, has been met with criticism from human rights groups and Palestinian authorities.The consequences of this law are far-reaching, affecting not only Palestinians convicted of crimes but also the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The law may be seen as a provocation by Palestinian leaders, potentially leading to increased violence and instability in the region.Human rights groups have expressed concerns about the fairness of trials and the treatment of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli custody. The law has also been criticized for its potential to disproportionately affect Palestinians, who make up a significant proportion of Israel's prison population.

Iraq's national football team, known as the Lions of Mesopotamia, has made history by qualifying for the FIFA World Cup 2026 for the first time in nearly 40 years. Their 2-1 victory over Bolivia on Tuesday night secured their spot as the 48th and final team to qualify.The team's achievement is particularly significant given the current conflict in the region, with Iraq being drawn into the hostilities between the US, Israel, and Iran. Despite the challenges, including sporadic gunfire and economic difficulties, supporters flooded Baghdad's main shopping areas at dawn to celebrate their team's triumph.“This victory is incredibly precious to us, despite the war raging,” said Ahmed, a 22-year-old supporter, highlighting the unifying effect of the team's success across different sects in Iraq. The jubilant crowd brought traffic to a standstill, with thousands waving Iraqi flags and celebrating into the night.The Iraqi team's journey to the World Cup was not without its challenges, with some players forced to travel partially overland due to suspended air travel caused by the conflict. However, Ali al-Hamadi and Aymen Hussein each scored a goal in the memorable win, securing their place in World Cup Group I against France, Senegal, and Norway.In celebration of their victory, Iraqi leaders congratulated the team and promised financial bonuses for the win. A two-day holiday was also declared, with state television broadcasting nationwide celebrations.