Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Britain is confronting the most severe energy shock since the early 1970s, as exports of oil, gas and fertiliser from the Middle East have abruptly stopped. The government says a response plan exists, but details remain vague. It is unclear whether the UK is better prepared for the fallout from Donald Trump’s war with Iran than it was for the pandemic six years ago. Ministers are sending a "we have your back" message to the public while simultaneously signalling to financial markets that any assistance will be limited and targeted. Contingency planning is especially difficult when dealing with an unpredictable leader like Trump. Britain’s heavy reliance on imported energy and food means that reassurance can only hold for a short time. The economy entered the conflict already on shaky ground: unemployment rose steadily throughout 2025 and growth stalled to a virtual standstill in the final quarter of that year. The sudden loss of Middle‑East energy and fertiliser supplies now adds a colossal supply shock. Last year, Trump’s “liberation day” tariff hikes served as a dry run for a far more serious confrontation. This time, the war is taking place in a region that is both volatile and crucial to the global economy. In the past two weeks, the repercussions have been felt across Asia – the Philippines declared a state of emergency, Sri Lanka introduced a four‑day work week, and South Korea announced budget measures to help households cope with soaring energy bills. The continent is the most dependent on Gulf‑exported energy, making the impact there the sharpest. The International Monetary Fund warned that the shock will drive higher prices and slower growth worldwide. Shortages push fuel and food prices up, eroding disposable income, prompting businesses to cut staff, and increasing the risk of recession. The UK, already projected to be one of the poorest‑performing major economies in 2026, could see its fresh graduate cohort face a brutal job market. Trump’s claim that the war could end within two or three weeks appears desperate. Even a rapid cease‑fire would leave substantial collateral damage, creating a stagflation scenario that could hurt Republican prospects in the upcoming mid‑term elections. British officials hope a swift resolution will limit economic damage, allowing a short‑term inflation spike to subside and the Bank of England to resume interest‑rate cuts. Treasury plans include scrapping the planned autumn fuel‑duty rise and providing targeted help for the poorest households, though the path is unlikely to be that simple. Currently, the Treasury is hesitant to act boldly for fear of unsettling bond markets. History – the 2008 banking collapse and the 2020 pandemic – shows that governments can act decisively without triggering a market backlash, using tools such as aggressive rate cuts, increased borrowing, and quantitative easing. The Bank of England has warned of a "substantial negative supply shock" and is expected to soften markets for future rate cuts, which are inevitable. Finance Minister Rachel Reeves could mitigate labour‑market pain by reversing recent increases in employers’ National Insurance contributions, subsidising public transport, and even lowering speed limits to conserve energy. The war, like the pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, underscores the fragility of global supply chains and the need for greater British self‑reliance. Investing heavily in renewable energy is essential, but the UK also imports roughly 40% of its food and has not run a manufacturing trade surplus since 1982. In a world of disrupted supply lines, a robust plan for economic self‑sufficiency is more urgent than ever. Larry Elliott is a Guardian columnist.

The United States has been proposing unusual bilateral health agreements to developing countries, mostly in Africa, in exchange for access to sensitive health data and critical minerals. These deals have sparked concerns of exploitation and have been met with resistance from several countries.In November, the US approached Zimbabwean authorities with a proposal that would have provided over $300m in funding in return for sensitive health data. However, Harare felt that the negotiations were 'lopsided' and promptly pulled out.Zambia also pushed back against a similar proposal, citing 'problematic' clauses that sought access to the country's minerals, including copper, cobalt, and lithium. The US had offered $1bn in funding over five years, but Lusaka requested a review of the proposal.Several African countries, including Nigeria and Kenya, have signed the health pacts, but the terms agreed remain unclear.Data or mineral demands in return for health aid are unprecedented in the history of US-Africa relations. Policy experts argue that tying crucial funding to sensitive national assets could have negative consequences for African nations and the US itself.'Supporting global health has clear benefits to the United States in terms of prevention of pandemics that can affect Americans too,' said Sarang Shidore, Africa director at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. 'Linking such aid to payoffs in the extraction of critical minerals smacks of exploitative practices.'African nations have long relied on US funding to foot many of their health bills. In 2024, African countries received $5.4bn in US assistance, largely spent on humanitarian, health, and disaster needs.However, the US has argued that aid cuts suit its America First agenda, which prioritizes national interests. The stance has been met with criticism, with some economists arguing that aid is often ineffective and causes overreliance.Washington is now focused on government-to-government deals, which have typically required governments to take on an increasing share of their own health budgets in the next four to five years.Some analysts see this as a positive move to reduce overdependence on foreign funding and force governments to prioritize health spending in their budgets. However, the clauses that Washington is demanding to leverage its aid for data, rare earth elements, and other minerals have caused widespread outrage in some countries.In the case of Zambia, the US reportedly asked for access to the country's critical minerals in return for $1bn over five years. The US also asked for a one-way data-sharing agreement for 10 years.If Lusaka fails to ink a deal, US aid funding to the country will be discontinued, which could mean losing the remnants of funding Zambia still receives from the PEPFAR programme.

Qatar's Defence Ministry has confirmed that missiles launched from Iran struck an oil tanker within the country's territorial waters. The incident has heightened concerns over regional stability and security.In a related development, US President Donald Trump has stated that Iran does not have to make a deal for him to end the war and suggested that the conflict could be resolved in two to three weeks. These comments come amid ongoing tensions between the US and Iran.

Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister, Seyed Abbas Araghchi, has stated that messages from the US conveyed through intermediaries, including Witkoff, do not constitute negotiations. This development comes amid ongoing diplomatic efforts to revive the Iran nuclear deal. The comments highlight the complexities of indirect communication between the US and Iran, with Araghchi emphasizing that such messages are not a substitute for direct negotiations. The situation underscores the challenges in achieving a diplomatic breakthrough, with both sides maintaining their positions on the nuclear issue.

President Donald Trump has made a bold statement regarding the ongoing conflict with Iran, suggesting that the US could potentially end the war within two to three weeks. He emphasized that a deal is not a prerequisite for the US to withdraw from the conflict, indicating a possible shift in his diplomatic approach.Trump's comments come amid rising tensions and escalating energy prices, with domestic petrol prices in the US jumping past an average of $4 a gallon. The conflict has disrupted energy supplies and shaken the global economy, with Iran's attacks on Gulf oil facilities and its continued control over fuel supplies through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital waterway through which one-fifth of the world's oil and liquified natural gas passes.In a surprising move, Trump has criticized allied countries for not providing sufficient support in the conflict. He took aim at countries like the UK, telling them to either buy US fuel or get involved in the rapidly escalating war. 'Go get your own oil!' he stated, emphasizing that the US wouldn't be there to help them anymore.Trump's statements have been met with caution by experts, who note that it would not be easy for him to simply walk out of a conflict that has spread across the region and resulted in thousands of deaths. Trita Parsi, a foreign policy expert, suggested that Trump's comments should be treated with skepticism, predicting that the timeline for the conflict would likely continue to be extended.The conflict has also drawn in other countries, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arguing that the war on Iran was 'definitely beyond the halfway point.' The situation remains volatile, with experts warning that Iran will continue to control the Strait of Hormuz and potentially continue to target it.

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.

In the spring of 1926, Paris was bustling with tourists, earning its reputation as the cheapest capital in Europe. The city's ideal weather, with incessant sunshine, added to its appeal. Cafes had opened their windows, trees were green, and chestnuts were budding, creating a picturesque scene.The tourist influx was significant, with 20,000 English holidaymakers arriving in a single day, and many more expected to follow. Visitors from other countries, particularly Germany, were also well-represented. This Easter season was shaping up to be a record one for Paris.While finding accommodations could be challenging for those who hadn't booked in advance, Paris offered affordable options for tourists. Restaurants, theatres, music-halls, and other amusements were priced at about half of what one would find in London. Even taxi fares, which doubled at night, were reasonable at threepence a mile.The city's entertainment scene catered to various tastes. Some tourists flocked to popular venues like the Folies-Bergère, Moulin Rouge, and Casino de Paris, while others preferred more cultural experiences at the Comédie Française or Odeon. The diversity of options made Paris an attractive destination for a wide range of visitors.

Police in Wuhan reported a sudden "system malfunction" that immobilised several autonomous robotaxis operated by Baidu’s Apollo Go service, leaving passengers stuck on an elevated highway for up to an hour and a half.Local authorities said they received a flood of calls on Tuesday night from riders whose vehicles froze in the middle of the road. A police statement confirmed that “multiple Apollo Go cars stopped in the middle of the road, unable to move,” and preliminary investigations point to a technical failure.Baidu maintains a fleet of more than 500 driverless cars in Wuhan, though the exact number affected was not disclosed. One commuter shared a 90‑minute ordeal on the Chinese platform RedNote, describing how the vehicle stalled at 9 p.m. on an overpass, surrounded by dump trucks, while customer‑service lines remained unanswered.The rider eventually was rescued after the order was cancelled at 10:30 p.m., but criticized Apollo Go’s support team for offering “useless platitudes” instead of concrete solutions. Social‑media users also posted videos captioned “Apollo Go, are you paralysed?” showing futile attempts to contact the company via the in‑car tablet.This is not Baidu’s first controversy. In December, authorities in Zhuzhou halted robotaxi operations after a Baidu‑manufactured autonomous vehicle struck two pedestrians, sending them to intensive care.Despite these setbacks, Baidu’s autonomous‑mobility arm continues to grow. Company filings reveal that Apollo Go delivered 3.4 million driverless rides in the fourth quarter of 2025, a jump of over 200 % compared with the same period in 2024. The firm is also pursuing international expansion, having announced partnership deals with rideshare giants Lyft and Uber to deploy its vehicles on their platforms.When approached for comment, Baidu did not respond, according to Reuters.Additional reporting by Yu‑chen Li

According to reports from Bloomberg and the Wall Street Journal, SpaceX has quietly lodged a confidential registration statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, signaling its intention to go public. The filing could set a valuation ceiling of $1.75 trillion, positioning the offering among the most valuable ever attempted. Regulators will now review the disclosed financials before the prospectus becomes public. Analysts anticipate that the IPO could be priced as early as June 2026, a timing that aligns with what industry observers describe as a “banner year” for mega‑cap listings. The move also coincides with rival AI firms—OpenAI, which recently closed a $122 billion funding round, and Anthropic—preparing their own public debuts. SpaceX’s parent, Elon Musk, already the world’s wealthiest individual, stands to increase his net worth further, potentially edging toward the elusive trillion‑dollar milestone. The public offering would also provide a clearer picture of a company that has become the cornerstone of both commercial spaceflight and satellite broadband. Beyond rockets, SpaceX’s Starlink satellite network now accounts for more than half of the firm’s revenue, according to Reuters. The service not only fuels the company’s earnings but also extends Musk’s geopolitical influence, with customers ranging from the Ukrainian military to remote communities worldwide. In February, SpaceX completed the acquisition of Musk’s artificial‑intelligence venture xAI, a deal that valued the AI unit at roughly $250 billion. The purchase is tied to plans for solar‑powered data centers in orbit, intended to meet the soaring compute and energy demands of the AI boom. The company’s financial details remain tightly guarded, and a full disclosure is expected only after the SEC clears the filing. International banks, including the UK‑based Barclays, have been tapped to manage the offering, underscoring the global scale of the transaction. SpaceX’s deepening ties with the U.S. government—spanning defense contracts and the majority of NASA’s launch schedule—further cement its strategic importance. As the firm pivots toward orbital data centers and supports NASA’s upcoming lunar missions, the traditional narrative of colonising Mars has taken a back seat.