Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Iran staged expansive military parades in Tehran on April 22, 2026, just as the ceasefire that paused hostilities between Israel and Hamas was set to expire, underscoring Tehran’s strategic messaging to both domestic audiences and regional rivals.Key DevelopmentsHundreds of troops, tanks, and missile systems marched through central Tehran.President Ebrahim Raisi delivered a televised address linking the parade to Iran’s “defense of the Palestinian cause.”The ceasefire, brokered by Qatar and Egypt, was scheduled to end on April 30, with no clear renewal plan.U.S. and European diplomats warned of a potential escalation in the region.Data & Market ImpactIran’s defense budget rose 7% year‑over‑year to an estimated $30 billion, reflecting increased procurement of drones and precision‑strike missiles.Oil futures rose 1.3% after the parade, reaching $92 per barrel, as traders priced in heightened geopolitical risk.Regional stock indices, including the Saudi Tadawul and the Dubai Financial Market, fell between 0.5%–1.1% in response to the heightened tension.Why This MattersDemonstrates Iran’s willingness to leverage military spectacle to influence the Israel‑Hamas conflict narrative.Potentially escalates proxy dynamics, prompting neighboring states to reassess security postures.Elevated oil price volatility can affect global supply chains, especially for energy‑dependent economies in Europe and Asia.Expert InsightAnalysts view the parade as a calibrated signal rather than a direct threat. By showcasing indigenous missile and drone capabilities, Tehran aims to cement its role as a regional power broker while deterring external intervention. The timing aligns with internal political cycles, where the regime seeks to rally nationalist sentiment ahead of upcoming parliamentary elections.What Happens NextIf the ceasefire lapses without a new agreement, Israel may intensify air strikes on Gaza, prompting Iran to increase vocal support for Hamas and possibly supply advanced weaponry.International mediators could push for a renewed truce, but Tehran’s display suggests it will demand greater concessions for any future diplomatic effort.Energy markets will likely remain sensitive; investors should monitor oil price movements and any sanctions‑related developments affecting Iranian oil exports.

The geopolitical landscape in the Middle East has shifted dramatically with a last-minute diplomatic maneuver that pauses the clock on a potential US military escalation against Iran while simultaneously tightening the economic noose around Tehran. The Strategic Pause and Persistent Pressure US President Donald Trump announced an extension of the ceasefire with Iran, citing a request from Pakistani mediators to allow Tehran more time to formulate a proposal. However, the statement was a dual-edged sword: while the military attack was paused, the naval blockade of Iranian ports remains active. Extension Mechanism: The truce was set to expire on Wednesday but has been pushed back indefinitely until a proposal is submitted. Mediators: Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Field Marshal Asim Munir played a key role in facilitating the pause. US Stance: The US military is "ready and able" to strike, maintaining a posture of maximum leverage. The Fracture Narrative vs. Tehran's Consolidation A central point of contention in the negotiations is the alleged fragmentation of the Iranian leadership. Trump claimed that the government is "seriously fractured," arguing that this is why a unified proposal is taking time. However, on-the-ground reporting from Tehran suggests a different reality. Al Jazeera correspondent Ali Hashem noted that the leadership appears highly unified under Mojtaba Khamenei, the son of the assassinated Supreme Leader. Hashem described the new leadership circle as a team that has worked together for 15 years, currently holding decision-making centers in Tehran. This discrepancy between the US perception of Iranian chaos and the reality of a consolidated regime poses a significant risk to diplomatic resolution. The Strait of Hormuz as a Leverage Point The conflict is not merely military but economic. Iran’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Abbas Araghchi, condemned the naval blockade as an "act of war." The blockade of Iranian ports remains a major sticking point, effectively choking off trade routes. Barbara Slavin, a distinguished fellow at the Stimson Center, argues that Iran has discovered new leverage in its control of the Strait of Hormuz. She suggests that Trump’s extension is a way to cover the embarrassment of floundering negotiations. The US is seeking a complete shutdown of Iran’s nuclear program and limits on missile production, while Tehran insists on retaining its right to enrich uranium and refuses to allow US extraction of nuclear material. The Outlook: A Maximalist Stalemate The immediate future hinges on the "second round of talks" scheduled in Islamabad. However, the presence of a naval siege makes a negotiated settlement highly uncertain. The US is demanding a "comprehensive Peace Deal," but the gap between maximalist US demands and Iranian red lines remains wide. Unless the US is willing to relinquish its maximalist approach or Tehran offers a significant concession on the nuclear issue, the extension of the ceasefire may simply be a temporary reprieve rather than the end of the conflict.

The United States unveiled a new round of sanctions targeting 14 individuals and entities accused of helping Iran acquire weapon components, just hours before a tentative cease‑fire negotiation scheduled in Pakistan.Key Developments14 targets across Iran, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates were placed on the Treasury's Specially Designated Nationals list.Entities include Chabok FZCO (Dubai) for allegedly sourcing U.S. aircraft sensors for Mahan Air.Individuals such as Kamal Sabah Balkhkanlu were identified as money exchangers facilitating weapons procurement.Sanctions freeze U.S. assets and prohibit American persons from conducting business with the listed parties.The measures were announced on April 21, 2026, a day before the planned talks in Pakistan.Data & Market ImpactThe sanctions affect 14 entities, representing a modest but symbolically potent escalation in the U.S. "maximum pressure" campaign.By targeting firms in the UAE and Turkey, the U.S. signals willingness to extend pressure beyond Iran’s borders, potentially disrupting regional trade flows worth an estimated $1.2 billion in monthly oil‑related logistics.Asset freezes could curtail financing channels for Iran’s missile program, adding to the 5‑7 % dip in regional shipping insurance premiums observed since the February bombing campaign began.Why This MattersFor Iran, the sanctions raise the cost of sustaining its ballistic‑missile production, pressuring Tehran to seek relief in any cease‑fire agreement.For U.S. businesses, especially those in aerospace and logistics operating in the Gulf, compliance obligations will intensify, increasing legal and operational costs.Regional economies in Turkey and the UAE could see reduced export revenues as firms reassess dealings with Iranian counterparts.The timing underscores Washington’s strategy to leverage economic tools to extract concessions before diplomatic talks, potentially shaping the shape of any future truce.Expert InsightAnalysts note that the sanctions serve a dual purpose: they maintain domestic political momentum for President Donald Trump's "Economic Fury" narrative while signaling to Tehran that any negotiated settlement will come at a price. By expanding the target list to third‑country actors, the U.S. aims to close loopholes that have historically allowed Iran to circumvent restrictions. However, experts warn that over‑extension could alienate regional partners, complicating coalition‑building for a sustained diplomatic solution.What Happens NextIf Tehran perceives the sanctions as a bargaining chip, it may demand immediate relief as a pre‑condition for attending the Pakistan talks.Should the talks proceed without Iranian participation, the U.S. may maintain or even tighten the naval blockade, further straining global energy markets.In the medium term, expect a wave of secondary sanctions targeting additional Gulf firms if evidence of continued weapons procurement emerges.Watch for a possible shift in U.S. policy if the cease‑fire extension announced by President Trump fails to produce a unified Iranian proposal, which could reopen diplomatic channels or trigger renewed hostilities.

In late April 2026, Iran publicly released a step‑by‑step guide outlining how it could disrupt traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint through which roughly 20% of global oil supplies flow. The document, dubbed the "Hormuz Playbook," signals a transition from ad‑hoc threats to a calibrated strategic tool, forcing governments and energy firms to reassess risk management. Key Developments 21 April 2026: Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Navy publishes the Hormuz Playbook, detailing missile deployment, mine‑laying, and asymmetric naval tactics. 19 April 2026: The United States dispatches the carrier strike group centered on USS Gerald R. Ford to the Gulf of Oman as a deterrent. 15 April 2026: Major oil exporters in Saudi Arabia and the UAE issue advisories urging tankers to consider alternative routes. 10 April 2026: Spot‑price of Brent crude spikes to $115 per barrel, the highest level in six months. Data & Market Impact Approximately 30 million barrels per day transit the strait; a full closure could shave $2.5 billion from daily global oil trade. Shipping insurers raised war‑risk premiums by 45% within a week of the playbook’s release. Asian importers, which source over 60% of their oil via the strait, faced a projected 3‑5% increase in fuel costs for Q3 2026. Why This Matters Energy security: Any disruption threatens global supply chains, potentially triggering inflationary pressures worldwide. Maritime commerce: The strait is also a conduit for 20 million TEU of container traffic annually; heightened risk could reroute vessels around the Cape of Good Hope, adding up to 10‑12 days per voyage. Regional stability: Formalizing a threat elevates the risk of miscalculation between Iran and the US, with spill‑over effects for Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states. Expert Insight Analysts view the Hormuz Playbook as Iran’s attempt to shift from reactive brinkmanship to a credible deterrent that can be leveraged in diplomatic negotiations. By codifying tactics, Tehran signals that any future closure would be swift, coordinated, and survivable against conventional naval counter‑measures. However, the playbook also exposes Iran to heightened retaliation; a pre‑emptive strike on its missile sites could be justified under international law if the threat is deemed imminent. From a market perspective, the playbook forces oil traders to price in a “geopolitical risk premium.” The immediate price reaction suggests that investors are already factoring a potential supply shock, which could accelerate the shift toward alternative energy contracts and spur investment in strategic petroleum reserves. What Happens Next Diplomatic outreach: Expect intensified back‑channel talks between the US, EU, and Tehran aimed at establishing a de‑escalation framework. Naval posture: The US and allied navies are likely to increase patrols and conduct joint exercises, testing the efficacy of anti‑mine and anti‑drone systems. Market adaptation: Oil majors may diversify sourcing, while insurers could introduce tiered coverage tied to real‑time threat assessments. Long‑term infrastructure: Gulf states might accelerate investments in overland pipelines and rail links to bypass maritime chokepoints. Ultimately, the Hormuz Playbook transforms a historical flashpoint into a systematic lever of geopolitical influence, compelling stakeholders across security, energy, and commerce to recalibrate strategies for a more volatile maritime environment.

Japan’s cabinet announced on 2026‑04‑15 that the historic prohibition on exporting lethal weapons has been removed, allowing the sale of fighter jets, missiles and warships to a list of allied countries. The move, championed by Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, coincides with a $7 bn warship contract with Australia and heightened regional security tensions.Key DevelopmentsBan on lethal weapons exports, in place since 1967/1976, is officially lifted.Exports will now include fighter jets, missiles and warships, subject to UN Charter compliance.At least 17 countries – including Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines and Indonesia – are eligible, with potential expansion.Japan will still bar sales to active conflict zones, except under “special circumstances”.The policy shift follows a $7 bn contract for Mitsubishi Heavy Industries to build 11 warships for the Australian navy.Data & Market ImpactPrevious export rules limited Japan to non‑lethal equipment such as surveillance drones and mine‑sweeping gear.The new regime could unlock a defense market worth several billions of dollars annually, given Japan’s advanced aerospace and shipbuilding sectors.With 17 initial buyers, even a modest average order of $500 m per country would generate a $8.5 bn revenue boost for Japanese defense firms.Why This MattersThe decision reshapes Japan’s security architecture, providing a domestic source of high‑tech weaponry for allies and reducing reliance on U.S. arms transfers. It also escalates diplomatic friction with China, which has condemned the move as “reckless militarisation”. For regional economies, the policy opens new export opportunities for Japanese manufacturers while prompting neighboring states to reassess their own defense procurement strategies.Expert InsightAnalysts view the policy change as a pragmatic response to an “increasingly severe security environment” in the Indo‑Pacific. By aligning export rules with the UN Charter, Japan seeks to legitimize its sales while avoiding outright support for ongoing conflicts. The timing—immediately after a $7 bn warship deal—suggests a coordinated effort to cement Japan’s role as a reliable security partner for Australia and other Quad‑plus nations. However, the move risks domestic backlash, especially given Prime Minister Takaichi’s recent offering to the controversial Yasukuni Shrine, which inflames historical sensitivities in China and South Korea.What Happens NextJapan is likely to negotiate bilateral agreements expanding the eligible‑country list, potentially adding Southeast Asian partners.U.S. and Australian defense planners may accelerate joint projects that leverage Japanese platforms.China could increase its own arms sales to counterbalance Japan’s growing influence, heightening regional arms competition.Domestic opposition may pressure the government to tighten “special circumstance” exemptions, shaping the practical scope of the new export regime.

U.S. President Donald Trump announced that the next nuclear accord with Iran will be “far better” than the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) he abandoned in 2018, adding new demands on enrichment, ballistic missiles and proxy groups as a two‑week cease‑fire in the US‑Israel‑Iran conflict nears its end.Key DevelopmentsTrump asserts the forthcoming deal will surpass the JCPOA, which limited Iran’s uranium enrichment to 3.67% and reduced centrifuges to 6,104.New US‑Israel demands include: zero uranium enrichment, removal of the estimated 440 kg of 60%‑enriched uranium, strict caps on ballistic‑missile development, and a halt to support for Hezbollah, the Houthis and other proxy forces.Negotiations are expected to shift to Islamabad, Pakistan after the current cease‑fire expires.Analyst Andreas Kreig (King’s College London) predicts any new pact will likely resemble the JCPOA with limited tweaks, not the sweeping concessions Trump touts.Data & Market ImpactU.S. sanctions imposed after the 2018 withdrawal cut Iran’s oil exports by roughly 60 %, slashing revenue by an estimated $30 billion per year.Frozen Iranian sovereign assets total about $150 billion; their release would inject significant liquidity into Iran’s banking sector.IAEA reports indicate Iran now holds 440 kg of 60%‑enriched uranium, enough to reach weapons‑grade (90%) in weeks if centrifuge capacity is fully utilized.Why This MattersThe outcome will shape three critical arenas:Regional security: A stricter deal could curb Iran’s missile reach, reducing the threat to Israel’s “Iron Dome” and to Gulf‑state oil infrastructure.Global non‑proliferation: Allowing zero enrichment would set a precedent that could pressure other volatile states to accept similar terms, but it also risks driving Tehran underground if perceived as punitive.Economic stability: Lifting sanctions would revive Iran’s oil exports, potentially adding $20‑30 billion to global supply and influencing crude prices.Expert InsightAndreas Kreig warns that Tehran’s political climate has hardened; the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps now dominates strategic decision‑making, making concessions on sovereignty unlikely. While the United Nations resolution attached to the JCPOA prohibited missile work linked to nuclear delivery, the new U.S. demand for outright missile bans exceeds that framework and could stall talks.Economic incentives—rapid asset release and sanction relief—are the primary leverage for Washington. However, without a credible verification regime comparable to the JCPOA’s intrusive IAEA inspections, any “better” deal may lack enforceability, increasing the risk of clandestine enrichment.What Happens NextNegotiators are expected to convene in Islamabad within the next two weeks; the agenda will likely focus on enrichment thresholds and verification mechanisms.If talks stall, both sides may resort to further kinetic actions, as seen in recent strikes on Natanz, Isfahan and Bushehr facilities.International actors—EU, China, Russia—are poised to mediate, pushing for a compromise that balances sanctions relief with robust monitoring.Long‑term, the region’s stability hinges on whether the U.S. can deliver tangible economic benefits to Iran while securing verifiable limits on its nuclear and missile programs.

The Escalating Rhetoric Between Washington and TehranParliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf has stated that Iran is "prepared to reveal new cards on the battlefield" following United States President Donald Trump's threat to Tehran with "problems like they've never seen before" if the two-week ceasefire expires on Wednesday without a deal. This exchange of threats comes amid heightened tensions that have already disrupted the second round of US-Iran peace talks scheduled to take place in Pakistan.Geopolitical and Economic ImplicationsThe situation was further complicated when the US seized an Iranian-flagged vessel near the Strait of Hormuz over the weekend, angering Iranian authorities and provoking another surge in global oil prices. This action has significantly damaged the already fragile diplomatic environment, with Iran viewing the seizure as a violation of the ceasefire agreement. The Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for global oil supplies, has become a focal point of the conflict, with both sides demonstrating military readiness in the region.Regional Stability at RiskReporting from Tehran, Al Jazeera's Tohid Asadi noted that "there is no official confirmation on whether Iran is going to take part in talks in Islamabad," despite Iran attempting to "keep the door ajar to diplomacy." The situation presents a complex web of issues including the Strait of Hormuz, sanctions, war reparations, ballistic missiles, and Iran's regional relations. Both sides have presented long lists of demands, creating multiple sticking points that could derail any potential agreement and potentially lead to military confrontation.Path Forward Amid UncertaintyWhile Trump expressed confidence that Iran would negotiate, warning that otherwise "lots of bombs start going off," Iranian officials have made it clear they "do not accept negotiations under the shadow of threats." The international community watches closely as the ceasefire deadline approaches, with global oil markets already reacting to the uncertainty. The potential collapse of the ceasefire could have far-reaching consequences for regional stability and global energy markets, making a diplomatic resolution increasingly urgent despite the current impasse.

The United States has publicly acknowledged that its efforts to counter Iran’s regional influence are lagging behind initial expectations, a candid admission that underscores mounting challenges in a conflict that has stretched diplomatic, economic, and military tools to their limits.Key DevelopmentsSenior Pentagon officials stated the US is "pretty far behind" where it started in the war on Iran.Recent Iranian missile tests and proxy attacks have intensified, prompting calls for a recalibrated US response.Congressional hearings this week revealed gaps in intelligence sharing and procurement delays for advanced defense systems.Sanctions enforcement has faced loopholes, with several Iranian entities circumventing restrictions via third‑party jurisdictions.Data & Market ImpactUS defense spending on Middle‑East operations rose 12% in FY 2025, reaching $18.3 billion, yet procurement timelines slipped by an average of 8 months for key platforms.Oil prices have fluctuated within a $3‑$5 per barrel range since the admission, reflecting investor uncertainty over supply‑chain stability in the Gulf.Regional stock indices, notably the Saudi Tadawul, fell 1.4% following the statement, indicating market sensitivity to perceived US strategic weakness.Why This MattersRegional security: A delayed US response may embolden Iran to expand its proxy networks in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, altering the balance of power.Energy markets: Uncertainty around US commitment could trigger volatility in global oil supplies, affecting economies from Pakistan to Europe.Allied confidence: NATO and Gulf Cooperation Council partners rely on US leadership; perceived lag undermines joint deterrence frameworks.Expert InsightAnalysts attribute the lag to three intertwined factors: (1) bureaucratic inertia within the Department of Defense, which has struggled to integrate new cyber‑warfare capabilities; (2) diplomatic fatigue, as successive administrations have oscillated between engagement and containment, leaving a fragmented policy; and (3) sanctions evasion tactics that exploit loopholes in the global financial system, diluting the economic pressure on Tehran. The convergence of these issues suggests that without a unified strategy—combining rapid procurement, robust intelligence, and coordinated sanctions—the US risks ceding influence to Iran’s regional allies.What Happens NextCongress is expected to introduce a supplemental defense bill aimed at accelerating acquisition of next‑generation missile defense systems.The State Department may pursue a multilateral sanctions framework with the EU and Gulf states to close existing loopholes.Military planners are likely to increase joint exercises with regional partners to demonstrate resolve and improve interoperability.Watch for a potential diplomatic overture in the coming months, as Washington seeks to balance pressure with back‑channel negotiations to prevent escalation.

The Escalating US-Iran Standoff United States President Donald Trump has claimed a second round of negotiations with Iran will take place in Pakistan on Tuesday as mediators try to revive negotiations before the end of an ongoing yet fragile two-week ceasefire. The announcement on Sunday came alongside a sharp escalation in rhetoric. Trump warned that Iran must agree to a deal "one way or another – the nice way or the hard way" and threatened to target key infrastructure if negotiations fail. He also renewed his threat of striking "bridges and power plants", which experts said could amount to war crimes under international law. Iran, however, has so far denied it will participate in the talks, accusing the US of "armed piracy" after US forces struck and seized an Iran-linked tanker on Sunday, further heightening tensions between the longtime adversaries. US Position and Demands On Sunday, Trump announced that US negotiators would travel to the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, on Monday for talks aimed at ending the US-Israel war on Iran. In a social media post, the president did not say which officials would be sent to the talks. Last weekend's first round of talks, at which Vice President JD Vance led the US delegation, ended without a deal. Trump accused Iran of violating their two-week ceasefire, which is due to expire on Wednesday, by opening fire on Saturday in the Strait of Hormuz. The US president threatened to destroy civilian infrastructure in Iran if it doesn't accept the terms of the deal being offered by the US. "We're offering a very fair and reasonable deal, and I hope they take it because, if they don't, the United States is going to knock out every single power plant, and every single bridge, in Iran," Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. In a further escalation, Trump said an Iranian-flagged ship called the Touska was "stopped" by US forces in the Gulf of Oman "by blowing a hole in the engine room". He said it was trying to get past the US naval blockade of Iranian ports. US forces boarded the ship and took physical control of the vessel. Iran's Response and Position Iran's Khatam al-Anbiya military headquarters confirmed the US attack on the Iranian-flagged tanker and said it would "respond soon". Then, Iran's Tasnim News Agency reported that Iranian forces had sent drones in the direction of US military ships. Ebrahim Azizi, the head of the Iranian parliament's National Security Committee, told Al Jazeera that Iran's actions during talks with the US are strictly guided by national interests and security. When asked if Tehran intends to participate in the talks in Islamabad, he said, "Iran acts based on national interests." "We see the current negotiations as a continuation of the battlefield, and we see nothing other than the battlefield in this," he said. "If it yields achievements that sustain those of the battlefield, then the negotiation arena is also an opportunity for us … but not if the Americans intend to turn this into a field of excessive demands based on their bullying approach." Key Points of Friction Since the start of the war on February 28, a number of new sticking points have emerged – alongside old challenges: Strait of Hormuz Dispute A central dispute is over the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global shipping route linking the Gulf to the Arabian Sea. One-fifth of the world's oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies were shipped through the strait before the war began. Iran insists on sovereignty over the waterway, which lies within the territorial waters of Iran and Oman and does not fall into international waters, and stated that only "nonhostile" ships could pass. It has also floated the idea of levying tolls while Washington demands full freedom of navigation. After the war began, Iran in effect closed the strait by forbidding transits, attacking ships and reportedly laying sea mines. Shipping traffic has since dropped by 95 percent. A week ago, the US implemented a blockade of its own. Its Navy has been blocking Iranian ports to pressure Tehran to reopen the vital waterway, adding another obstacle to the talks. According to Rob Geist Pinfold, a lecturer in international security at King's College London, Trump's stance on the strait has shifted during the conflict and remains unclear. "We've had Trump say that he would be open to jointly controlling the Strait of Hormuz with Iran, where both sides collect a toll for shipping," Geist Pinfold noted, calling this "completely different to the demands of the US on paper but also the demands of the US's regional allies like the Gulf states and Israel, … who would regard any deal that entrenches Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz … as a stab in the back". "This isn't just between the US and Iran. It's about the US having to keep its regional allies on side," Geist Pinfold told Al Jazeera. Nuclear Enrichment Standoff Another core issue is Iran's nuclear programme, particularly its stock of enriched uranium. The US and Israel are pushing for zero uranium enrichment and have accused Iran of working towards building a nuclear weapon while providing no evidence for their claims. Iran has insisted its enrichment effort is for civilian purposes only. It is a signatory to the 1970 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). In 2015, the US was a signatory to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) under then-US President Barack Obama. In that agreement, Iran pledged to limit its uranium enrichment to 3.67 per cent, which is substantially below weapons grade, and to comply with inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to insure it wasn't developing nuclear weapons. In return, international sanctions on Iran were lifted. However, in 2018, during his first term, Trump withdrew the US from the JCPOA despite the IAEA saying Iran had complied with the agreement up to that point. In March 2025, Tulsi Gabbard, the US director of national intelligence, testified to Congress that the US "continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon". A month later, the IAEA estimated that Iran had 440kg (970lb) of 60-percent enriched uranium. While that is also below weapons grade, it is a short jump to achieve the 90-percent purity needed for atomic weapons production. On Sunday, in strongly worded comments, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said Trump had no justification to ⁠⁠"deprive" Iran of its nuclear ⁠⁠rights. Maryam Jamshidi, a law professor at the University of Colorado in Boulder, said Iran's position on enrichment is based on Article IV of the NPT, "which recognises that all state parties [to the treaty] have the inalienable right to research, develop and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes". "In demanding that Iran have no enrichment, the United States is denying Iran its rights under this treaty," she told Al Jazeera. "In insisting that its right to enrichment be preserved, Iran is expressing a reasonable desire to be treated the same as any other state under international law." Lebanon Conflict Complicates Talks Two days after the first US-Israeli strikes on Tehran on February 28, in which Supreme Leader Ali Khamanei was killed, the Iran-backed Hezbollah group in Lebanon began firing rockets and drones into northern Israel, and Israel struck back, launching an invasion into southern Lebanon. Iran is adamant that its ceasefire with the US extends to Lebanon and is demanding Israel end its offensive against its ally Hezbollah and its invasion of Lebanon. After initially denying the two-week ceasefire included Lebanon, Israel accepted a 10-day truce starting on Thursday night after direct Israel-Lebanon talks. However, that ceasefire is also teetering on collapse amid renewed hostilities. On Monday, the Israeli military claimed that it struck a loaded launch system in the Kfarkela area of southern Lebanon overnight while Hezbollah claimed responsibility for multiple explosions that it said hit a convoy of eight Israeli armoured vehicles, also in southern Lebanon. Hezbollah is Tehran's most powerful ally in the region and a central part of its "axis of resistance", a network of armed groups across the Middle East aligned with Iran against Israel. The network also includes Yemen's Houthis and a collection of armed groups in Iraq. Evolving US Demands Before the US-Israeli war on Iran, Tehran had always insisted negotiations be exclusively focused on Iran's nuclear programme. US demands, however, have extended beyond the nuclear file. Before the war, Washington and Israel demanded severe restrictions on Iran's ballistic missile programme. Iran has said its ability to maintain its missile capabilities is non-negotiable. On February 25, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned that Iran's refusal to discuss its missile programme was a "big problem". Yet, since the two-week ceasefire was announced on April 8 and the Pakistan-brokered negotiations began, the US has not made any mention of Iran's ballistic missiles, which have been a major feature in Iran's retaliation against US and Israeli forces. Regime Change and Proxy Support The US and Israel have also made no secret of their desire for a change in Iran's government. Asked two weeks before the war began if he wished for a toppling of the government in Tehran, Trump said: "Seems like that would be the best thing that could happen." After the killing of Khamenei and multiple other senior Iranian leaders, Trump claimed the US-Israel war had in effect brought about "regime change", claiming key leadership layers were "decimated". Experts, however, disputed Trump's assertions, saying the government was very much intact, if not stronger. Salar Mohandesi, a professor at Bowdoin College in Maine, argued that despite US claims, what is happening in Iran does not meet any serious definition of "regime change". "The fundamental structures of the Islamic Republic are intact, and the new leaders are regime loyalists who are arguably more hardline than their assassinated predecessors," he told Al Jazeera. Mohandesi said the war has arguably strengthened the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), something that is an "acceleration of an existing" trend and does not necessarily amount to regime change, "certainly not in the way Trump means it". "Trump's declaration that he has succeeded in 'regime change' is just a rhetorical move to try to claim victory where none exists," he added. Proxy Group Support Three days before the war began during his State of the Union address to the US Congress, Trump accused Iran and "its murderous proxies" of spreading "nothing but terrorism and death and hate". The US and Israel have long demanded Iran stop supporting its nonstate allies – primarily Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen and a number of groups in Iraq. Tehran to date has refused to enter into any dialogue about limiting its support for these armed groups. But on Friday, Trump claimed Iran had agreed to almost all of the US demands, including support for its proxies. A statement by Iran's Ministry of Foreign Affairs rejected that any such agreement was in place, saying: "The Americans talk excessively and create noise around the situation. Do not be misled!" Prospects for a Breakthrough On Sunday, Iran's top negotiator and speaker of its parliament, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, acknowledged that while "conclusions" had been reached on some issues, "we are far from a final agreement." Analyst Geist Pinfold told Al Jazeera that deep divisions between the US and Iran make a comprehensive deal unlikely in the near term despite some openings created by Trump's shifting positions. "The primary complication that would mean a deal is less likely but also one of the potential curveballs that would make a deal more likely is the Trump administration's equivocations regarding what its red lines actually are," he said. "At the moment, the gaps look insurmountable," Geist Pinfold added, noting that "the best-case scenario would be the extension of the ceasefire rather than the actual deal." The US-Iran talks face major structural obstacles despite growing speculation about a negotiated end to the current crisis, according to Bowdoin College's Mohandesi. "Donald Trump feels that he needs to somehow convert this disastrous defeat into some sort of win," he noted, adding: "It's unclear what that would look like at the negotiating table." On the Iranian side, Mohandesi sees little room for compromise on the core strategic issues. "Iran will absolutely not abandon its missile programme. It will not stop supporting its allies in the region, and it will almost certainly not agree to zero enrichment," he said. The academic questioned whether even a restoration of maritime traffic would constitute meaningful success for Washington. Even if Trump "were to somehow convince Iran to return the Strait of Hormuz to the pre-war status quo, it's unclear how that would be a major win since the strait was open before he started the war", Mohandesi said.