Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Donald Trump's open threats to commit war crimes in Iran have raised concerns about his impunity. The US Supreme Court's recent ruling in Trump v United States has given him reason to believe he can act with impunity within the US. However, there are international options for prosecution that lie beyond the court's lawless license.Trump's plan to bomb Iran and destroy civilian infrastructure, such as desalination plants, electrical-generating facilities, and bridges, would violate international humanitarian law's rule of proportionality. The destruction of civilian infrastructure would have a disproportionate impact on civilians, and therefore, it is not justified.The International Criminal Court (ICC) has charged Russian military commanders with war crimes for attacking electrical infrastructure in Ukraine. Similarly, Trump's actions could be prosecuted as war crimes. However, the ICC has no jurisdiction over crimes committed on Iranian territory since Iran is not a member of the ICC.There are alternative routes for prosecution. The Iranian government could join the ICC and grant it retroactive jurisdiction, similar to what Ukraine did to allow prosecution of Russian war crimes. Additionally, under the concept of universal jurisdiction, governments can use their national courts to prosecute certain crimes even if committed by non-nationals abroad.A group of countries, such as the European Union, NATO, or the G7, could establish an international tribunal to address crimes committed in Iran, including war crimes and aggression. This would allow Trump to be prosecuted as soon as the tribunal is established, without waiting for him to leave office.

Amid growing international focus on the Iran‑Israel conflict, Israel is pressing ahead with a systematic annexation of the West Bank, centred on the contentious E1 settlement project. The plan envisions the construction of 3,400 new homes on Palestinian land, a move designed to split the territory and undermine the viability of a future Palestinian state. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has publicly condemned the annexation drive, labeling the E1 scheme illegal. Although the war in Iran and Israel’s military actions in southern Lebanon have delayed the release of construction tenders, officials confirm that the tenders will be issued on 1 June. Criticism from the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Italy has so far failed to deter the Israeli government, which appears accustomed to rhetorical rebukes without concrete repercussions. As former EU officials note, the Union has yet to leverage its economic and diplomatic weight to stop the settlement expansion. The British Prime Minister has reaffirmed the stance of the International Court of Justice, declaring the 1967 occupation of Gaza, East Jerusalem and the West Bank unlawful. This follows the United Kingdom’s formal recognition of the State of Palestine last year, alongside France, Canada and Australia. Given its historic ties and recent diplomatic recognitions, the UK is uniquely positioned to galvanise European and Commonwealth partners. Experts propose a three‑pronged approach: first, issue a clear warning that any contractor involved in designing, building or financing the E1 settlement jeopardises its commercial interests with the UK; second, impose a comprehensive ban on UK trade in goods, services and investment linked to the settlements; and third, suspend the trade concessions granted under the UK‑Israel trade and partnership agreement for breaching its human‑rights provisions. New Prime Minister Keir Starmer is urged to embed these measures within a broader strategy to strengthen European cooperation, champion equal rights, and secure mutual security for Israelis and Palestinians. Without enforceable consequences, the illegal settlement programme is likely to expand, heightening the risk of further violence. Vincent Fean – former consul‑general in JerusalemDavid Hannay – former UN ambassadorAnn Grant – former high commissioner to South AfricaEmyr Jones Parry – former UN ambassadorDavid Manning – former US ambassadorDavid Richmond – former FCO director generalPeter Westmacott – former US ambassadorJeremy Greenstock – former UN ambassadorFrances Guy – former Lebanon ambassadorPeter Millett – former Jordan ambassadorDerek Plumbly – former Egypt ambassadorEdward Clay – former Kenya high commissionerTony Brenton – former Russia ambassadorWilliam Patey – former Afghanistan ambassadorColin Budd – former Netherlands ambassadorAnthony Cary – former Canada high commissionerAlan Charlton – former Brazil ambassadorEdward Chaplin – former Iraq and Jordan ambassadorPeter Collecott – former Brazil ambassadorRichard Dalton – former Iran ambassadorMichael Hone – former Iceland ambassadorNicholas Hopton – former Iran ambassadorPeter Jenkins – former UN (Vienna) ambassadorRupert Joy – former EU ambassador to MoroccoRobin Kealy – former Tunisia ambassadorRobin Lamb – former Bahrain ambassadorAnthony Layden – former Morocco ambassadorRichard Makepeace – former UAE ambassadorMark Matthews – former Chad ambassadorRichard Northern – former Libya ambassadorChristopher Segar – former Iraq ambassadorAdrian Sindall – former Syria ambassador

A group of 32 former UK ambassadors and high commissioners has urged the UK government to take action against companies bidding to build an illegal Israeli settlement in the West Bank. The planned E1 settlement, which would involve the construction of 3,400 houses on "Palestinian soil," is part of Israel's "systemic West Bank annexation."The letter, published in the Guardian, calls for a UK trade ban on settlement products and services, as well as "suspending trade concessions with Israel for its breach of the human rights provision in the UK-Israel trade and partnership agreement."The E1 plan, which has been on hold for two decades, poses an "existential threat" to the future of the two-state solution. Critics argue that it would extend the existing Jewish settlement of Ma'ale Adumim towards Jerusalem, further cutting occupied East Jerusalem from the West Bank, and further separating the north and south of the territory.Keir Starmer has stated that the Israeli settlements, including the E1 settlement, are a "flagrant breach of international law" and threaten the viability of a two-state solution. The UK government has recommended that "settlement products are labelled so that consumers are informed."The letter calls for Britain to lead the way in taking action against the Israeli settlement plans. "Britain is ideally fitted, both by that decision and its historic responsibilities in the region, to give a lead to like-minded European and Commonwealth partners," it states.

Iranian officials have urged young people to form human chains around the country's power plants, as tensions escalate with the US and Israel. The call to action comes as US President Donald Trump threatens massive strikes on civilian infrastructure if Iran doesn't reopen the Strait of Hormuz.Iranian media showed people gathering outside electricity stations, waving Iranian flags and holding up banners. In Dezful, people gathered on a 1,700-year-old bridge. The country's president, Masoud Pezeshkian, said 14 million people had signed up to fight for their country and declared their readiness to sacrifice their lives in defence of Iran.The US and Israel carried out waves of preparatory strikes that appeared to knock off course the chances of a last-minute ceasefire deal before Trump's 8pm ET (1am BST) deadline for Iran to reopen the strait. Attacks on civilian infrastructure amount to war crimes, legal experts say.Alireza Rahimi, identified by Iranian state television as the secretary of the Supreme Council of Youth and Adolescents, issued a video message calling on young people to form human chains around power plants. He asked them to gather on Tuesday at 2pm around the power plants, which he described as national assets and capital.Iran has formed human-chain demonstrations, also known as human shields, in the past around its nuclear sites at times of heightened tensions with the west. A man in Tehran said his household had collected basic necessities and equipment to charge their mobile phones, in preparation to flee the capital if necessary.The indirect negotiations between the US and Iran are continuing, largely by passing messages through Pakistan. However, the intermediaries said they feared that Israel was bombing the chances of reaching an agreement.

The ongoing conflict between the US and Iran has raised concerns about the protection of civilians in war. Donald Trump's threats to bomb civilian infrastructure, including power stations, desalination plants, and bridges, have been widely criticized as potential war crimes. In a recent statement, Trump doubled down on his threat, saying that a whole civilization will die if his demands are not met. This rhetoric has sparked fears of a humanitarian crisis and raised questions about the US's commitment to protecting civilians in war.Historically, the protection of civilians has been a cornerstone of international law. The Geneva Conventions, established in 1949, clearly state that civilian objects shall not be the object of attack or reprisals. The US has a long tradition of upholding these principles, dating back to the Lieber Code of 1863, which established protocols for the protection of the innocent during the Civil War.The article argues that protecting civilians is not a sign of weakness, but rather a sign of strength and self-discipline. It cites examples of leaders who have prioritized humanitarian concerns in times of war, including President Franklin D. Roosevelt's vision for a world united around democratic values and international organizations. In contrast, Trump's approach has been criticized for its lack of nuance and disregard for humanitarian concerns. The article notes that the US must distinguish between military targets and civilian infrastructure, and that cyber-attacks and other non-lethal methods should be used whenever possible to minimize harm to civilians.Ultimately, the article concludes that upholding American values and international law is essential to maintaining global stability and preventing humanitarian crises. By prioritizing the protection of civilians, the US can demonstrate its commitment to humanitarian principles and show that it is capable of fighting wars with greater purpose and a plan for peace.

The recent Artemis II mission, which sent astronauts to the far side of the moon, has sparked reflection on the dual implications of space travel. US astronaut Christina Koch encapsulated the profound appreciation for Earth that comes from experiencing it from space, echoing sentiments expressed by earlier space travellers.The Earthrise photograph from the Apollo 8 mission in 1968 is often credited with galvanizing the environmental movement. Similarly, journeys like Artemis II are hoped to foster global cooperation and a deeper appreciation for life. However, the current landscape of space exploration is complicated by the involvement of tech billionaires like Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk and the emerging post-terrestrial geopolitical battle between the US and China.There is a growing concern that the £100bn Artemis programme could divert attention and resources away from solving pressing environmental issues on Earth. This concern is particularly pertinent given that the US withdrew from the Paris climate agreement in the same year as the mission. The pursuit of space exploration must be balanced with the imperative to address ecological limits and protect the planet we currently inhabit.Despite these challenges, the unquenchable human curiosity and scientific value of space travel should not be dismissed. The Artemis II launch was made possible by a rare display of bipartisan support for NASA in Congress. The achievements of the scientists, astronauts, and support teams are a testament to the positive aspects of space exploration.The mission to the moon's dark side, while not a solution to the world's problems, represents a significant scientific and exploratory milestone. The crew has seen more of the moon and travelled further from Earth than anyone before them. As the world watches their return and landing in the Pacific Ocean, it's clear that space exploration continues to captivate and inspire, even as it poses complex questions about our priorities and responsibilities.

The recent Winter Olympics in Milano Cortina showcased the thrilling use of high-speed camera drones, bringing viewers up close to the action. However, this technology has a darker side, as it is also being used in the US military's drone strikes in Iran. The seamless transition from drone-supplied footage of Olympic excellence to drone-supplied footage of war crimes has felt genuinely jarring. The connection between drone racing and drone strikes is not coincidental. Professional drone racing emerged around a decade ago, with the Drone Racing League (DRL) being a prominent competition. The US air force was a longtime sponsor of the DRL, using the competition as a scouting ground to recruit new pilots. The league's emphasis on high-speed, first-person view drones has contributed to the development of technology now used in military contexts. The current conflict in Iran highlights a disturbing trend: the militarization of sports culture. The Trump administration's approach to the war, including the use of Hollywood and gaming imagery in its videos, reflects a broader cultural shift. The US military's actions are being presented as a form of entertainment, with two-minute video montages of "stuff blowing up" being used to brief the president on the war's progress. This phenomenon is not limited to the administration; the language of sports is increasingly being used in discussions of war. Politicians like Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth are using sports-like terminology to describe military actions, reflecting a degeneration of language in global diplomacy. The Trumpian trash talk has degraded the discourse, with the president's tweets about the war being characterized by their usual boorishness. The article concludes that the culture of sports is central to the chaos unfolding across the Middle East. The blurring of lines between war and sport reflects a deeper societal issue, where the values of competition and entertainment are taking precedence over human life and dignity. As the world teeters on the edge of a military and economic catastrophe, the need for a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between sports, technology, and warfare has never been more pressing.

Mexico is facing a severe 'toxic crisis' due to the importation of hazardous waste from the US, according to a UN expert. Marcos Orellana, the UN special rapporteur on toxics and human rights, conducted an 11-day investigative mission in Mexico and found lax environmental standards and a lack of oversight, leading to the accumulation of pollution over the years. Orellana warned that over 1,000 contaminated locations are officially recorded in Mexico's National Inventory of Contaminated Sites, many of which have become 'sacrifice zones' where diseases such as cancer and medical events like miscarriages are normalized. He cited factories spewing hazardous waste into the Atoyac River in Puebla, huge industrial pig farms contaminating drinking water on the Yucatan peninsula, and a decade-old mining chemical spill affecting health in communities around the Sonora River. The expert emphasized that US overconsumption and economic activity are using Mexico as a 'garbage sink'. He proposed that Mexico could adopt restrictions on the import of hazardous waste as a measure to address part of the crisis. Some countries have chosen to ban such imports to avoid becoming destinations for international waste. Residents in Monterrey, which suffers from some of the worst air pollution in North America, welcomed the rapporteur's calls for more attention to the health of Mexico's people. Local activists and childcare center directors highlighted the dire health effects on communities, including respiratory illnesses and other health issues. Mexico's government has acknowledged that regulatory standards are out of date and has announced plans to strengthen them. Officials are rolling out a new air monitoring system to detect emissions from specific facilities, starting in an industrial corridor of Monterrey.

The Artemis II crew, fresh from a record‑breaking lunar flyby, received an unexpected call from former President Donald Trump on Monday night. Facilitated by NASA administrator and Trump ally Jared Isaacman, the 12‑minute conversation was punctuated by long silences, anecdotes about Canadian hockey legend Wayne Gretzky, and the president’s claim that he had "saved NASA" from closure. Trump’s assertion sparked eyebrows among the astronauts, who had just set a new milestone as the farthest‑traveled humans from Earth. The president recounted a decision he allegedly faced in his first term: whether to revive or shut down the agency. "We’ve spent what we had to do," he said, implying the agency’s survival rested on his judgment. While Trump has publicly championed the Artemis program, his administration has repeatedly pursued deep cuts to NASA’s overall budget. In early 2025, the White House proposed a 24% reduction—bringing the budget down to $18.8 billion, the lowest level in a decade. Experts warned such cuts would constitute "extinction‑level" reductions to critical science programs. Congress, in a rare bipartisan move, rejected the proposed slashing and approved a near‑full budget of $24.4 billion in January. Yet, on 3 April 2026—just two days after Artemis II launched on the first crewed mission beyond low‑Earth orbit in over 50 years—Trump unveiled his FY 2027 budget request, again proposing a steep cut of 23% to NASA’s funding. Democratic leaders denounced the proposal as "morally bankrupt," while Isaacman issued a statement supporting the president’s fiscal stance, urging NASA staff to "leave the politics for the politicians and remain focused on the mission." During the call, Trump praised the crew’s "incredible journey into the stars" and claimed their mission had "inspired the entire world." He reiterated America’s ambition to lead space exploration, promising a permanent lunar base and eventual crewed missions to Mars. The conversation also featured a brief exchange with Canadian astronaut Jeremy Hansen, who highlighted the United States’ "intentional decision" to lead by example and collaborate with allies like Canada. Trump responded by recalling conversations with Gretzky, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, and other Canadian friends, emphasizing national pride. After a minute of awkward silence, Isaacman returned for a "comm‑check," and Trump reiterated his stories about Canadian contacts. The Artemis II commander, Reid Wiseman, acknowledged the president’s remarks with a polite, "Yes, Mr. President, we heard that." Trump concluded by extending an invitation to the four astronauts for an Oval Office reception following their scheduled splashdown in the Pacific on Friday. "I’ll ask Jared to bring you over, and I’ll ask for your autograph, because you deserve that," he said, adding he would "find the time" to salute the crew on behalf of the American people. Pilot Victor Glover responded enthusiastically, "When you want us, we will be there," and thanked the president for what he called a "really special" call. He highlighted the mission’s significance, noting it was made possible by both the American and Canadian peoples.