Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

The US-Iran conflict, now in its fifth week, has escalated into a war of attrition with no clear strategy or end in sight. The US continues to hit Iranian targets while building up forces in the region, while Iran launches missile and drone attacks on Israel and neighboring Gulf states.The conflict has significant economic implications, with Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz causing oil prices to surge and disrupting global supply chains. The pain is likely to get worse, with shortages already felt across the world, from Asian factories to European diesel markets.The war should never have been started, with the threat not imminent, objectives unclear, and justification falling apart under scrutiny. Responsibility rests with Donald Trump and Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu. The delusion that force can impose a more compliant regime in Tehran has predictably given rise to a conflict that sustains itself.The only plausible exit is negotiation without preconditions. However, Mr. Trump mixes threats of escalation and claims that negotiations are progressing, with little evidence of a meaningful diplomatic track. The conflict cannot be separated from Gaza, where Mr. Netanyahu is gambling that war with Iran will restore his standing.If US ground forces are committed, the dynamic shifts, and American casualties will harden resolve among those who backed the intervention, making withdrawal politically harder. World powers can shift the incentives away from a US ground war by working together to insulate themselves from economic pain and coordinate diplomatic messaging.

The possibility of US ground troops being sent into combat on Iranian soil is growing, driven by President Trump's desire to avoid being personally and politically humiliated in a war he started, mismanaged, and cannot end. Such a self-serving escalation could prove catastrophic for Trump and the American people, given the history of US military interventions in the region.Trump insists that the war is all but won, Iran is suing for peace, and talks are making good progress. However, in the real world, Iran is still fighting on all fronts, Israel is still bombing, the Strait of Hormuz remains largely closed, and the Iran-allied Houthi militia in Yemen has joined the war, attacking Israel and potentially blocking Red Sea trade routes.The US and Iran have each issued maximalist demands, but there is no sign of actual negotiations. They are even further apart than they were before Trump, egged on by Benjamin Netanyahu, abandoned diplomacy last month. Sometime soon, Trump will be forced to confront the huge gap between what he wants and what's on offer. At that point, he could turn to the troop buildup in the Gulf and order ground attacks.It's incredible to think that after all the mortal agony and anguish of Iraq and Afghanistan, a US president is once again seriously contemplating boots on the ground in the Middle East. Trump's stumped, hoist by his own petard, stuck between a rock and a hard place, and up the creek without a paddle. The creek in question is, of course, the Strait of Hormuz.Trump is increasingly isolated and out on a limb. His wealthy Arab business cronies no longer trust him. US bases on their territory now resemble a liability, not a defence. When he demanded NATO's help, Europe said: we'll let you know. Likewise, Iran's ethnic Kurds are less than keen to die for a muppet. Support for the war among the US public and the Maga right, always weak, is a fast-vanishing mirage.If Trump were to order ground attacks – both he and Netanyahu have publicly discussed the possibility – the targets would most likely be the coastal batteries, missile defences, and concealed armed speedboat bases dotting the northern flank of the Hormuz strait. An attack on the Kharg oil export terminal further up the Gulf is also predicted.The inherent, inescapable military risks are daunting. Casualties would be inevitable. Even if operations went well in the short term, questions would immediately arise about potential escalation when Iran counterattacked, expansion of the operational area, and duration of the occupation.

The ongoing tensions between Israel and Iran have raised questions about Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's strategy and what his endgame might be. With the complex geopolitical landscape of the Middle East, Netanyahu's actions have significant implications for regional stability.Analyzing Netanyahu's moves, experts consider factors such as Iran's nuclear program and its support for various militant groups. The situation remains volatile, with potential for escalation.Understanding Netanyahu's goals and the potential consequences of his actions is crucial for assessing the future of Israel-Iran relations and the broader Middle Eastern peace.

Saudi Arabia has urged the US to ramp up attacks on Iran, a Saudi intelligence source has confirmed, while it is weighing a decision on whether to join the fight directly. The Saudi source confirmed reporting that the kingdom’s de facto leader, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, has urged Donald Trump not to cut short his war against Iran, and that the US-Israeli campaign represented a “historic opportunity” to remake the Middle East.The intelligence source said Riyadh was not just calling for the military campaign to be continued, but to be intensified. Trump appeared to confirm the report about the crown prince’s role, telling journalists on Tuesday: “Yeah, he’s a warrior. He’s fighting with us.”There are no reports of active Saudi military involvement in the nearly four-week-old war so far, but a Saudi political analyst said the kingdom was likely to take that step if current peace efforts led by Pakistan failed.“What matters now is Iran’s decision,” Mohammed Alhamed, a Saudi geopolitical analyst, said. “If Iran engages seriously, there is still a path to contain escalation. If it rejects the conditions and continues its attacks, the threshold for Saudi action will be crossed.”Alhamed added that Saudi Arabia “is not reacting impulsively”.“It is calibrating its response and preparing for a scenario where escalation, if it happens, will be deliberate and decisive,” he said, adding that Saudi Arabia “has not been pushing for war.”“It has been trying to avoid being drawn into it, while keeping all options on the table,” he said.Saudi Arabia has come under Iranian drone attack, as part of Tehran’s response to the US-Israeli attack on 28 February. One drone strike a week ago hit an oil refinery in Yanbu on Saudi Red Sea coast.The attack on Yanbu signalled an Iranian warning that it could also threaten that economic lifeline.“I believe that Saudi Arabia still maintains cautious neutrality in the Iran-Israel-US war,” Hesham Alghannam, a Saudi defence expert told Agence France-Presse. But he added: “If the Houthis strike Saudi assets, Riyadh may shift toward defensive coalition support or limited retaliation.”The crown prince solidified his hold on power by cultivating a close relationship with Trump, but will now have to rethink Saudi reliance on the US for its security, observers have argued.“MBS [Mohammed bin Salman] has lost the bet on all his investments over the last several years,” Ellie Geranmayeh, senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations said. “He financially invested in Trump and Trump’s family and his corporation and his White House, but at the end of the day the views of the Saudis and of the whole Gulf have been sidelined by the wishes of Benjamin Netanyahu.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made headlines with his recent statement, claiming to have 'broken boundaries in every sense of the word.' The assertion has garnered significant attention and sparked controversy, with many questioning the context and implications of his words.Netanyahu's statement comes at a time of heightened tensions in the region, with Israel facing criticism from various international quarters. The Prime Minister's boasts about achieving unprecedented milestones have raised eyebrows, with some analysts interpreting his comments as an attempt to bolster his political standing.The international community remains skeptical about Netanyahu's claims, calling for greater clarity on the specific achievements he is referring to. As the situation continues to unfold, it remains to be seen how Netanyahu's statements will impact Israel's relationships with neighboring countries and the global community at large.

Israel stands as the sole nation where overwhelming public support exists for the conflict with Iran, despite the profound impact on daily life. At least 15 people have been killed and hundreds injured by Iranian missiles since the war began in February, with school closures and missile warnings becoming routine. Polling indicates that more than 90% of Jewish Israelis back the war, a figure that sharply contrasts with international sentiment.The global perspective reveals a dramatically different picture. Nearly a month into the fighting, polling shows that 60% of the US public opposes the war with Iran, and just one in four Americans backed the initial strikes. In the Gulf, Europe and Asia, the conflict is widely unpopular as severe economic consequences begin to manifest.According to Emma Graham-Harrison, The Guardian's chief Middle East correspondent based in Jerusalem, many Jewish Israelis view themselves as under siege in a hostile world since the October 2023 massacre. This perception has led many to conclude that an aggressive security policy is the only way to ensure safety, regardless of international reaction.There's a prevailing sentiment in Israel that short-term suffering will lead to long-term security, despite security experts questioning whether Israel has a clear strategy to convert tactical achievements into lasting security. Life in Jerusalem remains restricted, with many working from home and limitations on businesses from cafes to gyms.The public support for the war has not translated into improved political fortunes for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who currently lags in polls for the upcoming general elections. While there is majority support for Netanyahu's decision to launch the war and his handling of it, even among those who don't want to give him another term, his coalition faces challenges in securing enough seats to return him to power.Some Israeli supporters of the war worry that Netanyahu's push to attack Iran has jeopardized the country's crucial relationship with the United States. Historically, Israel's foreign policy has been based on bipartisan ties, but Netanyahu has effectively abandoned that approach to cultivate an extremely close relationship with Trump.Israel's isolation is becoming increasingly apparent as the conflict continues. Unlike historical precedents where Israel achieved security through negotiated agreements with Jordan and Egypt, the current approach emphasizes military power above diplomatic solutions. This isolation is reflected in the fact that Israel may be the only place in the world with broad support for this war, with populations in Lebanon and Iran experiencing the conflict as horrific.

The traditional cold war diplomacy of brinkmanship, characterized by carefully balanced standoffs and rules-based international order, has given way to a world in freefall. This shift is exemplified by the ever-widening conflict in the Gulf where strategic objectives remain as unclear as the potential endpoint of hostilities.Approaching a month since the United States and Israel launched attacks on Iran, the stated objectives of removing the country's nuclear threat and destroying its ballistic missile capability appear increasingly disconnected from the disproportionate impact on civilians and neighboring Gulf nations. Despite these consequences, the Iranian regime's willingness to escalate the conflict shows no signs of diminishing.The Guardian Weekly's coverage examines this critical juncture through multiple perspectives. Patrick Wintour recounts the pivotal week when global tensions reached a tipping point, while Richard Partington analyzes the long-term economic implications of a prolonged conflict, from oil price fluctuations to inflationary pressures and economic growth impacts. From South Lebanon, William Christou reports on healthcare professionals caught in the crossfire of Israeli airstrikes, highlighting the human cost of the escalating violence.Emma Graham-Harrison provides insight from Jerusalem, examining Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's strategy of attempting to rehabilitate his image through what he frames as destruction of an 'axis of evil.' Meanwhile, Simon Tisdall poses a critical question: when US President Donald Trump eventually seeks to halt the conflict, will any parties be willing to heed his calls for de-escalation?Beyond the primary geopolitical focus, this week's Guardian Weekly edition explores several significant developments across different sectors. The UK political landscape features an examination of the upcoming local elections, where voter sentiment appears increasingly focused on rejecting established parties rather than actively supporting alternatives. The scientific section explores innovative approaches to addressing snoring disorders through CPAP machines, while the culture section features an in-depth interview with Dave Grohl discussing Foo Fighters, personal challenges, and grief following the loss of bandmate Taylor Hawkins.In sports, the publication celebrates the remarkable achievement of British athletes Keely Hodgkinson, Georgia Hunter Bell, and Molly Caudery, who each secured gold medals at the world indoor athletics championships in Poland, showcasing British excellence in track and field events.

Israeli analysts are expressing a sense of disappointment and confusion following US President Donald Trump's assertion that negotiations with Iran to de-escalate the conflict are ongoing. This comes as a surprise, given Trump's previous threats to launch strikes against Iran's energy infrastructure and Tehran's denials of any negotiations taking place.The situation has left many in Israel questioning the country's role in the conflict, particularly as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had framed the war as an existential threat to Israel, with the US joining forces to combat Iran. Netanyahu has boasted of convincing the US to support Israel's stance against Iran.In a video statement, Netanyahu mentioned that Trump believed it was possible to leverage the military achievements of both the US and Israel to secure an agreement that would safeguard their vital interests. He emphasized that Israel continues to attack Iran and Lebanon, methodically dismantling Iran's missile and nuclear programs and targeting Hezbollah.Despite Netanyahu's assertions, many Israelis are aware that the war was initially presented as an effort to overthrow the Iranian government and eliminate the threat from the country. With the Islamic Republic still standing and Iran launching deadly attacks on Israel, the prospect of a negotiated end to the conflict is unsettling.Former Israeli ambassador Alon Pinkas suggested that if Trump has pushed for negotiations over Netanyahu's objections, it may indicate that the US president has realized Netanyahu may have misled him about the feasibility and speed of a victory and the viability of regime change in Iran.Political scientist Ori Goldberg described Trump's move as a defeat for Netanyahu, essentially ditching Israel. He noted that this development undermines Israel's status as a serious player that the US or other states would want to engage with.The situation highlights the complex dynamics between Israel, the US, and Iran, with analysts suggesting that even if Israel has been sidelined in current negotiations, it has still achieved significant gains in its fight against Iran. Israeli political analyst Nimrod Flashenberg noted that Israel's primary goal may have been to downgrade Iran's military capabilities, which it has accomplished in a way that ensures long-term US commitment to maintaining this status.

The ongoing conflict between the United States and Iran has sparked concerns about the motivations behind Donald Trump's continued military actions. Kenneth Roth, a Guardian US columnist and former executive director of Human Rights Watch, draws a striking parallel between Trump's approach and that of Richard Nixon during the Vietnam War. Nixon's quest for 'peace with honor' in Vietnam led to years of devastation, resulting in over 20,000 American soldiers killed and a significantly higher toll among Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Laotian civilians. Similarly, Trump's conflict with Iran appears to be driven by a desire to assert dominance and protect his political reputation, rather than a clear military objective. The article questions the rationale behind Trump's continued bombing of Iran, citing claims that Iran's ballistic missile capacity has been functionally destroyed and its nuclear program 'obliterated.' With 7,000 Iranian protesters killed in January, the Trump administration's call for regime change seems unlikely to succeed. The current fixation on Iran's blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, which carries 20% of the world's oil and gas, has led to soaring petroleum prices. Trump's threat to destroy Iran's electrical infrastructure by the end of the week, unless Tehran agrees to allow the strait to reopen, raises concerns about war crimes and humanitarian consequences. Roth suggests that a de facto ceasefire, where Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu stop bombing, could be a more fruitful path to deescalation. However, Trump's desire for 'unconditional surrender' and the Iranian regime's insistence on lifting sanctions and affirming its right to nuclear enrichment complicate negotiations. The article concludes that Trump's pursuit of 'honor' and 'victory' in the conflict may come at a significant cost to the people of Iran, the global economy, and the United States itself, echoing the lessons of the Vietnam War.