Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Palantir released a controversial manifesto on X that praised American dominance, called for a US draft, and warned that autonomous AI weapons are inevitable. British MPs denounced the post as "the ramblings of a supervillain" and renewed calls to review the company’s extensive UK public‑sector contracts, which total over £500 million and include a £330 million deal with the NHS, as well as contracts with the police and the Ministry of Defence. Key Developments Palantir’s 22‑point manifesto posted on X, urging US military draft and predicting AI weapons. MPs from Labour, Liberal Democrats and others label the manifesto a "parody of a RoboCop film". Calls intensify to halt or review Palantir’s UK contracts worth > £500 million. Specific contracts under fire: £330 million NHS data platform, police analytics, Ministry of Defence data work, and FCA financial‑regulation data access. Palantir defends its work, citing benefits to NHS operations, cancer diagnosis speed, Royal Navy uptime and domestic‑violence protection. Data & Market Impact Current UK public‑sector exposure: > £500 million (approx. 0.2% of UK government IT spend). The NHS contract alone represents a £330 million commitment, roughly 0.1% of the NHS’s annual IT budget. If contracts are suspended, Palantir could lose up to 5‑7% of its 2025‑26 revenue, given that UK public contracts account for a similar share of its global earnings. Potential reputational damage may affect future bids in other allied markets (Australia, Canada, EU). Why This Matters The controversy highlights the tension between national security interests and the ideological stance of a major US tech vendor. UK citizens’ data—health records, policing information and financial‑regulation intelligence—could be processed by a firm whose leadership openly advocates US‑centric geopolitical dominance. This raises privacy, sovereignty and democratic‑accountability concerns for the UK public, while also putting pressure on the government to reassess procurement policies for high‑risk technology. Expert Insight Analysts note that Palantir’s manifesto is less about policy persuasion and more about brand positioning for future defence contracts. By framing AI weapons as inevitable, the company signals readiness to supply the underlying data‑fusion platforms that militaries will need. However, the overt political tone clashes with the UK’s public‑sector procurement rules, which require vendors to demonstrate neutrality and respect for democratic values. The backlash therefore reflects a broader pushback against “tech‑nationalism” and may accelerate the UK’s move toward home‑grown alternatives or stricter vetting of foreign suppliers. What Happens Next Parliamentary committees are likely to hold further hearings on Palantir’s contracts, potentially leading to temporary suspensions. The UK government may issue a revised code of conduct for AI and data‑analytics providers, emphasizing ethical safeguards. Palantir could either tone down its public messaging to preserve market access or double‑down on its US‑first narrative, risking further exclusion from allied markets. Other tech firms with similar government contracts (e.g., Snowflake, Microsoft) may face increased scrutiny, prompting a sector‑wide review of ethical guidelines.

In a CNBC interview, Donald Trump said he would be "disappointed" if his Federal Reserve chair nominee, Kevin Warsh, does not cut interest rates as soon as he assumes office. The comment comes as Warsh prepares for a contentious Senate Banking Committee hearing, where his loyalty to the president and the independence of the Fed are expected to be scrutinized.Key DevelopmentsTrump publicly linked Warsh’s confirmation to an immediate rate‑cut agenda.Warsh faces a hearing today; Republican Senator Thom Tillis has pledged to block any Fed nominee until the Justice Department probe into former Chair Jerome Powell concludes.Democrats on the Banking Committee are urging a delay in the nomination pending investigations into Powell and Governor Lisa Cook.Warsh’s past ties to Jeffrey Epstein and his personal wealth are expected to be questioned.Data & Market ImpactFollowing Trump’s remarks, the 2‑year Treasury yield rose 5 basis points to 4.85%.U.S. equity markets slipped 0.6% as investors priced in higher borrowing costs.Bank‑stock futures fell 1.2%, reflecting concerns over potential policy‑driven rate cuts.Why This MattersThe president’s statement blurs the line between political objectives and monetary policy, threatening the long‑standing principle of Fed independence. A rate‑cut pledge could influence inflation expectations, affect mortgage and loan rates for consumers, and reshape capital‑raising costs for businesses across the United States.Expert InsightAnalysts warn that overt political pressure on the Fed risks eroding credibility, which could lead to higher long‑term yields as investors demand a risk premium for uncertain policy. Warsh’s confirmation would signal whether the Trump administration intends to embed a more activist stance within the central bank, potentially reshaping the Fed’s mandate beyond price stability.What Happens NextThe Senate Banking Committee hearing will test Warsh’s ability to reassure lawmakers of his commitment to independence.If Tillis and other Republicans withhold support, the nomination could stall, forcing the administration to propose an alternative candidate.Markets will continue to react to any indication of political interference, with bond yields likely remaining volatile until the nomination is resolved.

The latest Office for National Statistics figures show a headline drop in the UK unemployment rate, yet deeper labour‑market indicators reveal a fragile recovery that could be derailed by the ongoing Iran war and looming price shocks.Unemployment Drops Yet Labour Market Remains Fragile Amid Iran ConflictUnemployment fell to 4.9% in the three months to February, down from 5.2% in the previous quarter. While the headline suggests improvement, economists warn that the decline masks rising economic inactivity and a continued fall in pay‑rolled jobs, which were down 65,000 year‑on‑year in March.Numbers Reveal Slowing Job Creation and Wage StagnationUnemployment rate: 4.9% (Feb) vs 5.2% (previous quarter)Pay‑rolled jobs: –65,000 YoY (Mar)Total pay growth (3‑month to Feb): 3.8%, weakest since autumn 2020Private‑sector regular pay growth: 3.2%Real pay growth after inflation: 0.7%, lowest since mid‑2023Sanjay Raja, chief UK economist at Deutsche Bank, cautioned that “signs of weakness continue” beneath the headline figures. Peter Dixon of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research echoed concerns about limited wage‑price dynamics.Implications for Inflation, Consumer Spending, and Upcoming ElectionsWeak wage growth reduces the risk of a “second‑round” wage‑price spiral, potentially easing pressure on the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee. However, stagnant real wages heighten the cost‑of‑living squeeze for households, a factor that could influence voter sentiment in the imminent Scottish, Welsh and English local elections and increase scrutiny on Rachel Reeves to mitigate energy‑price impacts.Outlook: BoE Policy and Labour Market Through 2026Analysts expect the BoE to keep the policy rate at 3.75% for the near term, with at most one modest hike later in the year, as the labour market lacks the momentum to justify aggressive tightening. Forecasts also suggest unemployment may rise through 2026 as the Iran war’s economic fallout curtails growth.

Labour's ambitious green energy transition may become as historically significant as the creation of the NHS, offering a lasting legacy that could reshape Britain's energy landscape and political fortunes. Despite facing challenges in the upcoming general election, the party's commitment to homegrown clean energy represents a true "taking back control" from volatile international energy markets. Key Developments Ed Miliband, positioned as the "Nye Bevan of our day," has spearheaded this green revolution with unwavering determination. His vision includes a "sprint to build clean power at scale on the public estate" with accelerated adoption of solar energy and electric vehicles (EVs). This initiative comes in response to two devastating energy shocks in five years, positioning electrification as "the only route to financial security, energy security and national security." The government has already secured significant milestones: contracts for small modular reactors representing the biggest nuclear building program in half a century, renewable auctions enough to power 23 million homes, approval for the UK's largest solar project, and investments in hydrogen, floating wind, and wind turbine manufacturing. Data & Market Impact The UK's renewable energy transformation shows remarkable progress: Renewables have grown from generating 7% of electricity in 2010 to nearly 50% currently UK greenhouse gas emissions reached their lowest point since 1872 Wind generation increased by 38% in March 2026 compared to the previous year, saving £1 billion worth of gas imports Electric vehicles are now cheaper than petrol cars on average in the UK Octopus Energy reported a 50% rise in solar panel sales and 30% increase in heat pump sales The target to generate 95% of electricity from renewables by 2030 remains challenging but "within reach, provided the government stays the course," according to the independent Climate Change Committee. Why This Matters This green energy transition fundamentally impacts British households, businesses, and national security. For consumers, it promises to end the era of unpredictable energy bills that have devastated household budgets. Like the NHS removed uncertainty about healthcare costs, homegrown energy could stabilize energy pricing, transforming energy from a source of anxiety to national pride. From a national security perspective, reducing dependence on foreign oil and gas shields Britain from geopolitical volatility. Every solar panel, wind turbine, heat pump, and EV on British roads enhances the nation's security against international instability, whether from conflicts in the Middle East or unpredictable foreign leaders. The economic implications are substantial, with massive investments flowing into renewable technologies and manufacturing. This transition positions Britain as a clean energy superpower, potentially creating hundreds of thousands of jobs while meeting climate targets. Expert Insight Miliband's single-minded determination has made him Labour's most popular cabinet minister among party members, demonstrating that bold climate action can resonate politically. His success stems from framing environmental policy not as ideological "wokery" but as fundamental national defense against energy insecurity. The political landscape presents both opportunities and challenges. While 60% of the public supports net zero targets (including 48% of Tory voters), the government struggles with public perception of its energy policies. Democracy thinktank More in Common found public awareness of government efforts to reduce energy bills is "almost nonexistent," highlighting a significant communication gap. The political divide on climate policy has intensified, with Kemi Badenoch making her U-turn against 2050 net zero a defining stance, despite previously acknowledging green industries as "crucial to reaching net zero." This polarization contrasts with the growing consumer adoption of green technologies, suggesting a disconnect between political rhetoric and public behavior. What Happens Next The coming months will determine whether Miliband's vision achieves the public recognition it deserves. With Rachel Reeves announcing plans to decouple electricity prices from gas costs, the government is taking concrete steps to address energy pricing concerns. The success of this green energy revolution will depend on several factors: maintaining policy consistency despite economic pressures, overcoming nimby resistance to infrastructure projects, and effectively communicating the benefits to a skeptical public. If successful, this could become Labour's defining legacy—comparable to the NHS in its transformative impact on British society. The party faces the challenge of delivering tangible benefits quickly enough to influence electoral outcomes, while positioning Britain as a global leader in clean energy technology and security.

Voters in Virginia are casting ballots on a constitutional amendment that could fundamentally alter the state's congressional representation and influence the national balance of power. The measure aims to redraw the state's 11 congressional districts, potentially shifting the state's political landscape from a 6-5 split to a Democratic advantage.The Mechanics of the Virginia Redistricting AmendmentThe proposed constitutional amendment would allow the General Assembly to temporarily adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness ahead of the upcoming midterms. Currently, Virginia sends 11 members to the House of Representatives, with six Democrats and five Republicans.Current Balance: 6 Democrats, 5 RepublicansProposed Outcome: 8 safe Democratic seats, 2 leaning Democratic, 1 safe RepublicanIf approved, this map would significantly alter the state's political landscape, potentially giving Democrats up to 10 of the 11 seats. This represents a major strategic shift for a state that has recently trended Democratic but remains closely contested.Polling Data and the Financial BattlefieldThe race is expected to be razor-thin, with both sides investing heavily to sway the outcome. A recent poll by nonpartisan research group State Navigate suggests a small lead for supporters, with 53% in favor and 47% against.The financial stakes are equally high, with nearly $100 million spent on campaigning around the measure. This makes it one of the most expensive redistricting battles in recent history. The outcome is critical for the national political landscape, as the party that controls the House sets the legislative agenda and controls committee investigations.Why the Balance of Power in Washington Hangs on This VoteThe current US House is divided by just five seats, with Republicans holding a narrow 218–213 majority. Democrats view Virginia as a crucial battleground to regain control. High-profile figures including former President Barack Obama and House Speaker Mike Johnson have both heavily endorsed opposing sides, underscoring the national significance of this local vote.Control of the House determines which bills reach the floor, who serves on key investigative committees, and ultimately, who becomes Speaker. A successful redistricting effort in Virginia could provide Democrats with the cushion they need to secure a majority, while a defeat would likely entrench the current Republican control.The Future of Gerrymandering and the 2026 MidtermsThis vote is part of a broader national trend where voters are increasingly being asked to directly intervene in the redistricting process. Following similar battles in Texas and California, Virginia's decision could set a precedent for how future elections are drawn.While the proposal aims to restore fairness, it faces potential legal challenges regarding the ballot wording and the process used by lawmakers. If approved, the new maps could take effect as early as the 2026 midterms, potentially reshaping the electoral map for years to come. The outcome will be closely watched as a bellwether for the future of gerrymandering in American politics.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer publicly admitted that appointing former cabinet minister Peter Mandelson as UK ambassador to Washington was a mistake, but he refused to step down despite mounting pressure from opposition and within his own party. Key Developments Starmer told Parliament on 21 April 2026 that he would have withdrawn Mandelson’s appointment had he known the Foreign Office had ignored security officials’ advice. The appointment, announced in December 2024, saw Mandelson assume the post in February 2025 before being sacked seven months later. Documents released by a US Congressional committee revealed deeper ties between Mandelson and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, reigniting a scandal that already forced the resignation of Starmer’s former chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch accused Starmer of “throwing officials under the bus” and demanded accountability. The controversy erupts just three weeks before the UK’s local elections, where Labour is projected to lose significant council seats. Data & Market Impact Recent YouGov polling shows Labour’s national support slipping from 38% to 33% after the scandal broke, a 5‑point decline that narrows the party’s lead over the Conservatives. Financial markets reacted modestly; the FTSE 250 index fell 0.4% on the day of Starmer’s statement, reflecting investor caution over political instability. Local election forecasts now predict a 12‑seat loss for Labour in key swing councils such as Birmingham and Manchester. Why This Matters The episode highlights three critical risks for the UK: Government credibility: Missteps in diplomatic appointments erode public trust in the Prime Minister’s judgment and in the vetting processes of the Foreign Office. Electoral consequences: With local elections imminent, a weakened Labour brand could translate into reduced council control, limiting the party’s ability to showcase policy successes before the next general election. International relations: The ambassadorial blunder strains the UK‑US partnership at a time when coordinated action on security and trade is vital. Expert Insight Political analysts note that Starmer’s decision to stay put is a calculated gamble. By attributing blame to the Foreign Office, he attempts to shield his cabinet while preserving the narrative of “due process.” However, the rapid succession of resignations—chief of staff, senior civil servant Olly Robbins—suggests systemic failures in vetting that could fuel a leadership challenge from within Labour’s parliamentary ranks. Moreover, the timing of the scandal, coinciding with the local election cycle, amplifies its electoral damage, as voters often punish perceived incompetence at the ballot box. What Happens Next Potential leadership challenge: Discontented Labour MPs may trigger a confidence vote if polling continues to slide. Reshuffle or resignation: Starmer could opt for a cabinet reshuffle to demonstrate accountability, or he may eventually resign under pressure. Election impact: Labour’s local election campaign will likely pivot to damage control, emphasizing policy achievements over diplomatic controversies. Foreign Office reforms: Expect a parliamentary inquiry into security vetting procedures, potentially leading to stricter oversight mechanisms.

The fragile peace in Ethiopia is shattering as the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) has formally reinstated the Tigray Government Assembly, effectively nullifying the 2022 Pretoria Agreement and signaling a potential return to hostilities.The Collapse of the Pretoria FrameworkThe TPLF announced via Facebook that its central committee had decided to reinstate the suspended parliament, arguing that the federal government had violated the terms of the peace deal. The party accused the federal administration of withholding funds to pay civil servants and provoking armed conflict within the region. Getachew Reda, a senior TPLF figure, described this move as a "clear repudiation" of the post-war structure established by the African Union.Humanitarian Crisis MetricsThe region is facing a catastrophic recovery phase. The previous conflict resulted in at least 600,000 deaths and 5 million displaced persons. Furthermore, humanitarian assessments indicate that up to 80% of the population requires emergency support due to severe funding shortfalls, particularly following recent US aid cuts.Regional Instability and Diplomatic FalloutThe move threatens to reignite the complex web of alliances that defined the previous war, involving the Eritrean army. The breakdown in relations between the TPLF and Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, who ended the TPLF's decades-long dominance in 2018, suggests a deepening rift that could destabilize the Horn of Africa.Forecast: A Return to Conflict?Analysts predict a high probability of renewed clashes. With the suspension of the peace deal and the federal government accused of violating the Pretoria Agreement, the window for diplomatic resolution is closing. The international community faces a critical test in preventing a humanitarian catastrophe in Tigray as the conflict risks escalating beyond regional borders.

An Israeli soldier was captured on video using a sledgehammer to destroy the head of a Jesus Christ statue near Debl, south Lebanon. The image quickly spread on social media, provoking outrage across the United States and prompting a swift condemnation from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel’s foreign ministry. Key Developments Photo of statue destruction circulates online, sparking criticism from US right‑wing commentators and Christian groups. Prime Minister Netanyahu issues a statement condemning the act and orders a criminal probe. Republican figures such as Tucker Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz publicly denounce the incident. US public opinion polls show historic lows in support for Israel amid the Gaza war and related incidents. Calls from the Council on American‑Islamic Relations (CAIR) urge Congress to reconsider military aid to Israel. Data & Market Impact Israel receives $3.8 billion annually in US military assistance, a figure repeatedly cited by critics. Recent polls indicate support for Israel among US voters has fallen below 40%, the lowest level since the early 2000s. Oil prices spiked after President Donald Trump signaled possible US involvement in a conflict with Iran, illustrating how regional incidents can affect global markets. Why This Matters The desecration of a Christian symbol in a predominantly Christian region of Lebanon touches multiple fault lines: it challenges the narrative of Israel as a protector of Christians, fuels anti‑Israel sentiment among US evangelical voters, and adds pressure on lawmakers who approve billions in aid. The incident also underscores the broader pattern of attacks on places of worship, raising concerns about religious freedom in conflict zones. Expert Insight Analysts note that the rapid response from Netanyahu is atypical; Israel rarely disciplines soldiers for alleged misconduct in Gaza or the West Bank. This suggests a strategic move to mitigate diplomatic fallout in a climate where US bipartisan support is eroding. Moreover, the episode illustrates how social‑media amplification can force governments to address isolated incidents that would otherwise remain under the radar, especially when they intersect with domestic political debates over foreign aid and religious identity. What Happens Next Israel’s military investigation is expected to conclude within weeks, potentially leading to disciplinary action that could be used to signal accountability. US congressional committees may hold hearings on the broader pattern of attacks on religious sites, increasing scrutiny of the $3.8 billion aid package. Republican leaders who have traditionally backed Israel may face primary challenges from anti‑aid candidates, reshaping the party’s foreign‑policy stance. Continued incidents could further depress US public support for Israel, influencing future diplomatic and military engagements in the Middle East.

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.