Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

A French court has fined Lafarge, a French cement maker, more than €1m (£870,000) and sentenced its former boss, Bruno Lafont, to six years in prison for paying protection money to Islamic State and other terror groups to maintain its business in war-torn Syria from 2013 to 2014.The ruling follows a 2022 case in the United States in which Lafarge pleaded guilty to conspiring to provide material support to US-designated “terrorist” organisations and agreed to pay a $778m fine (£580m). This was the first time a company had faced the charge.The Paris court found that Lafarge, which is now part of the Swiss conglomerate Holcim, paid nearly €5.6m via its subsidiary Lafarge Cement Syria (LCS) to terror groups and intermediaries to keep its plant operating in northern Syria.The company’s former chief executive, Bruno Lafont, was sentenced to six years in prison for financing terrorism, which a judge ordered him to start serving immediately. Lafont’s lawyer said he would appeal.The presiding judge, Isabelle Prevost-Desprez, said: “This method of financing terrorist organisations, and primarily IS, was essential in enabling the terrorist organisation to gain control of Syria’s natural resources, allowing it to finance terrorist acts within the region and those planned abroad, particularly in Europe.”Lafarge established a “genuine commercial partnership with IS”, she said, which added to the “extreme gravity of the offences”.Lafarge had finished building a $680m factory in Jalabiya in 2010, just before Syria’s civil war erupted in March the following year amid opposition to the brutal repression of anti-government protests by the then president, Bashar al-Assad.While other multinational companies left Syria in 2012, Lafarge evacuated only its expatriate employees and left its Syrian staff in place until September 2014, when IS seized control of the factory.In 2013 and 2014, LCS paid intermediaries to access raw materials from the Islamic State organisation and other groups and to allow free movement for the company’s trucks and employees. It paid groups including Islamic State and Syria’s then al-Qaida affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra.

According to the latest Tottenham Hotspur financial statements, former executive chair Daniel Levy received £5.76 million in remuneration for the year ending 30 June 2025. That figure represents a 54% increase on his 2024 earnings and, as noted by football‑finance analyst Kieran Maguire, made him the highest‑paid director in the Premier League for the season. In stark contrast, the club’s women’s team—comprising 64 players and staff—had a combined salary and bonus total of £3.73 million, a 23% rise from the previous year. After accounting for social security and pension contributions, the overall wage bill reached £4.3 million, with an average annual earnings of roughly £58,000 per employee. This places Tottenham Women below several WSL rivals that have disclosed their 2024‑25 accounts, such as Brighton (£5 million), Manchester United (£5.88 million), and Arsenal (£11.3 million), but above Liverpool (£3.12 million). The women’s side recorded a post‑tax loss of £2.83 million, marginally higher than the £2.73 million loss reported in 2024. The deficit persisted despite a notable surge in commercial revenue, which more than doubled from £1.46 million to £3.34 million. Broadcast income remained static at £267,414, while prize‑money earnings fell by approximately £600,000. On the pitch, Tottenham Women finished the 2024‑25 campaign in 11th place in the Women’s Super League. However, the current 2025‑26 season shows a marked turnaround, with the team sitting fifth with three matches remaining and having nearly doubled their league victories compared with the previous term. Sources indicate that an internal review has repositioned women’s football as a strategic priority for the club, a shift that is expected to be reflected in the forthcoming 2025‑26 accounts.

The ongoing global finance talks between the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank Group (WBG) have taken a contentious turn. Governments are being urged not to mention climate change, despite its growing impacts and the pressing need for climate finance.The climate crisis has significant implications for developing countries, which are already paying billions to repair damage from droughts, floods, and storms. The World Bank Group aims to devote 35% of its funding to climate-related activities, but US pressure may hinder these efforts.US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has demanded the removal of some climate finance targets from the World Bank's aims, insisting on an 'all-of-the-above approach to energy' that includes financing for gas, oil, and coal. This move has sparked alarm among other countries, including large developed economies.Experts warn that sidelining climate change discussions would be disastrous for the developing world. Mohamed Adow, director of the Power Shift Africa thinktank, described the situation as 'beyond absurd', emphasizing that fossil fuels and the climate emergency are inextricably linked.The World Bank is the biggest single source of climate funding, and many donor countries channel their climate finance largely through the multilateral development banks. At the Cop29 UN climate summit in Azerbaijan in 2024, countries agreed that at least $1.3tn a year should flow to the developing world by 2035 to help countries cut greenhouse gas emissions and cope with the impacts of extreme weather.Lord Stern, a former World Bank chief economist, suggested that much could still be achieved without formally labelling projects as climate-related, emphasizing that investing in low-carbon infrastructure and energy systems is crucial for sustainable development.

While the two‑week pause in the US‑Israel campaign against Iran remains uncertain, one constant is clear: Donald Trump lacks a concrete plan, but Benjamin Netanyahu does. The war’s stated aim – to cripple Iran’s state capacity – is only a stepping stone toward a larger vision of a Greater Israel. For Israel’s right‑wing, the phrase often evokes a purely territorial ambition: enlarging the land Israel claims. History shows this expansionist drive has repeatedly displaced Palestinians, a process that has accelerated dramatically in recent years. Since the war began, Israel has flattened Gaza, killing tens of thousands and reducing the civilian‑inhabitable area to roughly 12 % of its pre‑war size. In the West Bank, a wave of settlement expansion and property destruction rivals the scale of the 1967 conflict. Beyond the occupied territories, Israel has seized parts of Syria and is forging a de‑facto occupation zone in southern Lebanon, with ministers from Religious Zionism, Jewish Power and Likud openly demanding Israeli sovereignty there. Finance minister Bezalel Smotrich even called for an expansion “to Damascus,” and Netanyahu has publicly expressed a deep personal connection to this territorial vision. However, Greater Israel is as much a geopolitical and strategic construct as a land‑grab. Netanyahu’s ambition extends beyond occupying borders; he seeks a regional dominion built on new alliances and hard‑power dependencies. After the October 7 attacks and the ensuing Gaza devastation, Israel’s prospects for Arab‑state normalization stalled. Faced with a choice between a conciliatory approach and a zero‑sum rejection of a Palestinian future, Netanyahu chose the latter, aiming to eliminate Iran as a regional counterweight – a move that inevitably required massive US military involvement. Former Israeli security analysts note that, from the perspective of Sunni Gulf states, a weakened Iran would elevate Israel to the role of “dominant regional power.” Achieving this, according to the article, also means softening the Gulf Cooperation Council (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE) and making them dependent on Israel for security and energy routes. The spill‑over of Iranian drone and missile attacks on GCC infrastructure is portrayed not as an accident but as a calculated element of Israel’s strategy. When the US‑Israel coalition struck Iranian energy sites, Iran retaliated against the Gulf, disrupting global oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz. Netanyahu seized the moment to propose “alternative routes” – oil and gas pipelines that would bypass Hormuz and Bab‑al‑Mandab, ending at Israeli Mediterranean ports. In a meeting with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Netanyahu outlined a “hexagon of alliances” linking India, Arab nations, African states, Greece, Cyprus and other Asian partners, positioning Israel as the central hub. Recent IDF strategy papers echo this, suggesting Israel could achieve “operational control” far beyond its borders without permanent occupation, likening the Middle East to a “jungle” where Israel would become the “queen.” Netanyahu now describes Israel not merely as a “regional superpower” but, in some contexts, as a “global superpower.” He promises the hexagonal alliance will confront a “radical Shia axis” and an “emerging radical Sunni axis,” with Turkey singled out as the next strategic threat. Dismissal of the Greater Israel rhetoric as wartime hyperbole would be misleading. The article warns that a permanent war‑oriented mindset permeates Israel’s political elite, security establishment and media, posing a risk of overreach and regional blowback. Containing this expansive vision may become one of the most pressing post‑war challenges for the Middle East.

Rising energy costs stemming from the Iran war are set to deliver a sharp blow to British living standards, with the Resolution Foundation estimating that the average working‑age household could lose about £480 in income this year. Before the conflict began, the think‑tank projected a modest 0.9% rise in household earnings. Market‑driven energy price spikes have now pushed that forecast into a -0.6% decline, effectively turning a gain into a loss. Oil and gas markets have reacted dramatically: Brent crude has surged back above $100 per barrel (£74), while analysts such as JPMorgan Chase expect prices to stay elevated through the current quarter, with Goldman Sachs revising its Brent outlook to an average of $90 per barrel in Q2. For the poorest fifth of households, the outlook is equally grim. Expected income growth has been trimmed from 2.8% to 1.2%, despite a long‑overdue real‑terms increase in benefits for some low‑income families. Families with three or more children stand out as a relative bright spot. The abolition of the two‑child limit is projected to generate a 7.7% income boost for this group, contrasting with zero growth for poorer families with fewer children. Energy bills are also poised to climb this summer, erasing the £117 average savings households enjoyed after the regulator lowered the energy price cap in April, according to Jonathan Marshall, the foundation’s principal economist. In response, the Resolution Foundation is urging the UK government to fast‑track a social tariff before winter, aiming to shield the most vulnerable households from the worst of the price shock. James Smith, chief economist at the foundation, warned that “while hopes for sustained peace persist, the path of this conflict remains uncertain and energy prices stay well above pre‑war levels, meaning many households face a decline in purchasing power this year.” He added that “de‑escalation is welcome, but the damage to household finances is already largely done; the government should act now to prepare a social tariff that reaches households falling through the cracks this winter.”

Polls have closed in Benin, with Finance Minister Romuald Wadagni expected to emerge victorious in the presidential election. Wadagni received the endorsement of former President Patrice Talon, who is stepping down after two five-year terms.Nearly eight million voters were eligible to cast ballots on Sunday to choose a successor to Talon. Wadagni, 49, faces a crucial factor in voter turnout after a lackluster campaign affected by voter apathy.In Benin’s largest city, Cotonou, vote counting began late on Sunday afternoon, with provisional results expected on Tuesday. Wadagni is being challenged by Paul Hounkpe, an opposition figure whose campaign has needed help from majority lawmakers to gain parliamentary endorsements.Under Talon, Benin has experienced rapid growth, with gross domestic product (GDP) doubling during his decade in power and numerous infrastructure projects completed. However, a wealth gap remains, and the winner of the vote will also face challenges with insecurity, particularly in the north of the country.The north of Benin has increasingly experienced violence from armed fighters from the Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM), an al-Qaeda affiliate that has spilled over from the Sahel region.

Benin is voting in its presidential election, with long-serving Finance Minister Romuald Wadagni poised to win in the absence of a major challenger. Polls opened at 7am (06:00 GMT) on Sunday and will close at 4pm (15:00 GMT).More than 7.9 million people are registered to vote, including 62,000 in the diaspora. Wadagni, a 49-year-old former Deloitte executive, is backed by the two main parties in the governing coalition and the outgoing president, Patrice Talon.Wadagni is being challenged by Paul Hounkpe, an opposition figure and former culture minister, whose campaign has been low-key. The new president will have to address major challenges, including a huge gap between the poor and well-off, with the poverty rate estimated at more than 30 percent.Benin’s economic growth will also depend on improving security and stabilising the country, particularly in the north where JNIM, an al-Qaeda affiliate, has made major gains. Wadagni has promised to deliver on bread-and-butter issues like expanding access to potable water and guaranteeing emergency healthcare.Provisional results are expected on Tuesday, with many people expressing concerns about the election process. Some voters have spoken of the presidential election as a formality and urged Wadagni to deliver on his platform, including promoting job opportunities for young people and improving security in the north.

The world's finance ministers and central bank governors are gathering in Washington for the half-yearly meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, with the global economy in a perilous spot. The US-Israeli war on Iran, coming soon after the Covid pandemic and Russia's invasion of Ukraine, has triggered significant economic turbulence.Even if a durable peace deal in the Middle East can be reached, there will still be permanent economic scars. The conflict has caused damage to infrastructure, heaping further pressure on already struggling households. This is the biggest energy shock of the modern age, with oil and gas prices surging, inflation rising, and borrowing costs increasing.The IMF has said it will cut its growth forecasts for 2026 when it publishes its flagship world economic outlook. In every scenario, growth is slower and inflation higher. Households worldwide will feel the pain, with the world's poorest bearing the brunt.The fund's managing director, Kristalina Georgieva, has urged officials to work together, warning that "go-it-alone actions" may have appeal but would ultimately make matters worse. The IMF cautions that any energy support should be targeted and temporary to limit the costs of blanket support and avoid stoking inequality.For central banks, the fund urges them to remain vigilant, with financial markets expecting interest rates to be kept on hold or raised to prevent high inflation from becoming entrenched. The economic problems are interlinked with political instability, making it a challenging situation for governments worldwide.

Pakistan dispatched a mixed fleet of fighter and support aircraft to King Abdulaziz Air Base in Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province on Saturday, marking the first visible military action under the mutual defence agreement signed in September 2025. The Saudi Ministry of Defence confirmed the landing, noting the deployment aligns with the collective defence clause that obliges each signatory to treat an attack on the other as an attack on itself. At the same time, Islamabad is hosting direct US‑Iran negotiations aimed at halting weeks of regional fighting triggered by Iran’s missile and drone strikes on Gulf targets after the US‑Israeli killing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on 28 February. Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar told reporters he personally warned Iranian leaders in early March that Pakistan must honour its obligations to Riyadh. Tehran, seeking assurances that Saudi soil would not be used for attacks against it, received such guarantees, Dar added. Despite these diplomatic overtures, Iranian attacks on Saudi facilities – including key bases and a US embassy building – have persisted. In early March, Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, flew to Riyadh to discuss measures to curb Iranian strikes within the framework of the defence pact. Four days before the jet deployment, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif phoned Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, pledging that Pakistan would stand “shoulder to shoulder” with Saudi Arabia. The two leaders also agreed to accelerate a $5 billion Saudi investment package earmarked for Pakistan. Saudi Finance Minister Mohammed al‑Jadaan met Sharif, Dar and Munir in Islamabad on Saturday, underscoring the economic dimension of the partnership. Saudi Arabia hosts roughly 2.5 million Pakistani workers, whose remittances are vital to Pakistan’s fragile economy, and has repeatedly provided financial assistance. Security analyst Imtiaz Gul told Al Jazeera the deployment was not intended as a military escalation but as a “messaging tool” to remind Tehran of Pakistan’s treaty obligations. “Three jets won’t make much of a difference militarily,” he said, noting Saudi Arabia’s own sizable air force. Michael Kugelman, senior fellow for South Asia at the Atlantic Council, described the move as “a risky gambit.” He warned that if Iran refuses concessions, Pakistan could be drawn closer to Saudi Arabia, potentially invoking the defence pact in a renewed conflict.