Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Europe’s rail infrastructure is physically capable of moving millions of passengers, but its digital booking systems remain stuck in a 'stone age,' severely limiting the ability of travelers to choose greener alternatives to flying. A comprehensive analysis by the Transport & Environment (T&E;) thinktank has found that booking equivalent train tickets is 'difficult or impossible' on nearly half of the EU’s busiest international air routes.Key DevelopmentsThe study examined the 30 busiest international air routes within the EU, excluding island trips and routes longer than 1,500km. The findings highlight a fragmented market where passengers face significant friction when attempting to switch from air to rail. Notably, popular flight paths such as Lisbon-Madrid and Barcelona-Milan were found to be unbookable from any rail operator’s website. Similarly, routes like Paris-Rome and Amsterdam-Milan could only be booked from a single operator, forcing travelers to navigate multiple websites or third-party aggregators.Data & Market ImpactThe report exposes a systemic failure in cross-border connectivity. Passengers could not purchase tickets covering the entire journey on 20% of the analyzed routes. Additionally, tickets were available from only one operator on a further 27% of routes, bringing the total to 47% where booking is 'hard or impossible.'Market Monopoly: Incumbent operators like Deutsche Bahn and SNCF do not sell competitors' tickets on 86% of routes where competition exists.Visibility Gap: On 59% of these routes, alternative services are not even displayed to the consumer.Consumer Behavior: A 61% of long-distance rail travelers have avoided journeys due to booking difficulties, with 40% stating they would travel more by rail if the process were easier.Why This MattersThis booking friction represents a critical barrier to the EU's climate targets. Aviation is one of the hardest sectors to decarbonize, and its emissions are projected to soar as the industry seeks to double passenger traffic by 2050. By making it structurally difficult for even climate-conscious travelers to choose rail, the current system effectively locks in high-carbon air travel. The inability to easily compare prices or book seamless multi-leg journeys means that despite trains often being a viable alternative, the 'intention-action gap' prevents the necessary shift in consumer behavior.Expert InsightGeorgia Whitaker, a rail campaigner at T&E;, described the situation as 'almost feels a bit silly,' noting that in a digital-first world, a clunky system is actively stifling climate action. Brian Caulfield, a transport researcher at Trinity College Dublin, emphasized that the problem is not just technical but structural. He argued that major operators are failing to display or sell cross-border connections, creating a market environment that makes it difficult for even the most environmentally aware consumers to make the 'greener option' a reality.What Happens NextThe European Commission is set to publish a single ticketing package on 13 May, a regulatory move designed to allow Europeans to travel across the continent more easily and enjoy standard consumer protections. However, the report suggests that without strict enforcement of interoperability standards, the current fragmentation will persist. The upcoming regulations will be a critical test of whether the EU can modernize its rail infrastructure to compete with the convenience of aviation in the race to meet 2050 climate goals.

Key DevelopmentsApril 21, 2026 – Trump releases three memoranda directing the Energy Secretary to boost US oil, coal and natural‑gas production under the Defense Production Act.The memos reference his January 20, 2025 executive order declaring a national energy emergency.Trump orders the use of “necessary purchases, commitments, and financial instruments” to accelerate projects.Previous actions include overturning vehicle‑emissions standards, easing Alaska petroleum restrictions, and lifting Biden’s pause on LNG exports.Data & Market ImpactUS gas prices have surged following the US‑Iran conflict and the seizure of an Iranian vessel, pressuring households already facing higher living costs.The USDA forecasts a 3.6% rise in overall food prices in 2026, outpacing the 20‑year historical average.Industry donations to Trump’s campaign exceed $75 million from oil and gas interests since his second term began.Why This MattersThe memos tie energy production directly to defense capability, signaling that the administration will prioritize short‑term energy security over climate goals. Higher domestic output could lower reliance on foreign oil but also risks inflating fossil‑fuel subsidies, raising greenhouse‑gas emissions, and further burdening consumers already coping with elevated gas and food prices.Expert InsightStrategically, the move leverages the Cold‑War‑era Defense Production Act to fast‑track projects that might otherwise stall under environmental review, giving the fossil‑fuel sector a competitive edge. However, the policy exposes the administration to legal challenges from states and environmental groups, and it may provoke market volatility as investors weigh the likelihood of increased production against potential regulatory backlash and global climate‑policy shifts.What Happens NextCongressional oversight hearings are likely as lawmakers assess the fiscal implications of accelerated fossil‑fuel spending.Energy companies may file for expedited permits, while NGOs could pursue litigation to block projects that threaten protected lands.Internationally, allies dependent on US energy exports may welcome the policy, but climate‑focused nations could view it as a step back from global decarbonization commitments.Domestic fuel prices could stabilize if new supply materializes quickly, yet long‑term price dynamics will hinge on geopolitical stability in the Middle East and the pace of renewable‑energy adoption.

The Legacy Generator InterventionThe UK government has confirmed a radical market intervention designed to protect households and businesses from the volatility of global gas markets. By moving older wind and solar farms—comprising nearly a third of Great Britain's power generation—onto fixed-price contracts, the administration aims to "delink" the price of electricity from the price of gas. This strategic shift marks the government's most aggressive attempt to stabilize energy costs amid soaring wholesale prices.Financial Shielding MechanismThe core of this policy involves offering legacy generators the option to sign fixed-price deals, similar to the "Contract for Difference" model used since 2017. Alternatively, these projects face a higher windfall tax on profits if they remain in the volatile market. This dual approach creates a financial incentive for clean energy producers to lock in stable revenue streams.Market Volatility: Power prices have surged from approximately £74/MWh to over £100/MWh in recent weeks, raising fears of winter price spikes.Cost Savings: Analysts at the UK Energy Research Centre estimate this strategy could save between £4bn and £10bn annually if market prices remain elevated.Current Taxation: Generators currently face a 45% tax rate on profits from electricity sold above £75/MWh.Strategic Energy SecurityThe move is a direct response to the UK's structural exposure to fossil fuel markets. With about 30% of the UK's electricity generated by gas plants—which set the market price—any fluctuation in gas prices creates windfalls for renewables unless they are contractually protected. By securing the bulk of electricity from fixed-price sources, the UK aims to insulate its economy from external energy shocks.Future Outlook for Net ZeroThis intervention is part of a broader political strategy led by Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, who is expected to frame the policy as a necessary step to "double down" on the Net Zero mission. By prioritizing energy security and bill stability, the government hopes to accelerate the rollout of clean energy and electric alternatives, positioning the UK as a leader in resilient energy infrastructure.

The Fair Chase in Niassa: A High-Stakes SafariThe article provides an intimate look into the controversial practice of trophy hunting through an expedition in Mozambique's Niassa Special Reserve. Spanning 4.2m hectares and larger than Switzerland, the reserve is home to approximately 1,000 wild lions. The narrative follows professional hunter Paul Stones and his client, an American neurosurgeon, as they track game. The hunters emphasize the concept of "fair chase"—an ethical standard where the quarry has a sporting chance of survival—distinguishing their activities from the "canned hunting" of captive animals.The High Cost of Conservation: Financial BreakdownThe economic model of trophy hunting is central to the article's argument. The revenue generated from these hunts is directly funneled into conservation efforts, specifically anti-poaching patrols. The financial breakdown reveals the high stakes involved:Buffalo Hunt: Approximately $2,150 (£1,590) per day for a minimum of 10 days.Lion Hunt: A highly choreographed and expensive affair, costing upwards of $70,000 before permits and bait are added.Game Fees: Prices vary significantly; for example, a leopard hunt costs $11,650, while a lion hunt can exceed $25,000.These fees are essential for the Luwire Conservancy, a private organization managing the hunting block, which relies on lion hunts as a primary income generator to maintain operations and protect wildlife.From Royal Parks to Anti-Poaching Units: The Historical ParadoxThe article delves into the historical roots of wildlife conservation, arguing that many of the world's protected areas were originally established for hunting by elites. It cites the Białowieża forest in Europe and South Africa's Kruger National Park as examples where hunting preserves eventually evolved into sanctuaries. This historical context is used to explain the current paradox: that one might save wildlife by killing it. The text contrasts the devastation of the Mozambican civil war, which caused animal populations to decline by 90%, with the current reality where hunting revenue helps restore and protect these populations.The Future of the Fair Chase: Survival or Extinction?The article concludes by highlighting the precarious balance of this conservation model. While trophy hunting provides the necessary funds to combat poaching and support local communities (where 80% live on less than $2 a day), it remains a divisive issue globally. The future of Niassa's wildlife depends on the continued viability of this economic model, which faces increasing pressure from international NGOs and animal rights groups advocating for a complete ban on hunting endangered species. The survival of the reserve's ecosystem, however, may ultimately depend on the revenue generated by the very hunters it seeks to protect.

The Diplomatic Impasse Deepens Diplomatic efforts to end the conflict between the US and Iran have hit a critical wall, with Tehran explicitly rejecting the premise of negotiations while the US maintains a hardline blockade. This standoff signals a potential shift from diplomatic engagement to prolonged strategic pressure, leaving the fate of a ceasefire in limbo. Hardline Positions Stalling Negotiations The immediate trigger for the stalemate is the refusal by Iranian officials to engage in dialogue. The Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson stated that Tehran will not sit at the table while the US continues to violate ceasefires, specifically citing the seizure of shipments. Simultaneously, President Donald Trump has doubled down on the economic pressure strategy, declaring that the blockade on Iranian ports will remain in effect indefinitely until Tehran agrees to a comprehensive deal. Strategic Stalemate: The Blockade as Leverage The core of the current crisis lies in the conflicting interpretations of leverage. The US views the blockade as a necessary tool to force Tehran to the negotiating table, aiming to secure a deal on regional security and nuclear issues. Conversely, Iran views the blockade not as a diplomatic tool, but as an act of aggression that violates their sovereignty. By refusing to negotiate 'under the shadow of threats,' Tehran is signaling that they will not compromise their national security interests while under duress. Risk of Regional Escalation This standoff creates a volatile environment where miscalculation is high. The refusal to negotiate 'under the shadow of threats' suggests that Iran views the blockade as a casus belli rather than a bargaining chip. This dynamic threatens to draw in regional allies and disrupt global shipping lanes, potentially triggering a broader Middle Eastern conflict that could destabilize energy markets and international trade routes. Outlook: A Long Game of Attrition Unless there is a sudden shift in rhetoric or a third-party mediator intervenes, the situation is likely to remain frozen. The US strategy relies on attrition, aiming to exhaust Iran's economic and military capacity to force a concession. Iran, however, appears prepared for a long-term endurance strategy. The next few weeks will be critical in determining if the blockade forces Tehran to the negotiating table or pushes the region toward open conflict.

The Executive SummaryThe Trump administration has officially opened the floodgates for a massive financial correction, initiating the refund process for over $166 billion in tariffs imposed under emergency powers. This move follows a landmark Supreme Court ruling that struck down the legal basis for these trade barriers, forcing the executive branch to dismantle a trade policy infrastructure built on shaky legal ground.From Legal Void to Digital InfrastructureThe administration launched the 'Cape' digital claims system on Monday, a necessary response to the February Supreme Court decision. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by Justices Gorsuch and Barrett, ruled that the 1977 emergency statute provided no sweeping authority for the tariffs. Consequently, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) had to construct a new processing infrastructure from scratch, including creating mechanisms for direct deposits that did not previously exist.Processing Capacity and Financial VelocityThe Cape system is designed to handle approximately 63% of affected import filings, with the remainder to follow in subsequent phases. Businesses can expect a processing window of 60 to 90 days from submission to receipt of funds. However, the system faces immediate constraints: it currently processes only entries liquidated or unliquidated within the last 80 days, excluding goods currently tied up in legal disputes or anti-dumping investigations.The Corporate vs. Consumer DivideThe impact of this refund is bifurcated. Legally, only importers and large corporations who paid the tariffs directly are eligible to claim refunds. While companies like FedEx have pledged to pass savings back to customers, skepticism remains. Some consumers are already suing retailers like Costco, arguing that vague promises of future price cuts do not constitute immediate restitution for the costs they absorbed.The Future of Trade EnforcementThe successful execution of this refund program will likely set a precedent for how future executive trade actions are scrutinized. With over 3,000 companies already suing for their refunds, the administration faces immense pressure to process these claims efficiently. The outcome will determine whether the legal victory translates into tangible economic relief for the broader market or remains a bureaucratic exercise for large corporations.

Washington Hosts the Next Chapter in Lebanon-Israel RelationsThe United States State Department is set to host a second round of direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel on Thursday, marking a pivotal moment in the region's fragile post-conflict landscape. This meeting follows the first direct talks in decades, held on April 14, which were attended by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and led by Lebanese Ambassador Nada Hamadeh and her Israeli counterpart Yechiel Leiter.The talks are taking place against the backdrop of a fragile ceasefire announced by Donald Trump on April 16. The US Department of State has emphasized its commitment to facilitating "good-faith discussions," though the path forward remains fraught with tension.The Strategic Stakes of Direct DiplomacyThe core of the current diplomatic effort is the divergent vision of security held by the two nations. While the Lebanese government, led by President Joseph Aoun, seeks a full Israeli withdrawal, Israel is actively pursuing a "forward defence" line.Lebanon's Position: Aoun has vowed to negotiate without sacrificing any part of the country's territory, framing the talks not as a weakness but as a decision rooted in the strength to protect the nation.Israel's Position: Israeli officials have openly stated their intent to replicate the destruction of entire towns in Gaza in southern Lebanon, creating an "annihilated area" as a security buffer.The Human Cost: The negotiations follow a massive Israeli wave of air strikes across Lebanon in early April that killed more than 300 people, including medics, women, and children.Hezbollah's Resistance vs. Aoun's Diplomatic PushA significant fracture exists between the Lebanese government and the powerful militant group Hezbollah. While Aoun argues that the negotiations are necessary to protect the country, Hezbollah has described them as "losing concessions" and futile.Naim Qassem, Hezbollah's chief, has rejected the talks, insisting that no one has the right to steer Lebanon toward Israel without internal consensus. This internal division is further complicated by Iran, which has stressed that Lebanon must be included in broader truce discussions, creating a complex web of regional alliances that the US must navigate.Navigating the Gap Between Ceasefire and RealityThe most immediate threat to the success of Thursday's talks is the continued military activity on the ground. Despite the ceasefire announcement, Israel has continued to blow up neighbourhoods in border villages and struck targets in Bint Jbeil and Deir Siriane on Monday.While President Trump has publicly "prohibited" Israel from attacking Lebanon, the discrepancy between diplomatic proclamations and military actions suggests a deep mistrust. The upcoming talks face the challenge of addressing the ongoing ground offensive, which undermines the credibility of the ceasefire and complicates any potential diplomatic resolution.

The Frontline ParadoxMichael Watkins, a 50-year-old recovery advocate in Dallas, represents the human cost of the evolving opioid crisis. His work involves 'uninvited interventions'—door-knocking strangers within 72 hours of an overdose to offer Narcan and resources. Despite these grassroots efforts, the broader national strategy faces a critical juncture. While Dallas County saw fentanyl deaths drop from 280 in 2023 to 203 last year, a nationwide trend of decline has been complicated by a sudden shift in federal policy and the global supply chain of the drug.The Migration of Fentanyl PrecursorsA critical technical breakthrough in the supply chain has shifted the epicenter of fentanyl production. For years, the focus was on China, where companies like Yuancheng supplied precursor chemicals. However, a new paper in the journal Science suggests that China's crackdown on these companies led to a drop in overdose deaths. Now, the supply chain has migrated to India.The New Route: Precursor chemicals are now largely sourced from India's large, less-regulated pharmaceutical industry.The Destination: These chemicals are exported to Mexico, where they are used to manufacture the lethal drug before it crosses the US-Mexico border.The Blind Spot: Experts like Ben Westhoff argue that the US is 'behind the eight ball' because India is not currently on the radar of policymakers, despite the strong diplomatic relationship between the two nations.Funding Cuts and Data DisruptionThe progress made in reducing overdose deaths is now at risk due to severe federal budget cuts. The Trump administration has declared fentanyl a 'weapon of mass destruction,' yet simultaneously slashed hundreds of millions of dollars in addiction services.Massive Reductions: At least $1.7bn in block grants for state health departments and $350m in addiction prevention funding were cut.Staffing Crisis: The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) has reduced its staff by half.DOGE Impact: Elon Musk's DOGE team fired a team that rigorously tracked Americans' drug use for decades, creating a data vacuum that hampers response efforts.The Cost of Political RhetoricThe administration's militaristic approach, including military strikes on Venezuela (which does not produce fentanyl) and labeling cartels as 'terrorist organisations,' has drawn criticism from public health experts. Jonathan Caulkins of Carnegie Mellon University argues that labeling fentanyl a 'weapon of mass destruction' is a political move that hijacks a specific term and ignores the reality that cigarettes kill more Americans annually.Experts warn that this rhetoric further stigmatizes addiction, discouraging users from seeking help. While military tactics are necessary for interdiction, the consensus is that healthcare and local support services are equally critical for saving lives.Future Outlook: The India Blind SpotThe future of the fentanyl crisis in the US depends on addressing the new supply chain reality. As the precursor trade moves to India, the US must pivot its focus from China to the Indian subcontinent. Without increased funding for community organizations like the Recovery Resource Council and a strategic focus on Indian chemical regulation, the recent decline in overdose deaths could be short-lived. The 'uninvited interventions' of advocates like Michael Watkins will be vital, but they cannot replace the systemic support that federal funding provides.

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.