Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

The Stark Divide in War Cost EstimatesUnited States Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has clashed with American lawmakers over the cost of war on Iran in his first appearance on Capitol Hill since the conflict – now into its third month – broke out. The Pentagon told a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee that the US had spent $25bn on its war on Iran, largely on munitions and equipment maintenance. But Democratic leaders and several economists believe that number to be a significant underestimate, with actual costs potentially reaching between $630bn and $1 trillion.The Pentagon's Limited Financial DisclosureThe Pentagon's acting comptroller, Jay Hurst, who testified alongside Hegseth and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Dan Caine, presented the estimated figure of $25bn to the committee. "We will formulate a supplemental [on additional funding], through the White House, that will come to Congress once we have a full assessment of the cost of the conflict," Hurst said, promising to provide a cost breakdown later.The estimated figure only reflects "the costs of the war," Hurst explained, factoring in "munitions expended in that total and other operational costs." This figure is significantly smaller than the $200bn initially requested by the Trump administration for the war and the $11.3bn reported for just the first six days of fighting in March.The Economic Ripple Effects Beyond Direct Military SpendingAs the US continues with its blockade of Iranian ports and Tehran controls the Strait of Hormuz, gas prices in the US have hit a new high at $4.23 a gallon – the highest since 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine. The Brent crude benchmark has been trading above $120, leading to a 40 percent rise in gas prices compared to pre-war levels.Representative Ro Khanna claimed the war would cost about $631bn – or some $5,000 per household – to the US economy due to increased gas and food prices. "Your $25bn number is totally off," Khanna told Hegseth, highlighting the administration's failure to account for broader economic impacts.The rising cost of living has also affected Trump's approval rating, hitting a record low in his second term with only 22 percent of Americans approving of his handling of cost of living, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.Hidden Costs of War: Infrastructure and Long-term ImplicationsThe US claimed earlier that it struck more than 13,000 targets over the first 39 days of fighting with Iran. For context, the US fired more Patriot missiles in the first four days of the Iran war than it supplied to Ukraine over the past four years, with each missile costing $4m.However, the economics and impact of the war extend far beyond the worth of bombs and missiles. One major expense is reconstructing and repairing damaged assets. After the US-Israeli strikes assassinated former Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Iranian strikes caused damage to US military camps in Kuwait, alongside other military bases in the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Bahrain.Earlier this month, NBC News quoted six US officials noting that Iran damaged US military bases and equipment in the Middle East far worse than publicly acknowledged. The damages alone could lead to billions of dollars in repairs, with one report estimating that repairs to the US Navy Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain could cost $200m alone.Historical Precedents and Future ProjectionsHarvard economist Linda Bilmes had estimated in February 2006 that the Iraq war would cost the US $3 trillion, when the George Bush administration was telling the public that fighting would cost $50bn. Twenty years later, Bilmes ended up with among the most accurate predictions, as the Iraq war's total cost is now estimated at $2 trillion."Wars always cost more than expected. Throughout history, those who get into wars tend to be optimistic about the cost and about the length of time it will take," Bilmes noted. "It is hard to measure the exact cost. But based on what we know now, it [the current Iran war] is costing about $2bn a day in short-term, upfront costs, which is the tip of the iceberg."Beyond immediate expenses, Bilmes highlighted long-term costs including veterans' care and restocking weapons inventory. "I am certain we will reach one trillion dollars for the Iran war," she concluded. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has asked for a $1.5 trillion defense budget for next year – a 42 percent increase, or the largest expansion in military spending since World War II.

The Bank of England's Dilemma The message to the UK’s crisis-weary households from the Bank of England is: brace yourself for Trumpflation – and the higher interest rates it may yet take to rein it in. The Impact of Trumpflation Reading the Bank’s quarterly monetary policy report, it is not difficult to understand the fury Rachel Reeves expressed while in Washington this month at the “folly” of the US president’s war on Iran – the impact is expected to hit the UK hard. Average mortgage repayments are to rise by £80 a month Food price inflation could hit 4.6% by the autumn Utility bills will jump in July, and remain high into the winter The Inflation Outlook Overall inflation is now expected to peak above 3.5% by the end of this year: more than a percentage point higher than the Bank’s pre-war forecasts. In its worst-case “scenario C”, in which oil prices hit $130 a barrel and remain there for a prolonged period – alarmingly plausible given Donald Trump’s latest erratic pronouncements – inflation peaks above 6%. The Interest Rate Decision Despite this inflation shock, monetary policymakers have opted not to raise rates yet, with the Bank’s hawkish chief economist, Huw Pill, the only dissenter on the nine-member committee. The Future Outlook Policymakers will have to weigh the relative risks of two powerful forces unleashed by the Middle East conflict: higher inflation, and weaker growth – and both will make life for cash-strapped British households feel much harder.

The Fuel Price Shock Pakistan is facing the most serious fuel price shock in over half a century, which threatens to unleash a flood of cascading crises that could batter all aspects of the economy and undermine the government of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif. The Economic Impact Earlier this week, Sharif said Pakistan's oil import bill had surged from $300 million before the conflict to $800 million now, which he said erased all the economic progress the country had made over the past two years. Analysts say the knock-on effects will be increasingly severe, impacting everything from agriculture and transport to the price of food and basic goods, worsening the plight of families already facing a cost-of-living crisis. The Data Analysis The State Bank of Pakistan raised its key policy rate by a full percentage point to 11.5 percent. The bank said: "The Committee noted that prolonging the Middle East conflict has intensified risks to the macroeconomic outlook. In particular, the global energy prices, freight charges and insurance premiums continue to remain significantly above pre-conflict levels. Furthermore, the supply chain disruptions have contributed to the prevailing uncertainty." The Impact Analysis Soaring fuel costs have a global impact, but Pakistan is particularly vulnerable. It is heavily dependent on imported energy, and higher costs worsen its already precarious balance-of-payments position. Fuel prices feed directly into inflation – diesel powers trucks, buses, tractors, generators and parts of the food supply chain, while petrol affects commuting and consumer transport. The Prediction The government is caught between two bad options, say analysts – pass on global oil prices to consumers and face public anger, or subsidise fuel and blow a hole in the budget. Pakistan is under strict IMF supervision, which limits the government's ability to spend its way out of the problem. The government has been widely criticised by analysts for botching negotiations in April when it sought IMF approval for higher fuel subsidies and was rebuffed.

The Shadow Fleet's Triumph in HormuzOn March 11, the Thai cargo ship Mayuree Naree was struck by two projectiles while crossing the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world's most important waterways located between Iran and Oman. A fire broke out in the engine room, and while 20 sailors were rescued, three remained trapped inside the stricken vessel. Their remains were found weeks later when a specialised rescue team boarded the vessel, which had run aground on the shores of Iran's Qeshm island.At about the same time, a "shadow fleet" of tankers continued to navigate the very same waters safely. Operating with fake flags, disabled signals and unspecified destinations, this covert armada survived because it operates outside the traditional rules of maritime trade.Iran threatened to block "enemy" ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz – a crucial chokepoint for a fifth of the world's oil – in the wake of the United States-Israeli war launched on February 28. Soon, navigation through the strait was disrupted amid fears of attacks.Following a temporary ceasefire on April 8, the United States imposed a full naval blockade on Iranian ports on April 13. Theoretically, traffic through the strait should have come to a complete halt.However, tracking data reveals a remarkably different reality.How Iran's Covert Maritime Network OperatedAn exclusive Al Jazeera open-source investigation tracked 202 voyages made by 185 vessels through the strait between March 1 and April 15, navigating both under fire and across blockade lines.To understand how the strait operated under extreme pressure, Al Jazeera's Digital Investigative Unit monitored the waterway daily, cross-referencing vessel International Maritime Organization (IMO) numbers with international sanction lists from the US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the European Union, the United Kingdom and the United Nations. An IMO number is a unique seven-digit figure assigned to commercial ships.Of the tracked voyages, 77 (38.5 percent) were directly or indirectly linked to Iran. Notably, 61 of the ships transiting the strait were explicitly listed on international sanctions lists.The investigation divided the conflict into three distinct phases to map the fleet's behaviour:Phase 1: Open War (March 1 – April 6): 126 ships crossed the strait, peaking at 30 vessels on March 1. Among these, 46 were linked to Iran.Phase 2: The Truce (April 7 – 13): 49 ships crossed during this fragile pause. More than 40 percent of these vessels were tied to Iran, including the US-sanctioned, Iranian-flagged Roshak, which successfully exited the Gulf.Phase 3: The US Blockade (April 13 – 15): Despite the explicit naval blockade, 25 ships crossed the strait.Breaking the Blockade: Tactics and TechniquesWhen the US blockade took effect, the shadow fleet adapted immediately.The Iranian cargo ship "13448" successfully broke the blockade. Because it is a smaller vessel operating in coastal waters, it lacks an official IMO number, allowing it to evade traditional sanction-monitoring tools. The vessel departed Iran's Al Hamriya port and reached Karachi, Pakistan.Similarly, the Panama-flagged Manali broke the blockade, crossing on April 14 and penetrating the cordon again on April 17 en route to Mumbai, India.The investigation uncovered widespread manipulation of Automatic Identification System (AIS) trackers. Vessels such as the US-sanctioned Flora, Genoa and Skywave deliberately disabled or jammed their signals to hide their identities and destinations.The Global Network Behind Fake FlagsTo obscure ultimate ownership, the shadow fleet heavily relies on a complex web of "false flags" and shell companies. The investigation identified 16 ships operating under fake flags, including registries from landlocked nations like Botswana and San Marino, as well as others from Madagascar, Guinea, Haiti and Comoros.The operational network managing these ships spans the globe. Operating firms were primarily based in Iran (15.7 percent), China (13 percent), Greece (more than 11 percent) and the United Arab Emirates (9.7 percent). Notably, the operators of nearly 19 percent of the observed vessels remain unknown.Economic Impact on Global Energy MarketsDespite the intense military pressure, energy carriers dominated the traffic, with 68 ships (36.2 percent) transporting crude oil, petroleum products and gas. Ten of these tankers were directly linked to Iran. Non-oil trade also persisted, with 57 bulk and general cargo ships crossing during the open war phase, 41 of which were tied to Tehran.Before the war, at least 100 ships crossed the Strait of Hormuz daily. Today, a staggering 20,000 sailors are trapped on 2,000 ships across the Gulf – a crisis the International Maritime Organization described as unprecedented since World War II.A shadow Iranian fleet, meanwhile, has been navigating seamlessly as part of a parallel maritime system born from 47 years of US sanctions on Tehran. Washington slapped sanctions on Tehran following the 1979 Islamic revolution that toppled the pro-Washington ruler Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The two countries have had no diplomatic ties since 1980.Future Implications for Global Trade and SanctionsThe success of Iran's shadow fleet in evading the US naval blockade demonstrates the limitations of traditional sanctions and naval blockades in the modern era. As technology enables more sophisticated evasion techniques, international bodies may need to develop new monitoring and enforcement mechanisms to maintain effective sanctions regimes.The persistence of trade through the Strait of Hormuz, despite military conflict and blockades, underscores the critical importance of this waterway to global energy markets. Any prolonged disruption would have significant economic implications worldwide, potentially accelerating efforts to develop alternative trade routes and energy sources.Meanwhile, the humanitarian crisis affecting thousands of sailors stranded in the Gulf highlights the unintended consequences of geopolitical conflicts on civilian maritime operations, potentially prompting new international agreements on protecting neutral shipping during conflicts.

The US-Iran Conflict Escalation Two months since the US and Israel launched a joint surprise attack on Iran, negotiations appear deadlocked, as competing blockades of the Strait of Hormuz continue to disrupt global energy supplies, and the future of Iran's nuclear programme remains unresolved. The Frozen Conflict Scenario All military options remain on the table, despite a ceasefire in force since April 8 having paused the conflict. Qatar's Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Tuesday cautioned against the possibility of a 'frozen conflict', where the critical waterway is used as a pressure card amid the possibility of violent flare-ups. The Cost of a 'Frozen' War The war between the US and Iran can already be described as 'frozen', but this no-war-no-deal scenario comes at too high a cost for both parties, Mehran Kamrava, an expert on Iran at Georgetown University in Qatar, told Al Jazeera. The American foreign policy think tank Quincy Institute estimated that Washington's costs incurred over the first month of the war were between $20bn and $25bn. A large-scale ground operation in Iran similar to that of Iraq in 2003 would require at least 500,000 personnel and some $55bn a month, or more than $650bn a year. Prolonged versus Protracted Conflict In Trump's initial projection, the war in Iran was intended to last 'four to five weeks'. Two months into the conflict, Chandler Williams, researcher at the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO), says the prolonged conflict has lasted longer than forecast. The Impact of a Protracted Conflict Washington is betting on sustained economic and diplomatic pressure backed by Trump's constant threat to renew strikes to see if it can 'finish what air strikes alone cannot achieve', Williams said. For its part, Iran is aware of the US's military superiority and has opted for leveraging the Strait of Hormuz until the US decides that a negotiated settlement is preferable. 'Mowing the Grass' in Iran On Tuesday, the US Department of Defense requested $53.6bn for autonomous drones for the 2027 fiscal year, a roughly 24,000 percent increase from last year. If the tactics of the conflict shift towards drone warfare and towards a low-intensity conflict, this has lower costs for the attacker but a higher impact for the recipient as we've seen in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, Michael Kerr, a historian and political scientist at King's College London, told Al Jazeera.

The Growing Rift: Europe's Search for Security IndependenceEuropean leaders are seeking to clarify a little-used mutual defense clause in the European Union treaty as questions grow over Washington's long-term commitment to NATO during a deepening rift with the United States. The shift comes amid growing concerns that traditional security guarantees may no longer be reliable, prompting European nations to consider alternative defense arrangements.Understanding Article 42.7: Europe's Mutual Defense ClauseArticle 42.7 of the Treaty on European Union is the bloc's mutual defense clause. It states that if an EU member state is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, other member states are obliged to provide aid and assistance by all means in their power in line with the United Nations Charter.Unlike NATO's Article 5, which states that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all, the EU clause is not backed by an integrated military command structure, standing defense plans, or a permanent force able to respond automatically. The US has no obligation to intervene under Article 42.7, making it often seen as less credible as a military guarantee in practice, though it remains an important political commitment.Who Champions Article 42.7? Key Players Pushing for ImplementationCyprus, an EU member but not a NATO member, has been especially eager to strengthen the clause after a drone struck a British airbase on the island during the Iran war. Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides confirmed that leaders had agreed it was time to define how the provision would work in practice if triggered.French President Emmanuel Macron has stressed that the clause should be treated as a binding commitment rather than a symbolic gesture. "On Article 42, paragraph 7, it's not just words," he stated. "For us, it is clear, and there is no room for interpretation or ambiguity."EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas emphasized that Europe must step up its defense efforts after Trump has "shaken the transatlantic relationship to its foundation." She noted that "Europe is no longer Washington's primary centre of gravity" and that "no great power in history has outsourced its survival and survived."Historical Context: Previous Invocations and LimitationsThe clause has been used only once before when France invoked it after the 2015 Paris attacks claimed by ISIL (ISIS), in which 130 people were killed and hundreds wounded. After Article 47.2 was invoked, other EU states shared intelligence aimed at helping French authorities unravel the conspiracy that led to the attacks.By contrast, NATO's Article 5 has also been invoked just once – after the September 11, b>2001 attacks in the US. Unlike the EU's response, NATO's help to the US wasn't limited to intelligence sharing. Allies contributed tens of thousands of soldiers to the US-led war in Afghanistan, which lasted two decades and resulted in more than 46,000 Afghan civilian casualties alongside 2,461 US personnel.NATO's Future: Questions of Cohesion and MembershipEurope's debate over its defense comes amid a string of disputes inside NATO. Reports that US officials have considered punitive measures against allies, including potentially suspending Spain from NATO or reviewing the US position on Britain's claim to the Falkland Islands, have revived questions over the alliance's future cohesion.According to Pablo Calderon Martinez, a specialist in European affairs, "There is no legal mechanism to remove a member" from NATO. However, there is a mechanism through which a member can withdraw itself from the organization. He noted that a more likely scenario would be the US choosing to leave.Carne Ross, a former British diplomat, emphasized that the deeper issue is whether Europe and Washington still share common values. "It is abundantly clear that we do not," he stated, pointing to Trump's "anti-democratic" actions.Europe's Defense Buildup: Preparing for Strategic AutonomyIn response to growing uncertainty, European countries have pledged to sharply increase their defense budgets, with many aiming to spend 5 percent of their gross domestic products each year on their militaries.While Trump cannot withdraw the US from NATO without congressional approval, doubts over Washington's commitment have already unsettled many European capitals. This has created new urgency around strengthening Europe's own defense capabilities and building a more credible European pillar inside, or alongside, NATO.As Ross noted, "The Europeans themselves, particularly the most powerful countries – Britain, France, Germany and Italy – need to be talking about how to defend themselves without the US."

The Surge in Oil Prices Oil prices soared more than 6 percent on worries about prolonged supply disruption in the Strait of Hormuz and fears of a lengthy US siege of Iranian ports, settling at their highest levels in weeks. Market Reaction and Price Increases US crude settled up 6.95 percent at $106.88 per barrel on Wednesday, and Brent crude, the international benchmark, was up 6.08 percent, or $6.77, at $118.03 after earlier touching its highest price since June 2022. Brent crude futures for June continued to rise on Thursday to $119.94 per barrel as of 00:57 GMT. US West Texas Intermediate futures were at $107.51. The Impact of the US-Iran Conflict Oil prices continue to surge with no resolution in sight to the two-month-long US-Israel war on Iran, and as supplies of fuel remain snarled in the Strait of Hormuz, where Iranian forces have imposed a blockade on the transit of vessels and the US is besieging Iranian ports and shipping. US Response and Potential Mitigation Measures A White House official said on Wednesday that US President Donald Trump had asked US oil companies about ways to mitigate the impact of a potentially months-long siege of Iranian ports. The president and the oil executives “discussed the steps President Trump has taken to ⁠alleviate global oil markets and steps we could take to continue the current blockade for months if needed and minimize impact on American consumers,” the White House official said. Regional Impact and Economic Concerns “Prospects for any near-term resolution to the Iran conflict or a reopening of the Strait of Hormuz remain dim,” IG market analyst Tony Sycamore said in a note on the current situation. Al Jazeera’s Barnaby Lo, reporting from Seoul, South Korea, said almost the entire Asia Pacific region is dependent on oil imports and much of those supplies come from the Middle East. “So with the price of Brent crude touching $120 a barrel, there is no doubt that is going to have a huge impact on the region. The Asian Development Bank already cutting its growth forecast for the region from 5.1 percent to 4.7 percent this year,” Lo said. UAE's OPEC Exit and Market Implications President Trump on Wednesday also welcomed the announced withdrawal of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), saying, “I think it’s great”. The UAE’s President Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan was “very smart” and probably wanted to go his “own way”, Trump said. “I think ultimately it’s a good thing for getting the price of gas down, getting oil down, getting everything down,” Trump added.

The Federal Reserve's Decision The United States Federal Reserve has held interest rates steady at 3.5 to 3.75 percent as inflation and pressure on the labour market during the US-Israel war on Iran weigh on the global economy. The central bank announced its decision, which was largely in line with economists’ expectations, on Wednesday, wrapping up the last two-day policy meeting led by Chairman Jerome Powell. Market Expectations and Inflationary Pressures CME FedWatch, which tracks the likelihood of monetary policy decisions, had a 100 percent expectation that the central bank would maintain rates. Inflationary pressures on oil markets and a stagnant labour market have weighed on the central bank’s decision-making. The US Department of Labor is set to release its latest jobs report next week. Economic Outlook and Future Implications “Developments in the Middle East are contributing to a high level of uncertainty about the economic outlook,” the central bank said in a statement. “Job gains have remained low, on average, and the unemployment rate has been little changed in recent months. Inflation is elevated, in part reflecting the recent increase in global energy prices.” Leadership Transition at the Federal Reserve The decision comes as Kevin Warsh, Trump’s replacement to succeed Powell, was confirmed by the Senate Banking Committee on Wednesday in a party-line vote, advancing his candidacy to the full Senate.

Rainfall Breaks the Drought Cycle in the Huwaizah MarshesAfter a prolonged spell of drought blamed on climate change and upstream dam operations, a series of winter rainstorms in 2026 have sent water coursing through Iraq’s southern marshes. Fishermen, wildlife and residents are witnessing a rapid transformation from cracked earth to shimmering water.Winter Rains Refill Tigris Reservoirs and Boost Marsh Water LevelsThe Iraqi Water Ministry reports that reservoirs on the Tigris River are now “almost full”, and anticipates a rise in the Euphrates once Syria releases its dam water. This inflow is feeding the Huwaizah Marshes, the largest of the Mesopotamian wetlands.Rainfall events occurred over three consecutive weeks in early 2026.Water levels in the Tigris rose by 1.2 meters within days.Projected Euphrates increase: 0.8‑1.0 meters pending Syrian releases.Quantifying the Revival: 85% Submergence and Near‑Full ReservoirsActivist Ahmed Saleh Neema estimates that 85 percent of the wetlands are now submerged, though depth remains below historic averages. The water depth is still climbing, but the sheer coverage marks a “relative revival”.85 % of marsh area covered with water.Reservoir capacity at 95 % of total storage.Local fish catches reported up by 30 % in the first week.Ecological and Socio‑Economic Ripple Effects Across Southern IraqThe renewed water supports a cascade of biodiversity: migratory birds, buffalo herds, and aquatic life are returning. For communities, the marshes are a source of livelihood and cultural identity.Fisherman Kazem Kasid says “life will return, along with the fish and livestock”.Buffaloes observed grazing on fresh grass along the water’s edge.Temperatures expected to hit 50 °C this summer, making the water a critical heat buffer.Outlook: Water Management, Regional Cooperation, and Long‑Term ResilienceWhile the rains provide a short‑term boost, sustainable recovery hinges on coordinated water releases from upstream dams and climate‑adapted management. Experts warn that without continued inflow, the marshes could dry again within months.Monitoring agreements with Syria and Turkey are under negotiation.Long‑term plans include reed‑planting and controlled flooding zones.Potential for eco‑tourism to generate $10‑15 million annually.