Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

The strategic Strait of Hormuz, linking the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman, has become the focal point of the Israel‑U.S. war on Iran that began in February. In peacetime the narrow waterway handled about 20% of global oil and liquefied natural gas shipments without any tolls, but the conflict has turned it into a contested zone. After a series of Israeli and U.S. strikes, Iran retaliated by targeting merchant vessels it deemed hostile, effectively shutting the passage and triggering one of the most severe energy‑distribution crises in recent memory. While a two‑week ceasefire, brokered by Pakistan, was declared on Tuesday, Tehran has issued a set of official terms that would govern the strait moving forward. According to Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghi, safe passage will be allowed in coordination with the Iranian armed forces and subject to technical limitations. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has even published a new navigation map that pushes traffic farther north, away from the traditional route near Oman’s coast, citing the risk of anti‑ship mines. Central to Tehran’s 10‑point peace proposal is the idea of charging fees for strait usage. Iranian media report that the plan could levy up to $2 million per vessel—a sum to be shared with Oman—or a charge of $1 per barrel of oil shipped. The revenue would allegedly fund reconstruction of military and civilian infrastructure damaged by the U.S.–Israeli campaign. Oman has publicly rejected any toll scheme, with Transport Minister Said Al‑Maawali reminding that the country has already signed all relevant international maritime transport agreements that prohibit such fees. International law adds another layer of complexity. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) prohibits levying charges for mere passage through international straits, allowing fees only for services like navigation assistance or port use. Neither the United States nor Iran have ratified UNCLOS, but the principle remains a benchmark for maritime norms. Analysts suggest a possible workaround: charging for de‑mining and safety services rather than for passage itself, which could be permissible under existing legal frameworks. The proposal has sparked diplomatic pushback. At the United Nations Security Council, Bahrain led a resolution urging coordinated reopening of the strait, backed by Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Jordan. The resolution passed with 11 of 15 votes, but was vetoed by Russia and China, who argued it unfairly targeted Iran and ignored the initial strikes. Beyond the region, the United States is unlikely to accept indefinite tolls. Former President Donald Trump, who announced the ceasefire, warned that U.S. forces would remain in the area and threatened to resume attacks if negotiations faltered. American troops are reportedly “hanging around” to assist with traffic buildup, though the extent of their operational control remains unclear. Maritime analyst C. Uday Bhaskar notes that only three to five ships have traversed the strait since the ceasefire began, underscoring the lingering uncertainty for global shippers. He adds that ship owners facing multi‑million‑dollar losses each day may ultimately acquiesce to Iran’s terms, at least temporarily. Should Iran implement a toll regime, the immediate impact would fall on Gulf oil‑producing nations, but the ripple effects could destabilize global energy markets, already strained by supply shocks. Major powers such as the United Kingdom have been coordinating with a coalition of 40 countries to explore alternative mechanisms for reopening the waterway without conceding to tolls. In sum, Iran’s proposed protocol for the Strait of Hormuz introduces a contentious new variable into an already volatile geopolitical landscape, pitting national security interests against established maritime law and the broader stability of world energy supplies.

The Gulf region breathed a sigh of relief on Tuesday after Iran and the United States agreed to a two-week truce, halting over five weeks of escalating attacks and hostile rhetoric.However, Gulf states are expressing caution, concerned that the US, seeking a swift exit, might agree to terms granting Iran some control over the Strait of Hormuz, a vital waterway through which one fifth of the world's oil and natural liquefied gas passes.Iran had nearly brought traffic through the strait to a standstill in response to joint US-Israeli attacks on its soil since February 28. Under the truce, Iran has agreed to halt attacks for two weeks in exchange for resumed maritime transit in the key waterway.Despite this, Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries are stressing that any deal must result in a permanent, long-term arrangement to keep the strait open. They fear a weakened yet intact Iranian leadership could use the strait as leverage, leaving them under constant threat of disruption and economic blackmail.“There is a quiet but palpable concern that President Trump, eager for a quick political victory, could tolerate some Iranian leverage over the strait in exchange for a fragile truce, prioritising optics over Gulf realities,” said Hesham Alghannam, a Saudi Arabia-based scholar at the Malcolm H Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center.The GCC countries, which have faced near-daily Iranian missile and drone attacks, have welcomed the truce but emphasize that the Strait of Hormuz must reopen. They are also concerned about Iran's future influence over the strait, with a Bahrain-sponsored UN Security Council resolution calling for countries to use defensive missions to keep the maritime chokepoint open being vetoed by Russia and China.A further escalation could have devastating consequences for the GCC economies, undoing decades of work to make the region a safe hub for finance, tourism, and culture. Analysts say GCC countries have stepped up diplomacy in the lead-up to the conflict, but officials across the region have warned Iran should not mistake their inaction as a sign of weakness.“The Gulf will leave no stone unturned if Iran continues to take the path of aggression,” said Hamad Althunayyan, a political analyst and professor at Kuwait University. “The Gulf expects its interests to be represented, and included, in any deal with Iran.”

Residents of Tehran and much of Iran are breathing a sigh of relief after a two-week ceasefire was announced, bringing an end to daily bombardments. The ceasefire, agreed upon by Iran and the US with mediation from Pakistan, has allowed some traffic to return to the streets of the Iranian capital during daylight hours.Despite the temporary reprieve, Tehran remains far from its usual bustling state, having been targeted by several thousand munitions since February 28. The Iranian capital is home to more than 10 million people. Air defence systems were activated for short periods several times since the ceasefire was announced overnight, but there were no reports of impacts or any official explanation for the activations.People across Tehran are debating whether the ceasefire will hold and what the future may hold for them. A young man noted, “Looks like the ceasefire will continue. I heard the Israelis are opening up their airspace more,” referring to an announcement by Israeli authorities that flights will resume from Ben Gurion Airport.However, others are more pessimistic, especially after two critical islands off southern Iran were attacked on Wednesday morning, hitting oil facilities. It is unclear who was behind the attack. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said it shot down a drone in the southern province of Fars.Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, and Bahrain also reported attacks on their territories by missiles and drones from Iran, with Iranian state television confirming this was in retaliation for the post-ceasefire oil attacks. Tehran said it was ready to restart military operations if attacked again.On Tuesday, Iranians had been worried about the targeting of critical civilian infrastructure, such as power plants and bridges, after a threat from US President Donald Trump to end “civilisation” in a country with one of the world’s oldest civilisations. The ceasefire was announced shortly before the midnight GMT deadline that Trump had set for an agreement to be reached.The Israeli military intensified its attacks in the hours preceding the ceasefire, hitting electricity outposts, bridges, and the railway network. Warplanes also struck the Iranian Aluminium Company in Arak, damaging the country’s largest aluminium production facility.Even after the ceasefire, Israel continued attacking Lebanon, killing more than 250 people in a devastating day of attacks on Wednesday. Israel said it was targeting Iran’s ally Hezbollah, but civilian locations across Lebanon were hit.Trump hailed what he described as a decisive victory against Iran while announcing the ceasefire, but his top general emphasised that the deal only signifies a pause and combat operations could start once again if no final deal is reached. The US military said it struck 13,000 targets across Iran in less than six weeks of war.In Iran, similar proclamations of victory and celebrations were broadcast from Iranian state television. A statement from the Supreme National Security Council urged supporters of the government to trust in the system and refrain from making “divisive commentary”.The council also stressed that affairs were being overseen by Mojtaba Khamenei, who was declared Iran’s supreme leader after his father, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was killed on the first day of the war on February 28.

US President Donald Trump has announced that countries supplying Iran with military weapons will face immediate 50% tariffs on all goods sold to the United States, with no exemptions. This move comes hours after Trump agreed to a two-week ceasefire with Tehran.In a social media post, Trump stated that 'A Country supplying Military Weapons to Iran will be immediately tariffed, on any and all goods sold to the United States of America, 50%, effective immediately. There will be no exclusions or exemptions!'However, experts have raised questions about the legal authority behind Trump's announcement, as the Supreme Court struck down his use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose broad global tariffs in February. The IEEPA has been used extensively for decades to back financial sanctions against Iran, Russia, and North Korea.Rachel Ziemba, adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, told Al Jazeera that 'it's a lot more complicated to do that after IEEPA was struck down. There's no immediate policy lever and authorisation that is available for the US to do that. So they need either an act of Congress or need to adapt some other trade tool.'Trump did not specify which countries could face punitive tariffs, but China and Russia have helped Iran build military capacity to counter US and Israeli pressure. The US imports from Russia have fallen sharply since the invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and the wave of financial sanctions imposed on Moscow.Josh Lipsky, vice president and chair of international economics at the Atlantic Council, said that 'this is a China-related threat, the way I read it. And China will read it that way.' However, he also noted that Trump was unlikely to follow through with new tariffs in the near term because that would derail his planned trip to Beijing to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping in mid-May.

Zack Polanski, the leader of the Green Party, has made a strong call to action for the UK government to withdraw its trade agreement with Israel in light of the recent Israeli strikes on Lebanon. Polanski expressed his concerns about Israel's actions, accusing them of 'behaving in a completely uncontrolled way.'During the launch of the Green party's local election campaign in London, Polanski urged the government to take a firmer stance against Israel, stating that it is 'outrageous that Israel is still enjoying diplomatic and trade privileges from the international community.' He emphasized the need for robust sanctions against Israel and an end to the 'genocide.'Polanski also criticized the UK government's claim of not being involved in the conflict with Iran, arguing that its bases had been used to aid US bombers attacking Iran. He called for the disentanglement of UK and US military operations and a ban on the US using UK airspace.When asked about the economic implications of ending the trade deal with Israel, Polanski prioritized human lives over financial concerns, stating that the UK should not put 'a cost on people's lives.'In addition to his comments on Israel, Polanski criticized Labour's housing policies, arguing that Green-run councils would focus on building new council houses and 'stand up' to property developers who resist building affordable homes. He accused Labour councils of building 'luxury, unaffordable buildings that no one's ever going to live in.'Labour responded by accusing Green party councillors of trying to block 42,000 homes across the country since 2018 and said they were not delivering social rented housing in areas where they were in power.

The UK's reliance on glyphosate, a widely used herbicide, has come under fire from campaigners who argue that its use has spiralled out of control. Glyphosate, known for its effectiveness in killing weeds, has been linked to various health risks, including cancer, and environmental damage.Originally pioneered by Scottish farmers in the 1980s to dry crops before harvest, the use of glyphosate has expanded globally. In the UK, over 2,200 tonnes of glyphosate were applied in 2024, with more than half used on wheat and other cereals. This represents a 10-fold increase in usage over the past three decades.Despite the World Health Organization classifying glyphosate as 'probably carcinogenic to humans' in 2015, its use has remained high. Bayer, the manufacturer, maintains that its herbicides do not cause cancer, but this stance is contested by many health and environmental organizations.Campaigners, including Nick Mole of Pesticide Action Network UK, are urging the government to phase out and ultimately ban glyphosate, citing its links to a range of cancers and other life-threatening diseases, as well as its impact on the environment. They argue that safer, more sustainable alternatives are available and should be adopted by farmers and local councils.However, some agricultural experts, like Helen Metcalfe of Rothamsted Research, suggest that glyphosate is used differently in the UK compared to the US, where genetically modified crops are involved. The shift towards 'regenerative' farming practices has contributed to the increased use of glyphosate, as it helps protect soil health and prevent erosion.The debate over glyphosate's safety and environmental impact continues, with the EU banning its use in pre-harvest desiccation in 2023 due to concerns about food accumulation. In the US, Bayer has offered $7.25bn to settle lawsuits alleging that Roundup, which contains glyphosate, can cause cancer. The UK government maintains that pesticide use is strictly regulated and only approved if it does not harm human or animal health or the environment.

Europe is undergoing a significant transformation in its relationship with the US, marked by a growing desire for independence and a shift away from Trump's aggressive policies. The recent crisis in the Middle East, where Trump's threat to annihilate Iranian civilisation was temporarily called off, has been a turning point in this journey. Initially, many European leaders had tacitly supported the US and Israeli attack on Iran, driven by a desire for a transatlantic detente and antipathy towards the Iranian regime. However, as the war escalated, Europe's stance began to shift, with countries like Italy, Poland, and France taking steps to distance themselves from Trump's policies. The cooling of European support for the war has taken various forms, including Italy denying US warplanes permission to use an airbase in Sicily, Poland refusing to send Patriot air defence systems to the Middle East, and France rejecting overflight rights and opposing a US-sponsored resolution at the UN security council. This shift in European policy is driven by a number of factors, including the realisation that the war has been a windfall for Russia, through higher oil prices and a depletion of air defence interceptors available to Ukraine. European leaders have also been reminded that the erosion of international law is bad news for the world, Europe included. As Europe finds its footing in distancing itself from Trump, it may also find its voice. Europe's diplomatic role in the Iranian nuclear file in the early 2000s grew out of its opposition to the Iraq war. Today, the same dynamic could unfold, with Europe promoting a permanent end of hostilities and a multilateral initiative in the region. The proposal by a group of European, Gulf, and Asian countries to contribute to ensuring safe passage through the strait of Hormuz was originally aimed at placating Trump. Europeans then backed a UN-led fertiliser corridor to prevent a food crisis in the global south. The UK is also leading a coalition of more than 40 countries seeking to reopen the strait once the US and Israel definitively end their offensive. If a sustainable reopening of Hormuz succeeds, it could eventually extend to a new nuclear agreement, a non-aggression pact between the US and Iran, and a similar one between Israel and Iran – including Lebanon. It could involve the release of Iranian funds frozen abroad to rebuild infrastructure destroyed by US and Israeli attacks, and the selective lifting of EU and US sanctions.

As the clock ticked down to President Donald Trump’s 8 p.m. deadline to force the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, the six‑week Middle East conflict teetered on the brink of a far more devastating escalation.Trump’s rhetoric had escalated dramatically, with his Truth Social posts warning that the United States would unleash strikes capable of “decimating every bridge and power plant in Iran” and that “a whole civilisation will die tonight.” Legal experts labeled the language as bordering on a genocidal threat.Amid the rising tension, a series of rapid developments unfolded on Tuesday:12:06 GMT – Trump announced a plan to target Iran’s civilian infrastructure, promising total destruction of bridges and power facilities.15:21 GMT – Iranian media confirmed that US strikes hit Kharg Island, the nation’s primary oil‑export hub, but reported no significant damage.15:40 GMT – In the UN Security Council, China and Russia vetoed a Bahraini resolution aimed at protecting commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, arguing the draft was biased against Tehran.16:54 GMT – Qatar’s defence ministry reported a successful missile interception, while the United Arab Emirates warned of a barrage of missile and drone attacks.18:23 GMT – Iran’s envoy to Pakistan, Reza Amiri Moghadam, signalled a “step forward” after a “critical, sensitive stage,” praising Pakistan’s “positive and productive” peace efforts.19:17 GMT – Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif appealed to Trump to extend the deadline by two weeks, urging Tehran to keep the Strait open as a goodwill gesture.20:25 GMT – Iran warned it would target US and Gulf‑allied energy infrastructure, threatening to block regional oil and gas supplies for years.20:41 GMT – Joint US‑Israeli airstrikes struck the Amirkabir Petrochemical Plant in Mahshahr, Iran, prompting local assessments of damage.With less than ninety minutes remaining, diplomatic channels intensified. Pakistani officials, including the military chief Asim Munir, facilitated talks that culminated in a two‑week, double‑sided cease‑fire announced by Trump at 22:45 GMT. The United States claimed to have received a “workable” 10‑point proposal from Tehran.Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi quickly confirmed the truce, stating Iran would honor it provided attacks on its territory ceased. Sharif then invited both Iranian and US delegations to Islamabad for further negotiations aimed at a permanent settlement.Early Wednesday, Trump’s tone shifted dramatically. In a Truth Social post he hailed the cease‑fire as a potential “Golden Age for the Middle East,” celebrating the pause in hostilities and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.The episode underscores how last‑minute diplomacy, spearheaded by Pakistan, averted a catastrophic escalation and opened a narrow window for a broader peace process in a region long mired in conflict.

Iran and the United States each declared a triumph after agreeing to a two‑week ceasefire that was announced just before President Donald Trump’s deadline to force Tehran’s surrender. The conflict, which began on 28 February, has already claimed 2,076 lives in U.S.–Israel strikes on Iran and has caused thousands more deaths across the region. The fighting has also shocked global energy markets, stranding oil tankers and pushing prices to unprecedented levels. Trump announced on Truth Social that the United States would halt bombing Iran after receiving a “workable” 10‑point ceasefire proposal, adding that “almost all of the various points of past contention have been agreed to.” Iran, for its part, said it would reopen the Strait of Hormuz to commercial traffic, even as some citizens denounced the government’s perceived capitulation. Both parties are set to resume Pakistan‑mediated talks in Islamabad on Friday, though analysts warn that earlier red lines may resurface. Key terms of the Tuesday agreement: the United States will suspend air strikes for two weeks, citing that it has already achieved its military objectives and is close to a “definitive agreement concerning long‑term peace.” Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, pledged to halt “defensive operations” and to allow safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz, while also indicating willingness to fund reconstruction from fees collected on transiting ships. Domestic reaction in Iran remains volatile. University of Tehran professor Foad Izadi noted that the public’s pessimism stems from two prior escalations—June’s 12‑day war and the February 28 strikes—both of which occurred amid ongoing negotiations. Earlier demands: The United States had presented a 15‑point plan on 25 March, calling for a 30‑day ceasefire, immediate reopening of the Strait, Iran’s de‑commissioning of its nuclear facilities, a total ban on uranium enrichment, handover of nuclear stockpiles to the IAEA, cessation of support to regional proxies, strict limits on ballistic missiles, and a full lift of sanctions, among other items. Iran responded with a 10‑point proposal that emphasized a non‑aggression commitment from the United States, controlled passage through the Strait, acceptance of its enrichment programme, comprehensive sanctions relief, withdrawal of U.S. combat forces, compensation for war damages via shipping fees, and a binding UN Security Council resolution. Both sides have already made concessions. Iran moved from demanding a permanent ceasefire to accepting a two‑week pause, and it shifted from insisting on reparations to proposing reconstruction funding from Strait fees. The United States, meanwhile, has softened its demand for an “unconditional” Iranian surrender and has not reiterated its earlier insistence on dismantling Iran’s missile capabilities. One of the most contentious issues remains the status of Lebanon. While Pakistan’s prime minister said the ceasefire would extend to Lebanon, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu denied any such inclusion, and Israel launched a major bombing campaign in Beirut shortly thereafter, killing hundreds. Looking ahead, analysts highlight that the United States is unlikely to concede on the complete withdrawal of its roughly 50,000 troops stationed across 19 Middle Eastern sites—a demand Tehran has placed on the table. The outcome of the upcoming talks will hinge on whether Washington can accommodate Tehran’s broader political and economic requests without compromising its strategic objectives.