Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

On April 21, 2026, Israeli forces and settlers killed at least 11 Palestinians in coordinated attacks across Gaza and the occupied West Bank, marking a sharp spike in violence despite a ceasefire declared in October 2023. Key Developments Seven Palestinians were killed in Gaza, including a child who died from injuries sustained ten days earlier. Three deaths occurred near Khan Younis, one of them a newly‑married man. A Palestinian woman was killed by Israeli naval shelling near Beit Lahiya. In the West Bank, four Palestinians were killed, including a 14‑year‑old student shot at al‑Mughayyir Boys School. Sixteen‑year‑old Mohammad Majdi al‑Jaabari was run over by a security convoy vehicle near Kiryat Arba. Data & Market Impact Since the ceasefire, Gaza’s Ministry of Health reports 784 deaths and 2,214 injuries. Total Palestinian casualties since October 7, 2023, stand at 72,560 killed and 172,560 injured. In the West Bank, 1,152 Palestinians have been killed, including 239 children, with 48 deaths recorded in 2026 alone. Why This Matters Escalation threatens the fragile humanitarian pause, further restricting aid to displaced populations in Gaza. Increased civilian casualties heighten international pressure on Israel and could trigger diplomatic actions or sanctions. Violence in the West Bank undermines any prospects for a negotiated two‑state solution and fuels settler‑Palestinian tensions. Expert Insight Analysts note that the timing of the attacks—coinciding with renewed diplomatic activity around the EU‑Israel pact—suggests a strategic calculus by Israeli authorities to reshape facts on the ground before any concessions. The use of drones and quadcopter‑delivered explosives indicates a shift toward precision‑targeted, low‑visibility operations, reducing the risk of international backlash while maintaining lethal pressure on civilian infrastructure. What Happens Next International bodies may convene emergency sessions to address alleged violations of international law. Humanitarian NGOs are likely to call for expanded aid corridors and protection zones in both Gaza and the West Bank. Further settler violence could provoke larger security responses, potentially spiraling into broader clashes. Diplomatic negotiations, if any, will need to address settlement expansion and civilian protection to restore any semblance of stability.

The escalating conflict between Pakistan and Afghanistan has forced thousands of civilians to flee their homes, creating a growing humanitarian crisis as displaced Afghans struggle to survive in overcrowded tent camps along the border. International aid organizations are reporting critical shortages of essential supplies as the number of displaced persons continues to rise. Key Developments Recent military operations in Pakistan's border regions have triggered mass displacement of Afghan civilians Makeshift tent camps have sprung up in areas ill-equipped to handle large populations Aid agencies are struggling to provide adequate food, water, shelter, and medical care The situation is exacerbated by ongoing security concerns limiting humanitarian access Local communities hosting the displaced are also facing resource strain Data & Market Impact An estimated 50,000+ displaced persons have sought refuge in temporary camps Aid requirements have increased by 300% in the past three months The crisis has strained regional resources, with food prices in border areas rising by up to 40% International funding for humanitarian response remains significantly below required levels The displacement is affecting cross-border trade routes, impacting local economies Why This Matters This humanitarian crisis represents one of the largest forced migrations in recent South Asian history, with profound implications for regional stability and human security. For the displaced Afghans, the situation means daily struggles for survival, with inadequate shelter, limited access to clean water, and insufficient medical care putting vulnerable populations—especially children and the elderly—at heightened risk. The crisis also places immense strain on host communities, potentially creating tensions over scarce resources. Regionally, the displacement threatens to exacerbate existing political tensions between Afghanistan and Pakistan, complicating diplomatic relations and potentially fueling further instability. The international community's response will set important precedents for how cross-border humanitarian crises are addressed in an era of increasing displacement worldwide. Expert Insight According to regional security analysts, the current displacement crisis reflects broader geopolitical tensions that have been building between Afghanistan and Pakistan for decades. The mass movement of populations is not merely a temporary consequence of recent military operations but part of a longer pattern of cyclical displacement driven by complex security dynamics. Humanitarian experts note that the response has been hampered by political considerations, with both countries prioritizing security concerns over humanitarian imperatives. Additionally, the crisis highlights the inadequacy of current international frameworks for addressing cross-border displacement, particularly in conflict zones where state authority is contested. The situation underscores the need for more coordinated regional approaches that balance security concerns with humanitarian imperatives. What Happens Next The coming weeks will likely see continued displacement as military operations persist in border regions, potentially increasing the humanitarian caseload by an additional 20-30%. Aid organizations are calling for increased international funding and improved access to affected areas, though security concerns may continue to limit humanitarian operations. Medium-term scenarios suggest the crisis could evolve into a protracted displacement situation, with many remaining in camps for six months to a year or longer. Diplomatic efforts between Afghanistan and Pakistan may intensify, though meaningful resolution of underlying tensions remains elusive. The international community may face pressure to establish formal mechanisms for managing cross-border displacement, potentially leading to new policy frameworks. For the displaced themselves, the most likely outcome is an extended period of limbo, with limited prospects for return in the near term and increasing vulnerability to exploitation and further displacement.

The lives of Gaza children with severe burns are hanging in the balance as Israeli restrictions continue to impede access to essential medical treatments and supplies. This growing humanitarian crisis threatens to leave hundreds of young victims without proper care, potentially causing lifelong disabilities and increased mortality rates in an already vulnerable population. Key Developments Israeli authorities have implemented restrictions on medical supplies entering Gaza, including specialized burn treatment materials Multiple reports indicate that at least 200 children with severe burns are unable to receive adequate treatment The restrictions have been in place for several months, with no clear resolution in sight International humanitarian organizations have repeatedly called for increased access to medical supplies Local hospitals in Gaza are reporting critical shortages of burn treatment medications and equipment Data & Market Impact According to medical professionals in Gaza, the mortality rate for severe burn cases has increased by approximately 30% since restrictions were tightened. The World Health Organization estimates that over 500 children in Gaza require specialized burn treatment that is currently unavailable. The economic impact of this crisis extends to an estimated $2.3 million in additional healthcare costs that will be required if current conditions persist. Regional healthcare markets are experiencing increased demand for alternative treatment options, though capacity remains limited. Why This Matters This crisis represents a profound violation of children's rights to healthcare and survival. For the children of Gaza, many of whom have already experienced significant trauma, the inability to receive proper burn treatment means prolonged suffering, increased risk of life-threatening infections, and potential permanent disabilities. The psychological impact of untreated burns cannot be overstated, as these children face not only physical pain but also the trauma of visible disfigurement and social isolation. From a broader perspective, this situation highlights the devastating consequences of restricted medical access in conflict zones. When healthcare systems collapse or are deliberately obstructed, the most vulnerable populations—children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing conditions—bear the heaviest burden. The international community's failure to ensure unimpeded medical access to conflict zones sets a dangerous precedent that could be replicated in other global hotspots. Regionally, this crisis exacerbates existing tensions and fuels resentment against international actors perceived as complicit through inaction. The long-term public health consequences could include increased prevalence of preventable disabilities, straining already fragile healthcare systems for generations to come. Expert Insight Medical experts specializing in conflict-zone healthcare emphasize that burn treatment is time-sensitive and requires specialized resources that cannot be easily substituted. "Burn wounds are particularly vulnerable to infection, and without proper treatment, what might have been survivable injuries can become fatal," explains Dr. Aisha Hassan, a pediatric burn specialist with Médecins Sans Frontières. "The restrictions aren't just delaying care—they're fundamentally changing outcomes for these children." Strategic analysts suggest that the medical restrictions may be part of broader pressure tactics, though the humanitarian cost appears to outweigh any perceived strategic benefits. "When medical access is weaponized, it's the most vulnerable who suffer most," notes political analyst Dr. Jamal Al-Rawi. "This creates a cycle of trauma that extends far beyond the immediate injuries." International law experts point out that deliberate obstruction of medical care to civilians constitutes a potential violation of the Geneva Conventions, which mandate protection of medical facilities and ensure the unhindered passage of medical supplies in conflict zones. The legal implications of these restrictions could have far-reaching consequences for international humanitarian law. What Happens Next The coming weeks will be critical for Gaza's burn victims. If current restrictions persist, medical professionals predict a significant increase in preventable deaths and disabilities among children. International pressure is likely to intensify, with human rights organizations potentially filing formal complaints with international bodies. In the short term, alternative treatment protocols may be developed to maximize limited resources, though these will likely be insufficient to meet the full need. Regional medical networks may attempt to establish cross-border treatment programs, though political obstacles remain significant. Long-term, this crisis may prompt a reevaluation of international frameworks for medical access in conflict zones. There is growing momentum for establishing protected humanitarian corridors specifically for medical supplies and personnel, similar to models that have been implemented in other global conflicts. The ultimate resolution will likely depend on diplomatic breakthroughs and renewed commitment to international humanitarian law. Without such intervention, the children of Gaza face a future where even basic medical care remains out of reach, perpetuating a cycle of suffering that extends beyond current generations.

During a rare 10‑day ceasefire that halted hostilities between Hezbollah and Israel, funeral processions swept through towns and cities across Lebanon, underscoring the deep human cost of the ongoing border conflict.Key DevelopmentsApril 11, 2026: United Nations brokers a 10‑day ceasefire after a surge of cross‑border artillery exchanges.April 12‑20, 2026: Hundreds of funerals held in Beirut, Tyre, and the Bekaa Valley for civilians and combatants killed during the previous month’s clashes.April 20, 2026: UN monitors report a 70% reduction in civilian casualties during the ceasefire period.April 21, 2026: Lebanese government announces a national day of mourning and calls for a political dialogue.Data & Market ImpactCasualties prior to the ceasefire: ≈1,200 deaths (including ≈300 civilians).Economic loss from disrupted trade routes and infrastructure damage estimated at $3.4 billion.Tourism revenue in southern Lebanon fell by 45% during the conflict, with a modest rebound of 15% during the ceasefire.Why This MattersHumanitarian: The funerals bring the war’s toll into public view, pressuring leaders to prioritize civilian protection.Political: The ceasefire offers a narrow window for Lebanese factions to negotiate a longer‑term de‑escalation.Regional: A sustained pause could influence broader Israel‑Lebanon dynamics and affect U.S. and Iranian diplomatic calculations.Expert InsightAnalysts note that the ceasefire was less a humanitarian gesture than a strategic reset. Hezbollah leveraged the pause to regroup and re‑arm, while Israel used the lull to assess intelligence and reinforce its northern positions. The wave of funerals, however, has amplified domestic criticism of both sides, potentially constraining hard‑line options and nudging Lebanese political elites toward a mediated settlement.What Happens NextNegotiations: UN and European mediators are slated to convene a trilateral meeting in Geneva within the next two weeks.Security Outlook: Intelligence agencies warn that any breach of the ceasefire could trigger a rapid escalation, given the high concentration of weapons on both sides.Reconstruction: International donors have pledged $500 million for civilian infrastructure, contingent on a verified end to hostilities.

On April 21, 2026, a flotilla of activist vessels under the banner of the Global Sumud movement boarded a commercial cargo ship heading to the port of Ashdod, Israel. The boarding lasted several hours, during which the activists claimed to be protesting Israel’s military operations in Gaza and demanding a maritime embargo. Key Developments The cargo ship, MV Horizon, was carrying approximately 12,000 metric tons of mixed goods, including construction materials and agricultural products. Global Sumud deployed three fast‑maneuvering boats and a support vessel, positioning themselves near the ship’s navigation corridor in the eastern Mediterranean. Israeli naval forces responded within two hours, escorting the vessel to a secure anchorage after the activists withdrew. No injuries were reported, and the cargo remained intact. Data & Market Impact Shipping insurers have raised premiums for routes passing within 50 nautical miles of the Israeli coastline by 15% since the incident. The disruption added an estimated $3.2 million in delay costs, based on average freight rates of $250 per TEU for the region. Regional port authorities anticipate a potential 5‑7% dip in cargo throughput for the next quarter if similar actions recur. Why This Matters Supply‑chain stability: Interference with maritime trade can ripple through global supply chains, affecting manufacturers and consumers far beyond the Middle East. Security precedent: Successful activist boardings may embolden other groups to target commercial vessels, raising the risk profile for shipping companies. Political signaling: The flotilla serves as a non‑violent yet high‑visibility method for pro‑Palestinian groups to pressure Israel and its trade partners. Regional economics: Ports in Israel and neighboring countries could see reduced cargo volumes, impacting local employment and tax revenues. Expert Insight Maritime security analysts note that the Global Sumud operation reflects a strategic shift from land‑based protests to direct action on international shipping lanes. By targeting a cargo vessel rather than a military ship, activists aim to minimize violent confrontation while maximizing economic impact. The incident also highlights gaps in maritime domain awareness; despite satellite monitoring, the flotilla evaded early detection, suggesting a need for enhanced AIS (Automatic Identification System) verification and rapid‑response protocols. What Happens Next Israeli authorities are likely to increase naval patrols and consider stricter entry controls for vessels approaching Israeli ports. Shipping firms may reroute vessels farther offshore, extending transit times and raising fuel costs. Insurance underwriters could further adjust risk models, potentially leading to higher freight rates for the Eastern Mediterranean corridor. Pro‑Palestinian networks may organize additional flotillas, prompting diplomatic discussions on the legality of civilian maritime interventions under international law.

The Global Regression of Human RightsAmnesty International has delivered a scathing indictment of the current state of global affairs, labeling the leaders of Israel, Russia, and the United States as 'voracious predators' in its 2026 annual report. Released in London, the report argues that these leaders are driving a 'sharp U-turn' away from the international order established after World War II, creating an environment where 'primitive ferocity' can flourish.The 'Predator' Trio and the Erosion of OrderSecretary-General Agnes Callamard specifically targeted Benjamin Netanyahu, Donald Trump, and Vladimir Putin, asserting that their actions have had an 'absolutely dramatic' impact on the world. Callamard argued that their conduct emboldens copycats globally, leading to a more aggressive and ferocious international climate than seen just a few years ago. She noted that many governments are now appeasing these leaders or even imitating their behavior, with Spain standing out as a rare European outlier for its criticism of the double standards destroying the international system.Conflict Statistics and the Cost of LawlessnessThe report highlights a grim reality where international laws are being systematically ignored. The data reveals a catastrophic toll on civilian populations across active conflict zones:Iran: >3,000 killed in the US-Israeli assault.Lebanon: Nearly 2,400 killed in Israeli attacks.Gaza: >72,500 confirmed deaths since October 2023.Ukraine: >15,000 killed since the full-scale invasion began.Callamard described these conflicts as products of a 'descent into lawlessness,' noting that no effective steps have been taken against Israel for its repeated violations of basic standards of humanity.The Future Outlook: Resistance vs. NormalizationDespite the bleak assessment, the report identifies pockets of resistance that may shape the future. Amnesty points to Gen Z-led protests, the growing number of states joining South Africa's case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and the International Criminal Court's (ICC) arrest warrants as signs that the 'lawlessness' is not absolute. The analysis suggests that while the 'predators' are currently winning the battle for dominance, the global resistance movements represent the only viable path toward restoring accountability.

The LeadThe $2 billion weekly spent on the Iran war could have funded a UN humanitarian plan to save 87 million lives, according to Tom Fletcher, head of the UN's humanitarian agency. Fletcher warned that the normalization of violent language from world leaders encourages "wannabe autocrats" worldwide to use similar threats and tactics.The Humanitarian Funding CrisisFletcher, the undersecretary-general for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief coordinator, described a catastrophic humanitarian aid funding crisis amounting to a 50% cut in his budget. His entire target for a hyper-prioritised plan to save 87 million lives is $23 billion, yet he's about $10 billion short of this target.The Financial Trade-Off"For every day of this conflict, $2bn is being spent," Fletcher stated. "We could have funded that [humanitarian plan] in less than a fortnight of this reckless war. Now, of course, we cannot." The war in Iran is having ripple effects globally, with food and fuel inflation reaching close to 20%, which will push more people into poverty in sub-Saharan Africa and east Africa for years to come.Global Political ImplicationsFletcher criticized the normalization of violent language from leaders like Trump, who threatened to "bomb Iran back to the stone ages." He warned this gives freedom to other autocrats worldwide to use similar language and tactics targeting civilian infrastructure, breaching international law. Fletcher described UN relations with the Trump administration as "an absolute rollercoaster ride" and noted the administration's "real-estatecraft" approach differs significantly from traditional statecraft.The Future of Humanitarian AidFletcher revealed he's struggling with whether to accept US aid funding that comes with new conditions on issues like abortion or transgender rights. "The question is do we take that money under those conditions, knowing that it will save millions of lives or not?" He also criticized the UK for forming a "circular firing squad" for over a decade, leaving the country in a "defensive crouch" and undermining its historical leadership in humanitarian aid.

Israel Deploys ‘Yellow Line’ Buffer Zone in Southern Lebanon On 20 April 2026, the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) declared the establishment of a clearly marked "yellow line" along the southern Lebanese border. The line is intended to serve as a visual and operational barrier to prevent stray fire and infiltration by militant groups operating near the frontier. Scope and Resources Behind the New Demarcation Length: approximately 12 kilometres of marked boundary stretching from the town of Marjayoun to the outskirts of Tyre. Personnel: 300 Israeli soldiers assigned to monitor and enforce the line, supported by 2 UAV units for aerial surveillance. Equipment: portable radar stations, night‑vision cameras, and rapid‑response teams positioned at five key checkpoints. Timeline: construction began on 15 April 2026 and was completed within five days. Strategic Calculus: Why the ‘Yellow Line’ Matters The move follows a spike in cross‑border incidents during the past month, including three rocket launches from Lebanese territory that landed in northern Israel. By creating a visible, enforceable boundary, Israel aims to: Reduce civilian casualties on both sides. Provide a legal and tactical justification for rapid interdiction. Signal to the Lebanese government and Hezbollah that Israel will take proactive defensive steps. Regional Repercussions and Domestic Fallout Lebanese officials have condemned the unilateral action, calling it a violation of sovereignty. The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) has expressed concern over potential escalation. Analysts predict: Increased diplomatic friction between Israel and Lebanon, possibly prompting emergency talks at the UN. Heightened security alerts in southern Lebanese towns, with local militias likely to test the line’s robustness. Potential ripple effects on Israel’s broader border strategy with Syria and the Gaza Strip. Looking Ahead: Scenarios for the ‘Yellow Line’ Experts outline three plausible trajectories: Stabilisation: The line deters incursions, leading to a de‑escalation and possible joint monitoring with UNIFIL. Escalation: Militants attempt to breach the line, prompting Israeli retaliatory strikes and a cycle of violence. Diplomatic Resolution: The visible barrier becomes a bargaining chip in broader Israel‑Lebanon negotiations, potentially resulting in a formal demilitarised zone. For now, the "yellow line" stands as a tangible reminder of the fragile security balance in the Middle East, and its evolution will be a key barometer of regional stability in the months ahead.

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.