Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told Al Jazeera that Tehran has been exchanging messages with the United States, either directly or via regional partners, as the US‑Israel war on Iran continues. He emphasized that these contacts do not constitute formal negotiations. "I receive messages from US special envoy Steve Witkoff directly, as before, and this does not mean that we are in negotiations," Araghchi said. He added that all communications are routed through the Foreign Ministry or security agencies, and there is no truth to claims of active talks with any US party. Reflecting on past diplomatic experience, Araghchi recalled a previous agreement—referring to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—that the United States later abandoned. "We do not have any faith that negotiations with the US will yield results; the trust level is at zero," he asserted. President Masoud Pezeshkian echoed the skepticism, stating that the US "does not believe in diplomacy" after Iran was attacked twice during prior negotiations. In a phone call with European Council President Antonio Costa, Pezeshkian said Iran possesses the "necessary will" to end the war, but insists on guarantees to prevent further aggression. US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth countered, saying Washington aims to secure a deal that would end the conflict and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, yet remains prepared to "negotiate with bombs" if needed. Addressing the strategic waterway, Araghchi noted that the strait lies within Oman’s and Iran’s territorial waters and can be used strategically. "Only for the ships of those who are at war with us, this strait is closed. That is normal during war," he explained, adding that some nations avoid the route due to security concerns and high insurance costs, while others have negotiated access. He warned that any post‑war arrangement for the strait will be decided jointly by Oman and Iran, with the potential to transform it into a "peaceful waterway." Regarding rumors of a possible US ground operation, Araghchi said Tehran is unafraid: "We are waiting for them. I don’t think they’d dare to do such a thing. There will be a lot of strength waiting for them." He affirmed Iran’s readiness to repel any ground attack. The foreign minister clarified that Iran has neither responded to nor submitted any counter‑proposals to the US 15‑point plan aimed at ending the war. The proposal, according to earlier reports, calls for Iran to renounce the acquisition of nuclear weapons and to limit its missile stockpile in range and quantity. Araghchi concluded that Iran will only accept an end to all attacks in the region, not merely a ceasefire, underscoring the country's firm stance amid ongoing hostilities.

Iran's foreign ministry has rejected demands for a ceasefire from the United States, escalating tensions in the region. The move comes as conflict continues to intensify in the Middle East. The Iranian government has not provided specific reasons for rejecting the ceasefire proposal, but the decision is seen as a significant development in the ongoing diplomatic efforts to broker peace.

President Donald Trump took to his Truth Social account on Tuesday to lambaste several European governments for declining to support the United States’ military campaign against Iran. He told nations struggling with fuel shortages to “go get your own oil” by force, a statement that immediately pushed global oil markets higher. European leaders pushed back. France barred Israeli aircraft carrying weapons from traversing French airspace, while Italy reportedly denied a last‑minute request for U.S. bombers to land in Sicily. Spain’s defence minister announced that Madrid would no longer tolerate “lectures” from any foreign power after refusing U.S. use of its bases and airspace. The United Kingdom, despite allowing U.S. forces to operate from its bases, faced a public rebuke from Trump, who singled out the UK for its inability to secure jet fuel through the Strait of Hormuz. U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth echoed the president’s hard‑line stance, suggesting that allied navies should be ready to intervene in the strategic waterway. Analysts warn that any attempt to seize the Strait of Hormuz by force would be highly risky and likely unrealistic. Nonetheless, the rhetoric has already contributed to a surge in fuel costs: U.S. gasoline prices have crossed the $4‑per‑gallon threshold for the first time in four years, and Brent crude slipped below $104 a barrel after Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian hinted at a possible de‑escalation. The conflict, now in its fourth week, has claimed more than 3,000 lives and triggered a worldwide economic shock. Irish Taoiseach Micheál Martin described the oil‑supply disruption as “probably the worst ever,” reflecting growing anxiety over inflation, stagnant growth, and a cost‑of‑living crisis that many nations are already grappling with. In a parallel diplomatic development, Pakistan and China unveiled a joint five‑part proposal aimed at ending hostilities and reopening the Strait of Hormuz, though it remains unclear how this aligns with recent U.S. diplomatic overtures through Islamabad. Meanwhile, the war’s regional dimensions have intensified. Israel announced plans to permanently occupy a swath of southern Lebanon up to the Litani River, a move that would cement its military presence well beyond the current confrontation with Hezbollah. Even the Vatican entered the fray. Pope Francis expressed hope that the fighting would cease by the upcoming Easter weekend, urging world leaders to find “ways to reduce the amount of violence.” His comments were widely interpreted as a subtle rebuke of the Trump administration’s aggressive posture. Overall, Trump’s incendiary remarks have highlighted a widening fissure between Washington and its traditional European partners, while the escalating oil price volatility underscores the broader economic ramifications of the Iran conflict.

Pakistan and China have jointly released a five-part proposal aimed at bringing peace to the Middle East, as the conflict between Iran and the US shows no signs of abating. The plan, which was agreed upon during a meeting between Pakistan's Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar and his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi, calls for an immediate ceasefire and the protection of key waterways, including the Strait of Hormuz.The proposal is part of Pakistan's broader efforts to position itself as a peacemaker in the region, with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Army Chief Syed Asim Munir engaging in diplomatic communications with global leaders, including US President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian. Islamabad has also hosted talks with foreign ministers from Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt in an attempt to find a regional solution to the conflict.China, which has maintained a neutral stance in the conflict, has emphasized the importance of dialogue and diplomacy in resolving the crisis. The joint statement from Pakistan and China highlighted that dialogue and diplomacy are the only viable options to resolve conflicts, although there appears to be little substantive progress in bringing key participants to the negotiating table.Pakistan's push for peace is driven by both geopolitical and domestic concerns. The country shares a 560-mile land border with Iran and has significant stakes in ending the conflict, including economic concerns related to the blockade on fuel and gas through the Strait of Hormuz. Furthermore, Pakistan is home to the world's largest population of Shia Muslims outside Iran, and there are fears that the conflict could stir up sectarian tensions.Rafiullah Kakar, a Pakistani columnist and political analyst, noted that Islamabad seeks to reinforce its standing as a consequential middle power within the broader Muslim world and to signal continued geopolitical importance to external partners, particularly Washington and the Gulf states. However, with serious instability in Iran having direct implications for Pakistan's security, Islamabad is keen to avoid being dragged into the conflict.

The Israeli Knesset approved a bill on Monday that makes the death penalty the standard sentence for Palestinians found guilty of terrorism‑related murders in the occupied West Bank, while excluding Jewish extremists from the same punishment. Volker Türk, the UN high commissioner for human rights, warned that the law is "patently inconsistent" with Israel’s obligations under international law and could constitute a war crime when applied to residents of the occupied territories. Türk stressed that the proposal raises “serious concerns about due‑process violations” and is “deeply discriminatory,” urging the Israeli government to repeal it without delay. He added that its selective application would amount to “an especially egregious breach of international law.” European officials have joined the criticism. An EU spokesperson described the bill as “a clear step backwards” and highlighted its discriminatory nature. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez called the measure “asymmetric” and likened it to a move toward apartheid, while Germany’s foreign ministry said it could not endorse a law that “rejects the fundamental principle of opposing the death penalty.” The legislation stipulates that anyone sentenced to death will be held in a separate facility, barred from family visits, and allowed legal counsel only via video link. Executions are to be carried out within 90 days of sentencing, with hanging identified as the method of execution. The bill also removes the requirement for a prosecutor’s request and permits a simple majority vote in military courts to impose the death sentence. Israel has applied capital punishment only twice since its establishment, most recently in 1962 when Adolf Eichmann was executed. The bill’s strongest political backer, National Security Minister Itamar Ben‑Gvir, has publicly displayed a noose‑shaped lapel pin, symbolising the proposed executions. Human‑rights organisations have warned that the law entrenches a two‑tiered justice system. Adam Coogle of Human Rights Watch said the measure “entrenches discrimination and a two‑tiered system of justice, both hallmarks of apartheid,” while Oxfam’s Shaista Aziz warned that it “effectively ensures that the death penalty will apply only to Palestinians, even as the occupation sees a surge in violence against them.” Within Israel, the bill faces legal opposition. Several human‑rights groups and three Knesset members have filed petitions with the Supreme Court, arguing that the law creates parallel legal tracks that target Palestinians and should be struck down on constitutional grounds.

Thames Water, the UK's largest water company, is facing mounting pressure to open its bidding process to potential buyers after a failed takeover attempt last year. The company's debt burden of £17.6bn has raised concerns about its financial stability.CK Infrastructure (CKI), owned by Hong Kong's richest man, Li Ka-shing, has expressed interest in acquiring Thames Water and has been trying to launch a bid since February last year. However, the company was eliminated from the process despite tabling a multibillion-pound proposal.Andrew Hunter, CKI's co-managing director, has criticized Thames Water's bosses for not allowing other firms to bid for the company, saying they should 'eat humble pie' over the failed takeover process. Hunter argued that CKI has experience running water companies, having owned Northumbrian Water since 2011, and serves 2.7 million customers in north-east England.Thames Water is currently negotiating with creditors over a £10bn rescue plan that would involve paying off hundreds of millions of pounds-worth of fines for leaks and pollution. The company has been struggling financially for over two years and faces a potential temporary nationalization if it falls into administration.Hunter has called on the water regulator, Ofwat, to intervene and open up the bidding process to other potential buyers. He emphasized that it's crucial for Thames Water to be owned and operated by an experienced company to ensure its stability and proper management.

The UK aviation regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), has partially rejected Heathrow Airport's plans to significantly raise its landing fees to fund a multibillion-pound upgrade. The CAA argues that Heathrow can still invest in upgrades without steep rises in ticket prices. The CAA has proposed that the average charge for each passenger should rise from £28.40 to £28.80 between 2027 and 2031, a 1% increase. This is £5.40, or 16%, lower than the changes proposed by Heathrow, but £5.80 or 25% higher than the changes wanted by the airlines. Heathrow had proposed a 17% increase to £33.26, which resulted in criticism from airlines who said it would lead to higher ticket prices for passengers. The CAA's proposal aims to strike a balance between keeping passenger prices fair and enabling the airport to make necessary investments. Selina Chadha, group director of consumer markets at the CAA, said: “Our primary duty is to protect consumers and at the heart of today’s proposals is doing the right thing for passengers using Heathrow airport, while supporting sustainable growth, investment, and efficiency.” The CAA has proposed that Heathrow spend between £5.4bn and £6.1bn on projects, including upgrading the airport's electrical system. Heathrow had been seeking approval to spend up to £10bn to handle an extra 10 million passengers a year by 2031. Thomas Woldbye, the chief executive of Heathrow airport, said: “We will now review the CAA’s initial proposal in detail to fully understand the implications for delivering the innovation, progress and improvements customers expect. On the face of it, the CAA’s proposal may force choices that create trade-offs for service and delay delivery.” The CAA will publish its final proposals in November, with a final decision expected in April 2027.

Islamabad became the focal point of a new diplomatic track when the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt arrived this weekend, joining Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar. The quartet pledged to channel U.S. and Iranian confidence in Pakistan’s ability to host direct talks aimed at a comprehensive settlement. At the close of the meeting, Dar announced the creation of a Committee of Four—senior officials from each foreign ministry tasked with ironing out the procedural details of the peace process. The gathering marks the evolution of a broader Arab‑Islamic consultative effort that began in Riyadh on March 19 into a focused four‑nation push, with Pakistan positioned as the primary conduit between Washington and Tehran. In a candid interview with the Financial Times, U.S. President Donald Trump declared his “favourite thing is to take the oil in Iran,” hinting at a possible seizure of Kharg Island, which handles roughly 90 % of Iran’s crude exports. He reiterated an April 6 deadline for Tehran to accept a deal or face U.S. strikes on its energy infrastructure, yet on Air Force One he added, “I do see a deal in Iran, yeah. Could be soon,” describing the negotiations as “extremely well” progressing. Analysts stress that these mixed signals underscore the central tension confronting Pakistan’s initiative. While Islamabad and its partners are building a multilateral framework to curb escalation, Israeli strikes continue and the U.S. military presence in the region expands. Key diplomatic insights came from former Pakistani officials. Former information minister Mushahid Hussain Sayed highlighted the meeting as the first institutional Muslim‑world effort to open a dialogue pathway, noting that Pakistan and Turkey are among the most credible interlocutors—one a nuclear power, the other a NATO member. He cautioned, however, that the steps are “baby steps” in a war that is rapidly complicating. Former ambassador Masood Khan described the Committee of Four as a structured back‑channel enabling a “step‑by‑step, layered, and calibrated process.” He outlined four potential stages: trust‑building measures, cease‑fire negotiations, direct talks on the nuclear programme and the Strait of Hormuz, and finally reciprocal commitments. Khan warned that Iran’s demands for war reparations and sovereignty over the Strait could prove the toughest hurdles. High‑level outreach extended beyond the region. Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif held a 90‑minute call with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, while China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi pledged full backing for the initiative. A senior Pakistani diplomat confirmed Dar’s planned visit to China on March 31, underscoring the strategic weight of the Pakistan‑China relationship. On the economic front, Iran’s agreement to allow 20 Pakistani‑flagged vessels through the Strait of Hormuz represents the most immediate confidence‑building measure. The strait remains effectively closed to regular shipping, prompting the International Energy Agency to label the disruption as the “worst oil shock in history,” surpassing the crises of 1973 and 1979. Brent crude surged above $116 per barrel, up more than 50 % since the war began on February 28, while WTO Director‑General Ngozi Okonjo‑Iweala warned of the “worst trade disruptions in the past 80 years.” Nevertheless, experts argue that the Strait should not become the centerpiece of any settlement. The long‑term resolution will likely involve all eight littoral states under UNCLOS and established legal precedents, with the immediate priority being a broader halt to hostilities. Military dynamics remain volatile. U.S. Central Command reported that an amphibious task force of roughly 3,500 Marines and sailors aboard the USS Tripoli arrived in the region, with an additional 2,200 Marines and 2,000 soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division slated to deploy. Trump affirmed that military options are still on the table, and reports suggest the Pentagon is preparing for potential ground operations. Iran’s leadership remains skeptical. A spokesperson for Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs described the U.S. 15‑point plan—calling for a one‑month cease‑fire, handover of highly enriched uranium, a halt to enrichment, missile curbs, and an end to proxy support—as “unrealistic, illogical and excessive.” Tehran’s counter‑proposal, aired on Press TV, demands a halt to aggression, concrete guarantees against recurrence, reparations, and formal recognition of Iranian sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz. Analysts such as Reza Khanzadeh of George Mason University argue that the burden of compromise falls on Washington, noting that Iran will not sacrifice regime survival. Meanwhile, former diplomat Masood Khan identified the most decisive confidence‑building measure as a U.S. commitment to halt Israeli attacks on Iran and Lebanon—a step he admits is “easier said than done.” In sum, Pakistan’s diplomatic corridor offers a glimmer of hope, but deep mistrust, divergent demands, and an accelerating military buildup render the path to a lasting settlement precarious.

European nations have voiced their deep concern over Israel's plans to expand the use of the death penalty, a move that could have a disproportionate impact on Palestinians. The bill, which is set to be voted on next week, has sparked criticism from foreign ministers of France, Germany, Italy, and the UK.In a statement released by the German Federal Foreign Office on Sunday, the ministers expressed their worries about the discriminatory character of the bill, warning that its adoption could undermine Israel's commitment to democratic principles.The legislation, championed by far-right government figures including National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, aims to make the death penalty applicable in more cases. Amnesty International has condemned the proposals, stating that they would make the death penalty "another discriminatory tool in Israel's system of apartheid."The bill's passage would likely face a legal challenge and be taken before the Supreme Court. The development comes as Israel's policies in Gaza and the occupied West Bank have faced international scrutiny.The Council of Europe has also urged Israel to abandon the draft law, with Council chief Alain Berset stating that the organization opposes the death penalty in all circumstances.