Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Pakistan has put forward a two-phase plan to bring an end to the ongoing conflict between the US, Israel, and Iran, and to reopen the strategically critical Strait of Hormuz. This initiative has been shared with both Iran and the United States, and is currently being considered by both sides.According to sources, Esmaeil Baghaei, spokesman for Iran's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, has acknowledged Pakistan's diplomatic efforts. The plan, tentatively referred to as the 'Islamabad Accord', involves an immediate ceasefire and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, with 15 to 20 days allocated to finalize a broader settlement.The proposed agreement would include Iranian commitments not to pursue nuclear weapons in exchange for sanctions relief and the release of frozen assets. However, Tehran has responded by stating that it will not reopen the strait as part of a temporary ceasefire, and has expressed skepticism about the proposal.The US has not yet responded to Pakistan's plan, while Iran has rejected a 15-point plan put forward by the US last month, describing it as 'illogical'. The conflict has resulted in significant human suffering, with over 2,000 people killed in Iran since the war began on February 28.The situation remains volatile, with Trump threatening 'hell' on Tehran if a deal is not reached by the end of Tuesday. The international community is closely watching the developments, as the Strait of Hormuz remains a critical artery for global fuel supplies, with over 20 percent of the world's oil and gas passing through the waterway.

President Donald Trump’s recent proclamation that Iran must reopen the Strait of Hormuz or face a combined "Power Plant Day" and "Bridge Day" has thrust senior U.S. officers into a stark ethical quandary: obey a presidential directive that could breach international law, or risk court‑martial for insubordination. In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump warned that failure to comply would result in an unprecedented strike on Iran’s civilian energy infrastructure, a move that legal scholars agree would amount to a war crime against 93 million civilians. Two former judge‑advocate general officers, Margaret Donovan and Rachel VanLandingham, emphasized that such rhetoric, if acted upon, would place service members on a “path of no return,” directly contradicting the extensive legal training that defines permissible orders. Historical precedent underscores the gravity of the situation. During the Vietnam War, officers who participated in the My Lai massacre were ultimately held accountable, with the court rejecting the “just following orders” defence as the orders were deemed “palpably illegal.” Professor Charli Carpenter of the University of Massachusetts Amherst notes that while many troops can identify manifestly unlawful commands in surveys, translating that awareness into real‑time refusal is far more challenging, especially when the military culture heavily emphasizes obedience to the chain of command. Since assuming office, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has reshaped the Pentagon’s legal advisory structure, dismissing senior JAG officials and dismantling the Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response unit created under the previous administration. Consequently, service members now rely on a “GI rights hotline,” whose usage has reportedly surged under the current leadership. Beyond conventional strikes, Trump’s escalating rhetoric has raised alarms about the potential use of nuclear force. Under U.S. protocol, the president alone can initiate a nuclear launch, with the “nuclear football” – a briefcase containing strike options and authentication codes – handed to a close aide. The only safeguard is for senior commanders to deem such an order illegal, a step that experts fear may never occur. Former Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley, during the previous administration, reportedly instructed senior officers to stay involved in any nuclear decision due to concerns about Trump’s volatility. Nuclear weapons scholar Jeffrey Lewis now warns that confidence in any contemporary intervention is essentially nonexistent, citing Trump’s pattern of purging dissenting military personnel. As the deadline looms, the United States faces a precarious balance between upholding international humanitarian law and navigating a command structure that may be unwilling or unable to challenge the commander‑in‑chief’s most extreme directives.

Former Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif presented a comprehensive peace roadmap in Foreign Affairs on Friday, seeking to move beyond a temporary cease‑fire in the war that erupted on February 28 after coordinated US‑Israeli strikes on Iran. The plan urges Iran to place limits on its nuclear program under international monitoring, including a commitment to never pursue nuclear weapons and to blend its enriched uranium below 3.67 %. This would address the International Atomic Energy Agency’s estimate that Iran holds roughly 440 kg (970 lb) of uranium enriched to 60 %—a level close to the 90 % threshold needed for a bomb. Zarif also proposes a mutual non‑aggression pact with the United States, coupled with the immediate lifting of all US sanctions and United Nations Security Council resolutions against Tehran. To secure regional stability, he suggests forming a regional fuel‑enrichment consortium that would involve China, Russia and the United States alongside Iran and its Gulf neighbours, using West Asia’s sole enrichment facility. Additionally, a broader security framework could include Gulf states, UN Security Council powers and possibly Egypt, Pakistan and Turkey to guarantee freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran has largely blocked since the conflict began. Beyond security, Zarif calls for “mutually beneficial trade, economic and technological cooperation” between Iran and the United States, framing the roadmap as a “well‑timed off‑ramp” for President Donald Trump, who recently warned Iran it had 48 hours to negotiate a deal or face “all hell”. Gulf officials reacted sharply. UAE diplomatic adviser Anwar Gargash dismissed the proposal as ignoring Iran’s aggressive missile and drone attacks on Gulf infrastructure, calling the strategy “hubris & strategic failure.” Former Qatari Prime Minister Hamad bin Jassim Al Thani acknowledged the plan’s cleverness but warned that the war has “eroded the trust built over years” and increased regional danger. The United States has offered a 15‑point cease‑fire plan, while Pakistan, Turkey and Egypt continue to push for direct talks, yet no substantive progress has emerged. Should the roadmap gain traction, it could reopen the Strait of Hormuz—through which one‑fifth of global crude oil and natural gas normally flows—alleviate the economic shockwaves rippling through world markets, and reshape the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East.

Several readers have voiced alarm over the unfolding US‑Israel war on Iran, describing it as a chaotic and unjustified conflict that threatens regional stability and global order.One contributor likens the situation to a “spectacle of two rogue nations armed with nuclear weapons fighting to prevent a third from acquiring similar capabilities,” warning that the resulting chaos could embolden other territorial disputes, from China’s claim on Taiwan to Argentina’s claim on the Falklands. The writer urges individuals to emulate the anti‑apartheid boycott campaign, suggesting a coordinated boycott of US and Israeli products and a disengagement from the upcoming FIFA World Cup as potential levers to pressure the belligerents.Another letter critiques the tone of the original editorial, arguing that the war’s justification—purported nuclear compliance and regime change—was merely “grist to throw into the media mill.” The author characterises President Trump’s approach as a personal crusade, describing it as a “hyperbolic truth” that seeks to vent anger and claim divine credit, with the war ending only when Trump’s interest wanes.A third commentator questions the UK’s role, noting that despite initial resistance, British bases have quietly accommodated US and Israeli forces, mirroring the pattern seen in Gaza. The writer warns that the conflict could inflict a “disaster for our economy and that of Europe” that may last for years, calling the war both “immoral” and “illegal” and urging a policy reversal.Concern is also expressed about China’s silence. Citing a recent Guardian editorial, a reader points out that Beijing’s proclaimed “major‑country diplomacy” has not translated into constructive mediation, similar to its restrained stance on the Ukraine war. The letter argues that the global benefits of peace outweigh any short‑term advantage China might gain from allowing two wars to continue, and calls on allies of China to press the government into action.Collectively, these letters highlight a growing perception that the war in Iran is driven more by political posturing than by clear strategic objectives, and they advocate for a combination of economic pressure, public dissent, and diplomatic engagement to halt the escalation.

The United States is reportedly contemplating a daring military operation to confiscate Iran's reserves of highly enriched uranium, a move that experts warn would be fraught with significant challenges and risks.Ensuring Iran does not possess nuclear weapons or the capability to produce them using enriched uranium has been a primary objective for the US during negotiations with Iranian officials over the past year. This goal was also cited as a justification for the US bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities during last year's 12-day war with Israel and for initiating the ongoing conflict in February, despite ongoing talks with Iran at the time.Iran possesses approximately 440 kilograms (970 pounds) of uranium enriched to 60 percent, a level at which it becomes considerably easier to reach the 90 percent threshold required to produce a nuclear weapon. This amount theoretically could be used to produce more than 10 nuclear warheads, according to International Atomic Energy Agency chief Rafael Grossi.Iran asserts that its nuclear program is exclusively for civilian energy purposes, despite enriching uranium far beyond the required threshold. Iranian officials have expressed openness to discussing a reduction in the level of enrichment during past negotiations but have refused to dismantle the country's nuclear program entirely, citing national sovereignty concerns.In 2015, the former Obama administration negotiated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran and other nations, under which Iran agreed not to enrich uranium to high levels and to undergo frequent inspections. However, Trump withdrew the US from this agreement during his first term as president.Challenges in Accessing and Transporting the UraniumAny military ground operation to extract the uranium would face substantial chemical, logistical, and tactical hurdles. Isfahan, where about half of the enriched uranium is believed to be stored, is over 480 kilometers (about 300 miles) inland, far from the nearest US naval ships. This would necessitate transporting US forces, possibly alongside Israeli troops, over a long distance through an active warzone, accompanied by heavy equipment.Securing a substantial perimeter around the site and holding that territory for the duration of the operation would be required, all while mitigating the risk of constant fire from Iran. Experts describe this as a risky and infeasible operation.Storing and Handling the UraniumIf the US were to successfully extract the uranium, it would likely be stored in the form of hexafluoride gas, which is difficult to handle and reacts with water to produce extremely toxic chemicals. The uranium hexafluoride must be stored in small, separated canisters to prevent neutrons from multiplying out of control.Any damage to these canisters could trigger the release of toxic chemicals, posing a radiological hazard. An alternative would be to destroy the cylinders on the spot using Army Nuclear Disablement Teams, but this would result in chemical contamination and environmental hazards.Previous Operations and Potential AlternativesIn 1994, US forces undertook a secret operation dubbed Project Sapphire to remove weapons-grade uranium from Kazakhstan. A similar operation for Iran is being considered, but it would require coordination with Iranian authorities and the IAEA, and a cessation of hostilities.A less risky approach would be for the US to negotiate a deal with Iran, resulting in the stockpile being left in place but under international oversight, being downblended, or being removed with Iranian agreement.

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.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has assured that the Strait of Hormuz will reopen after the ongoing conflict with Iran. In an exclusive interview with Al Jazeera, Rubio emphasized that the strait will be reopened either with Iran's consent or through an international coalition including the US.The conflict began on February 28 with US-Israeli strikes on Iran. Despite US President Donald Trump stating that the US is pursuing diplomacy, Rubio mentioned ongoing direct talks between the US and Iran, primarily through intermediaries. Iran has denied these talks are happening.Rubio called on Iran to take concrete steps to end its nuclear programme and cease manufacturing drones and missiles. He accused Iran of seeking nuclear weapons to threaten and blackmail the world, which Tehran denies.The situation remains volatile, with speculation about a possible US troop deployment in Iran. Rubio warned of severe consequences if Iran keeps the strait closed after the conflict ends. The White House has considered various military options, including a special forces operation to seize enriched uranium stored in Iran.

Iranian politicians are pushing for the country to exit the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) as the conflict with the US and Israel escalates. The country's national security commission spokesman, Ebrahim Rezaei, stated that remaining a signatory to the treaty has been 'meaningless' and provided no benefits to Iran.Malek Shariati, a representative from Tehran, has introduced legislation to withdraw Iran from the NPT, revoke a law linked to the 2015 nuclear deal, and support a new international treaty with aligned countries to develop peaceful nuclear technologies. The proposed law must be approved by the parliament and the Guardian Council before implementation.The move comes as the US and Israel have ramped up their attacks on Iranian nuclear sites, steel factories, and a university. Recent air strikes have targeted key infrastructure, including a yellowcake facility in Yazd and the Khondab Heavy Water Complex near Arak. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has warned about the potential for a major radiological incident.Iranian authorities have accused the IAEA of taking a politicized stance and being complicit in attacks against Iranian nuclear sites. IAEA Director Rafael Grossi has been criticized by Iranian officials, with one adviser to the Supreme Leader labeling him a 'partner in crime.'The conflict has also had significant economic impacts, with thousands of jobs at risk due to damage to Iran's steel giants. The country's economy is struggling with an energy crisis and inflation rates of about 70 percent. The internet has been blocked for a month, limiting the flow of information to state-run outlets.