Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni recently visited Qatar, meeting with Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani to address pressing energy concerns amid the ongoing conflict between Iran, the United States, and Israel. This meeting marks a significant step in Italy's efforts to bolster its relationships with key Gulf nations and ensure a stable energy supply.The discussions between Meloni and the Qatari leader focused on energy issues and potential measures to mitigate the shocks caused by the Iran war. Italy, being highly dependent on energy imports, is particularly concerned about the rising energy prices resulting from Iran's effective blocking of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway through which approximately 20 percent of global oil and liquefied natural gas transits.During the meeting, Meloni expressed Italy's readiness to contribute to the rehabilitation of Qatari energy infrastructure, which is essential for global energy security. This commitment underscores Italy's proactive approach to addressing the energy crisis and its willingness to collaborate with Qatar to ensure a stable energy supply.The Qatari Emir's office stated that both sides stressed the need for de-escalation and prioritized political dialogue and diplomacy to contain the current crisis in the Middle East and its repercussions on energy and supply chains. They also reviewed bilateral cooperation between Italy and Qatar, exploring ways to support and develop it in various fields, particularly in the economy and energy sectors.Since the beginning of the war at the end of February, Iran has targeted US and Israeli targets in the region, as well as Gulf countries, including Qatar. Iran's attacks on Qatar's energy installations, such as the missile strike on Ras Laffan Industrial City, have caused significant damage and are expected to affect Doha's natural gas export capacity.Meloni's trip to the Gulf aimed to strengthen relations with these countries and reiterate Italy's support against Iranian attacks. As the first leader of a European Union or NATO country to travel to the region since the war broke out, Meloni's visit underscores Italy's commitment to regional stability and energy security.

More than 100 United States‑based international law scholars have signed an open letter denouncing the recent US‑Israeli strikes on Iran as a violation of the United Nations Charter and potentially amounting to war crimes. The letter, released on Thursday, asserts that the campaign – launched on February 28 – proceeded without UN Security Council authorization and without credible evidence of an imminent Iranian threat. According to the scholars, the legal basis for force against another state exists only in self‑defence against an actual or imminent armed attack, or when expressly sanctioned by the Security Council. Iran has not attacked the United States or Israel, and the Security Council did not approve the operation. The experts organize their concerns into four categories: the legality of the war decision, the conduct of hostilities, threatening rhetoric from senior officials, and what they describe as the dismantling of civilian‑protection safeguards within the US defence establishment under Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s “gloves‑off” approach. Among the most alarming incidents highlighted is the strike on a primary school in Minab, Iran on the first day of the conflict, which killed at least 175 people, the majority of them children. The letter also cites attacks on hospitals, water treatment facilities, and energy infrastructure, emphasizing that schools, health facilities, and homes have been targeted. The signatories condemn public statements by senior US officials, including a mid‑March remark by former President Donald Trump that the United States might strike Iran “just for fun,” and early‑March comments from Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth dismissing “stupid rules of engagement.” They argue that such rhetoric reflects an “alarming disrespect” for international humanitarian law, which is designed to protect civilians and combatants alike. Financially, the letter notes that the war is costing US taxpayers up to $2 billion per day, underscoring the broader economic burden of the conflict. The open letter was co‑authored by prominent legal scholars such as Yale Law School’s Oona Hathaway, former State Department legal adviser Harold Koh, NYU’s Philip Alston, and former Human Rights Watch chief Kenneth Roth. While the authors focus on the United States’ conduct, they warn of a heightened risk of atrocities throughout the region. Emphasizing the need for consistent application of international law, the scholars write: “We urge US government officials to uphold the UN Charter, international humanitarian law, and human rights law at all times, and to publicly make clear US commitment to and respect for norms of international law.”

Donald Trump announced over the weekend that he wants to "take the oil in Iran" by seizing control of Kharg Island, the strategic outpost through which roughly 90% of Iran’s oil exports flow. Experts say the remark underscores a blatant disregard for international law and exemplifies what they term “fossil‑fuel imperialism.” Patrick Bigger, co‑director of the Transition Security Project, described the approach as a "might‑makes‑right" logic that is both "abhorrent and spectacularly miscalculated." Trump is slated to give an update on the Iran‑U.S. conflict on Wednesday. He previously claimed the war could end within weeks, a statement that sent the stock market soaring on expectations of de‑escalation. Iran, however, has insisted it needs guarantees against future attacks before halting its counter‑offensive. The fighting continues, highlighted by an Iranian strike on a fully loaded crude tanker in Dubai and threats to "blow up and completely obliterate" Iran’s energy infrastructure if the Strait of Hormuz is not reopened promptly. Kharg Island, a five‑mile strip that handles the bulk of Iran’s oil shipments, along with its power plants and oil wells, has been singled out by Trump. He told the Financial Times that U.S. forces should take over the island and the oil stored there. "My favorite thing is to take the oil in Iran," Trump said, adding that critics in the United States are "stupid people." Amir Handjani, an energy lawyer at the Quincy Institute, warned that the statement "completely discredited" the war’s stated objectives and revealed a classic play for natural resources. Handjani noted that Trump’s desire to seize Iranian oil is not new; he voiced similar ambitions in a 1988 interview while promoting The Art of the Deal, saying he would "do a number on Kharg Island" if elected. The former president has also floated comparable ideas for Iraq, Syria and Venezuela, suggesting the United States could appropriate their oil to offset war costs or bolster strategic reserves. Handjani emphasized that international law provides no framework for waging war to capture sovereign nations' natural resources. From a military perspective, taking Kharg Island would be extremely challenging. Iranian missile defenses have rendered regional U.S. bases inoperable, meaning any assault would likely require a parachute insertion of Marines into heavy fire, with the risk of massive Iranian retaliation. Handjani warned that such retaliation could target oil export terminals across the Persian Gulf, potentially driving crude prices to $200‑$300 per barrel and destabilising the global economy. The conflict has already caused the largest-ever disruption to global energy supplies, killing thousands and sparking sharp fuel‑price shocks. While consumers bear the brunt, major fossil‑fuel companies are enjoying windfall profits. Bigger noted that higher oil prices benefit oil majors and are being used as a pretext to expand U.S. drilling, further entrenching reliance on carbon‑intensive fuels. According to Bigger, Trump’s rhetoric reveals a belief that "fossil fuels are a linchpin of his domestic industrial strategy," and that controlling oil equates to controlling global power. He argues that this mindset threatens the international order and hampers the transition to cleaner energy.

The UK government's proposal to boost North Sea oil and gas drilling is unlikely to provide relief to consumers in the form of lower energy prices. Oil prices have surged to $100 a barrel following the US and Israel's attack on Iran, with potential increases to $150 a barrel due to supply issues in the Strait of Hormuz.Kemi Badenoch, leader of the Conservative party, has introduced a plan to 'get Britain drilling' by opening new oil and gas fields in the North Sea. However, experts argue that this will not reduce energy bills for UK consumers. Oil and gas are sold on international markets, and prices are set globally, so there is no direct discount for UK consumers.The Conservative party has previously acknowledged this, but now suggests that tax reforms and removal of VAT on bills could deliver £200 cuts to household energy bills. The plan involves scrapping the windfall tax on North Sea producers, which has raised about £12bn so far.Critics argue that the windfall tax is essential and that removing it would not stimulate production significantly. The tax does not increase prices to consumers and has the support of the International Energy Agency.Analysis suggests that redirecting tax revenues from the North Sea back to consumers would have a minimal impact on bills. A study found that households would gain only about £16 a year if tax revenues from a maximally exploited North Sea were redistributed.Badenoch's claims about job creation in the North Sea are also disputed. The sector is declining, and geology, not politics, will dictate the future of North Sea oil and gas. Most of the UK's sector has already been drained, with only about 218m tonnes of oil recoverable by 2050 from existing fields.New drilling could add only 74m tonnes of oil and 1.1% to gas production, equivalent to putting off the end of the North Sea by a year or two. Job losses in the sector are a concern, with at least 70,000 jobs lost in the decade to 2024.Experts stress that renewable energy sources are a more secure and sustainable alternative. The UK should focus on creating conditions for clean energy infrastructure to attract investment and drive growth.

Amid the escalating United States‑Israel confrontation with Iran, parliamentary speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf has emerged as an unexpected voice on financial strategy, posting a series of warnings on X that market‑moving headlines are often engineered to trigger profit‑taking. Ghalibaf’s core advice is simple yet provocative: if a headline inflates prices, bet against it; if it drags prices down, go long. He describes pre‑market news bursts as a “reverse indicator” designed to manipulate investors. His posts are laced with sarcasm, referencing alleged manipulation of oil futures and even joking about turning rhetoric into “actual fuel at the pump.” Behind the humor, analysts say, lies a calculated effort to exploit the overlap between digital propaganda and real‑world conflict. The backdrop to Ghalibaf’s messaging is Iran’s use of asymmetric warfare, notably the brief shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz—a chokepoint through which roughly 20% of global oil and LNG shipments pass. The closure sent crude prices soaring and heightened economic pressure worldwide, underscoring Tehran’s ability to influence U.S. markets by targeting critical supply routes. On March 22, Ghalibaf warned financial institutions that support U.S. military financing in the Middle East, declaring that U.S. Treasury bonds are “soaked in Iranians’ blood” and that their portfolios were under surveillance. Economist Jo Michell of the University of the West of England observes that falling equity markets, rising energy costs, and higher interest rates could eventually force President Donald Trump to seek a diplomatic exit from the conflict. Michell notes that Trump often delivers his most aggressive statements over weekends when markets are closed, only to retreat before the opening bell—a pattern traders have dubbed TACO (“Trump always chickens out”). Indeed, when Trump’s original 48‑hour deadline for Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz loomed, he extended it by five days and later pledged a further 10‑day pause on attacks against Iranian energy infrastructure, actions that analysts interpret as deliberate market signaling. Middle‑East specialist Zeidon Alkinani explains that the conflict’s volatility creates new leverage points beyond direct price manipulation. Even light‑hearted rhetoric from officials like Ghalibaf can exacerbate market instability, as investors scramble for any hint of the war’s trajectory. In this environment, uncertainty itself becomes a powerful market driver. Alkinani stresses that the significance of the Strait of Hormuz now extends beyond physical oil flow disruptions; it reshapes investor expectations and amplifies the impact of digital messaging, especially given Trump’s high‑visibility online presence. Overall, Ghalibaf’s social‑media campaign illustrates how Tehran is blending military pressure with information warfare, turning market sentiment into an additional front of the broader geopolitical struggle.

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) released a stark assessment on Tuesday, projecting that a four‑week US‑Israel conflict with Iran could slash Arab regional GDP by 3.7 % to 6 %. In monetary terms, the loss translates to a contraction of $120 billion to $194 billion, marking one of the deepest economic shocks in recent Middle‑East history. UNDP’s regional director, Abdallah Al Dardari, warned that the downturn would likely eliminate 3.7 million jobs and drive around four million additional people below the poverty line. He described the situation as exposing the “fragility of the Arab economy.” The analysis is based on a scenario of a “short but intense conflict lasting for four weeks.” Should hostilities extend beyond that window, the economic fallout could be even more severe, especially as Iran’s attacks on Gulf energy infrastructure tighten oil and gas flows through the Strait of Hormuz. Amid tightening supplies, Brent crude futures surged 4.7 % to over $118 per barrel. The report highlighted that disruptions to “strategic maritime corridors” generate “knock‑on effects on inflation, trade flows, and global supply chains,” threatening the livelihoods of interconnected economies across the region. Poverty spikes are expected to be most pronounced in the Levant and in “fragile” states such as Sudan and Yemen, where baseline vulnerability is already high and economic shocks translate quickly into welfare losses. Lebanon faces a compounded crisis after Hezbollah’s retaliatory strikes against Israel, following the US‑Israeli killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on 28 February. Ongoing air strikes, evacuation orders, and widespread destruction of residential areas, transport networks, and public services have triggered large‑scale displacement. Al Dardari concluded with a plea: “We hope the fighting will stop tomorrow, as every day of delay has negative repercussions on the global economy.”

Qatar’s foreign ministry announced that Iran’s recent assaults have crossed numerous red lines and stressed the urgent need for de‑escalation amid the ongoing US‑Israel war with Tehran.During a Tuesday press briefing, spokesperson Majed al‑Ansari warned that Iranian attacks on Qatar are having a catastrophic impact on bilateral relations.Al‑Ansari appealed to every combatant to refrain from targeting nuclear or energy infrastructure, cautioning that any further escalation will mean more losses for all parties.Since the joint US‑Israel offensive began at the end of February, Iran has struck a string of regional states—including Iraq, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman, Jordan and Kuwait—despite none being directly involved in the conflict.While Tehran maintains that its operations target only U.S. assets in the region, the affected nations report damage to civilian infrastructure such as airports, power plants and ports, alongside civilian casualties.Qatar, a longtime mediator in Middle‑East disputes, clarified that it is not part of Pakistan’s diplomatic effort to end the war, though it continues “ongoing communications with all parties, including mediators and other regional players.” The Qatari side added that it fully supports Pakistan’s peace initiative and hopes it will yield lasting stability.In recent developments, Pakistan hosted a four‑nation dialogue with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt to discuss ending the war and reopening the Strait of Hormuz. Together with China, Pakistan unveiled a five‑point initiative calling for an immediate cessation of hostilities, protection of sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iran and Gulf states, safety of non‑military targets, secure shipping lanes—including the strategic Strait of Hormuz—and a durable peace grounded in the United Nations charter and international law.U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reiterated that while diplomatic channels remain active, the United States is keeping the option of military escalation on the table.

US President Donald Trump has stated that his 'preference would be to take the oil' in Iran, sparking concerns about the potential for a US invasion or occupation of the country. Iran is one of the world's biggest oil producers, holding around 24 percent of the Middle East's and 12 percent of the world's proven oil reserves, with about 157 billion barrels of proven crude oil.The Trump administration has threatened to target Iran's energy infrastructure, including oil wells, if Tehran does not reopen the Strait of Hormuz, which has been under a de facto Iranian blockade for weeks, triggering a global energy crisis. The US has also unveiled plans to prepare for limited ground operations in Iran, potentially including raids on Kharg Island and coastal sites near the Strait of Hormuz.Seizing Iranian oil would not be easy, as the US would have to occupy Iran's oil production sites and refineries, essentially occupying mainland Iran. However, if the US were to lift sanctions on Iranian oil after seizing it, it could lead to a flow of more Iranian oil into global markets, bringing down oil prices.The US-Israeli war on Iran has already sent global oil prices soaring, with benchmark Brent crude rising to more than 3 percent on Monday to $116 a barrel – the highest level in nearly two weeks. The oil price was about $65 per barrel before the war.In 2023, Iran's gross domestic product (GDP) was around $457.5bn, according to World Bank data. Iran's net oil export revenues were estimated at $53bn, equivalent to roughly 12 percent of Iran's GDP.This is not the first time the US has shown an interest in Iranian oil. In 1953, the government of Mohammad Mossadegh, Iran's first democratically elected prime minister, was toppled in a CIA-orchestrated coup after he nationalised the British-controlled firm Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), the predecessor of modern-day BP.

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.