Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has issued a stern warning against the ongoing US-Israeli attacks on Iranian healthcare facilities, amid the escalating conflict. The organisation's chief, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, reported that over 20 attacks on healthcare facilities in Iran have been verified since March 1, resulting in at least nine deaths, including an infectious diseases health worker and a member of the Iranian Red Crescent Society.The Pasteur Institute in Tehran, one of the oldest research and health facilities in the country, has sustained significant damage and was rendered unable to continue delivering health services. Iranian Ministry of Health spokesperson Hossein Kermanpour shared images of the heavily damaged building on social media, with parts of the facility reduced to rubble.Despite the attacks, Iran's ISNA news agency reported that the services of the Pasteur Institute have not been interrupted, and vaccine and serum production would continue. The WHO chief emphasised that the Institute plays a crucial role in protecting and promoting population health, particularly in emergencies.The attacks have not been limited to the Pasteur Institute. The WHO has reported damage to other healthcare facilities, including the Delaram Sina Psychiatric Hospital and the Tofigh Daru pharmaceutical facility, with no casualties reported. An explosion near the Imam Ali Hospital in Khuzestan province led to the facility's evacuation and cessation of services.Tedros stressed that humanitarian workers, ambulances, relief supplies, and humanitarian facilities must be respected and protected under international law. The Geneva Conventions, agreed upon after World War II, designate healthcare facilities as protected locations.The Iranian Red Crescent Society reported that a warehouse belonging to the organisation was targeted, destroying two-wheeled relief containers and two buses and relief vehicles. According to the organisation, 307 health, medical, and emergency care facilities have been damaged in the war.

The recent statements and actions by the US, particularly by President Donald Trump, have raised serious concerns about potential war crimes under international law. During a national address, Trump warned that if Iran did not reach a deal with him, the US would target Iranian electric-generating plants and reduce the country to the 'stone ages.'Legal experts and human rights organizations have strongly criticized these threats. Erika Guevara Rosas, Amnesty International's senior director of research, advocacy, policy and campaigns, emphasized that intentionally attacking civilian infrastructure, such as power plants, is generally prohibited under international law. Such actions could cause disproportionate harm to civilians and are considered unlawful and potentially war crimes.More than 100 US experts in international law from prestigious universities, including Harvard, Yale, and Stanford, have expressed similar concerns. They highlighted Trump's comments, including the statement that the US may conduct strikes on Iran 'just for fun,' and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's remarks about not fighting with 'stupid rules of engagement.'The experts and legal experts point to the principle of distinction in international humanitarian law, which requires parties to avoid targeting civilian objects. Article 52 of the Geneva Conventions defines civilian objects as those that are not military objectives, and it is a war crime to intentionally direct attacks against them if they are not military objectives.Human rights organizations and experts warn that targeting Iran's power plants would have a devastating impact on the civilian population, affecting hospitals, water supplies, and other vital needs. Sarah Yager, Washington director of Human Rights Watch, noted that such actions would be catastrophic for the Iranian people.

The United States has reaffirmed that it is still prepared to engage Tehran in diplomatic talks, despite the ongoing US‑Israel war against Iran and President Donald Trump’s renewed threats to target the country’s civilian infrastructure. State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott told Al Jazeera that President Trump had pursued negotiations with Iran before the conflict erupted, but accused the Iranian regime of persisting in its quest for a nuclear weapon. "The president is always open to diplomacy, but he’s also clear that we will see our objectives fulfilled here," Pigott said, underscoring the administration’s dual track of diplomatic engagement and military pressure. In a primetime address aired on Wednesday, Trump echoed his earlier claims that the United States is winning the war, yet offered no concrete roadmap for ending the hostilities or reopening the Strait of Hormuz – a chokepoint whose closure by Tehran has driven global energy prices higher. The conflict began on February 28, shortly after a round of Geneva talks that Omani mediators and Iranian officials described as “positive.” Last year, Israel struck Iran’s three primary nuclear facilities in an operation the White House dubbed “Midnight Hammer.” Iran continues to deny any intention to develop a nuclear weapon, while Israel is widely believed to possess an undeclared nuclear arsenal. Former intelligence chief Tulsi Gabbard testified to Congress that Iran was not rebuilding enrichment capacity before the June 2025 attacks, and later reiterated that there have been no efforts to restore its nuclear program since the strikes. Nevertheless, Tehran insists on the right to enrich uranium domestically and has ruled out negotiations over its missile program and support for groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Pigott emphasized that the United States is maintaining high‑level diplomatic contacts across the region, stating, "We see diplomatic engagement at the highest levels of this administration, with our partners in the region, to pursue our interests and explore what can happen here." The spokesperson also accused Iran of targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure, describing the threat of a nuclear‑armed Tehran as "intolerable." In response, Iran has launched missile and drone attacks against U.S. and Israeli assets, as well as energy facilities, hotels, and airports throughout the Middle East. Trump later posted footage of a U.S. strike on a major Iranian bridge, warning that similar attacks could follow. He wrote on social media, "IT IS TIME FOR IRAN TO MAKE A DEAL BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE, and there is nothing left of what could become a great country." In the same speech, he threatened to destroy Iran’s power plants and, earlier in the week, suggested the United States could also target water desalination stations – actions that legal experts say would constitute collective punishment under international law. Barbara Slavin, a distinguished fellow at the Stimson Center, told Al Jazeera that Trump appears to be "scrambling" to intensify the war in hopes of forcing a resolution before the conflict turns into a definitive failure.

Israel's parliament, the Knesset, has passed a controversial bill that will instruct military courts to impose the death penalty on Palestinians convicted of killing Israelis in acts of 'terror'. The law, which enters into effect within 30 days, was approved by 62 lawmakers, with 48 voting against it and one abstention.The new law targets only West Bank Palestinians, who are not Israeli citizens, and instructs military courts to impose the draconian sentence for lethal attacks on Israelis. Amichai Cohen, a senior fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute's Center for Democratic Values and Institutions, noted that 'Jews will not be indicted under this law'.The Palestinian Authority called the bill 'a war crime against the Palestinian people', saying that it breached the Fourth Geneva Convention. Rights group B'Tselem pointed out that the conviction rate for Palestinians tried in military courts is about 96 percent, with many convictions based on 'confessions' obtained through pressure and torture during interrogations.The law has been condemned by international critics, including the foreign ministers of France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom, and Amnesty International, which said it would make the death penalty 'another discriminatory tool in Israel's system of apartheid'. The Association of Civil Rights in Israel has filed a petition with Israel's Supreme Court to challenge the law, describing it as 'discriminatory by design' and 'enacted without legal authority'.

Islamabad has re‑emerged as a pivotal conduit between Washington and Tehran, delivering a U.S. 15‑point cease‑fire proposal on March 25, 2026, as the US‑Israeli campaign against Iran enters its second month. Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar confirmed that Pakistan is transmitting the proposal, with Turkey and Egypt offering additional diplomatic backing. Chief US negotiator Steve Witkoff later verified Pakistan’s role as a messenger, and President Donald Trump announced a 10‑day pause on planned strikes against Iranian power plants, citing a request from Tehran. Iran has denied direct talks, yet the pause marks the second deferment of Trump’s original threat, underscoring Pakistan’s function as a key diplomatic facilitator in a high‑stakes conflict. The pattern is not new. In August 1969, President Nixon tasked Pakistan’s military ruler Yahya Khan with opening a channel to Beijing. Two years later, a secret flight carried U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger from Islamabad to China, paving the way for Nixon’s historic 1972 visit and the eventual U.S. recognition of the People’s Republic of China. Analysts note that Pakistan’s unique position—maintaining working ties with both Washington and Beijing—made it the only trusted intermediary capable of handling such a sensitive mission, a view echoed by former ambassador Masood Khan. Beyond the Cold‑War episode, Pakistan has repeatedly leveraged its geography and Muslim‑world connections. It served as the primary conduit for U.S., Saudi and Chinese support to the Afghan mujahideen in the 1980s, helped broker the 1988 Geneva Accords that ended the Soviet occupation, and hosted the 2015 Murree talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government. During the 2020 Doha Agreement, Pakistani pressure on the Taliban was cited by U.S. envoy Zalmay Khalilzad as instrumental, though the rapid U.S. withdrawal and subsequent Taliban takeover left Pakistan’s long‑term interests ambiguous. Efforts to mediate Saudi‑Iran tensions have been less fruitful. In 2016, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s shuttle diplomacy failed to produce a formal agreement, and a 2019 outreach by Prime Minister Imran Khan, prompted by President Trump, yielded no concrete outcome. When China facilitated the 2023 Saudi‑Iran rapprochement, Pakistan’s foreign office claimed it had laid the groundwork, but analysts still view the result as a Chinese‑led success. Pakistan’s brief 2005 overture to Israel, led by Foreign Minister Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri, similarly collapsed under domestic opposition, illustrating the limits of its diplomatic reach when internal politics intervene. Since the launch of Operation Epic Fury—the US‑Israeli air campaign that began in late February 2026 and resulted in the death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei—Pakistan’s leadership has intensified back‑channel activity. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has held multiple calls with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, while Army Chief Field Marshal Asim Munir spoke directly with President Trump. Both officials have also visited Saudi Arabia, where Pakistan signed a mutual defence pact in September 2025. Former ambassador Naghmana Hashmi observes that Pakistan’s diplomatic narrative is often eclipsed by conflict, yet a “quieter, more consistent thread” persists: the state’s effort to turn its strategic location and Muslim‑world ties into a lever for peace. Whether the current cease‑fire talks will yield a durable settlement remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that Pakistan enjoys a rare blend of trust from Washington, Tehran and Gulf capitals—a leverage few regional actors possess.

The United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) has issued a grave warning that Lebanon faces the threat of a humanitarian catastrophe as Israel continues its weeks-long bombardment and expands ground operations across the country.UNHCR's Lebanon representative Karolina Lindholm Billing reported that Israeli strikes and forced displacement orders have affected people throughout Lebanon, from the southern regions to the Bekaa Valley, Beirut, and northern areas. More than 1.2 million people have been forced from their homes since Israel's intensified attacks began in early March, according to UN figures."The situation remains extremely worrying and the risk of a humanitarian catastrophe ... is real," Lindholm Billing stated during a briefing in Geneva. She emphasized that Lebanon's overstretched shelter system is struggling to meet the growing needs of displaced families.The UN representative highlighted particularly concerning developments, including strikes on central Beirut's densely populated neighborhoods where many had sought refuge in collective shelters. "The families are ... living in constant fear, and the psychological toll, particularly on children, will last far beyond this current escalation," she added.Israel launched its intensified attacks against Lebanon after Hezbollah fired rockets toward Israeli territory following the February 28 assassination of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in the US-Israel war on Iran. The Israeli military has since conducted aerial and ground operations across Lebanon while issuing mass forced displacement orders for residents of southern areas and several Beirut suburbs.On Friday, the Israeli military announced air strikes on Beirut and issued new displacement orders for neighborhoods including Haret Hreik and Burj al-Barajneh. Meanwhile, Hezbollah has continued rocket attacks into northern Israel and confrontations with Israeli troops in southern Lebanon.Rights groups have strongly condemned Israel's expanded operations, with Human Rights Watch warning that preventing Lebanese civilians from returning to their homes in the south may constitute the war crime of forced displacement. "Israel's tactics of mass expulsion in Lebanon raise serious risks of forced displacement," the organization stated. "Forced displacement and collective punishment are war crimes."International concerns have been further heightened by the Israeli military's destruction of civilian homes and several bridges connecting southern Lebanon to the rest of the country. "The destruction of key bridges in the south has cut off entire districts ... isolating over 150,000 people and severely limiting humanitarian access," Lindholm Billing explained.As the crisis deepens, Lebanon's government faces mounting challenges in responding to the rapidly deteriorating humanitarian situation, with evacuation orders now extending to areas previously considered safe, exacerbating panic among the civilian population.

Mohaddeseh Fallahat recalled the ordinary morning of February 28 when she prepared her children for school, never imagining it would be the last time she would see them alive. That simple morning routine now haunts her as she struggles to cope with the devastating loss of her two children.Speaking through tears to the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva via videolink, Fallahat described the unbearable pain of sending her children off with a smile, only to be met with silence. "My heart burns with pain," she shared, as the memory of their final words—"Mum, come pick us up after school"—repeats endlessly in her mind.Her children were among more than 170 people killed when United States Tomahawk missiles struck the Shajareh Tayyebeh Girls' School in Minab, southern Iran, during the initial hours of the US-Israeli assault. The majority of victims were schoolgirls, marking one of the deadliest attacks on educational facilities in recent memory.Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi addressed the council with strong condemnation, asserting that the attack was no mere miscalculation. "No one can believe that the attack on the school was anything other than deliberate and intentional," he stated, pointing to the advanced precision technologies claimed by American and Israeli forces.Araghchi accused the US and Israel of "slaughtering [victims] in cold blood" and committing "the worst humanitarian crimes with impunity." He called on UN member states to denounce what he described as a "blatantly unjustified" war on Iran, warning that indifference would bring no lasting security or peace.UN special rapporteur on the right to education, Farida Shaheed, presented evidence suggesting the school was "each struck individually by precision munition," indicating intentional targeting. However, ongoing investigations suggest the attack may have resulted from "outdated intelligence" used by the US military.Shaheed emphasized that "the killing of children can never, ever be justified" and highlighted the broader impact on education in Iran, where more than 600 schools and education facilities have been destroyed or severely damaged by US-Israeli attacks, with at least 230 children and teachers confirmed dead.UN Human Rights chief Volker Turk reinforced that targeting schools constitutes a grave violation of international law, stating: "Whatever differences countries have, we can all agree they will not be solved by killing schoolchildren."

In the final moments of January 29, 2024, five-year-old Hind Rajab’s desperate pleas for help were cut short as she remained trapped in a car surrounded by the bodies of six relatives. Despite obtaining clearance from the Israeli military, a Red Crescent ambulance dispatched to rescue the child was struck by tank fire, killing two paramedics and leaving the vehicle abandoned for over a week.Two years after the tragedy, the global campaign group Avaaz has released a report alleging that this incident was a deliberate 'double-tap' strike. This tactic, often used in warfare, involves a first attack followed by a second strike targeting civilians or emergency responders attempting to assist victims of the initial assault.The Avaaz analysis, shared exclusively with Al Jazeera, documents over 40 alleged human rights violations and argues that the attack contravenes international combat law, specifically the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute. The report suggests that the Israeli military possessed full situational awareness of the rescue mission but deliberately targeted the ambulance.Forensic evidence contradicts the Israeli military's initial claims that the family car was destroyed during an exchange of fire. Analysis by Forensic Architecture at Goldsmiths, University of London, found no evidence of combatants in the vicinity, only the presence of Israeli Merkava tanks. The report highlights that the ambulance was fired upon with 120mm tank rounds without warning, a finding supported by the Hind Rajab Foundation, which has identified 24 potential perpetrators.'I am absolutely convinced that this is another case of double tap,' said Sarah Andrew, legal director of Avaaz. 'The kind of weaponry used on the ambulance, the timing, and the fact that no warning was given – it immediately triggered a question in my mind.'The Avaaz brief urges the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate the matter. The group notes that more than 1,500 healthcare workers have been killed during the ongoing conflict in Gaza, raising serious concerns about the safety of medical personnel in the region.