Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

European Union law‑enforcement agency Europol announced that investigators have traced 45 Ukrainian children who were forcibly transferred to Russia, Belarus or occupied Ukrainian regions during the ongoing conflict. The discovery, made through open‑source intelligence (OSINT) at a multinational hackathon in The Hague, underscores the scale of alleged war‑crimes and intensifies legal pressure on Moscow.Key DevelopmentsEuropol confirmed the identification of 45 children moved against the will of their families.The data were gathered by 40 experts from 18 countries, the International Criminal Court (ICC) and NGOs during a two‑day OSINT hackathon.Kyiv reports 19,546 children have been forcibly taken from occupied regions since the February 2022 invasion.The ICC has issued arrest warrants for Russian President Vladimir Putin and Children’s Rights Commissioner Maria Lvova‑Belova over mass deportations.Russia claims the transfers were voluntary evacuations and says it will return children under “appropriate conditions.”Data & Market ImpactThe identified 45 cases represent a fraction—about 0.23%—of the total 19,546 children Kyiv says are missing, suggesting many more remain untracked.Each confirmed case can trigger humanitarian assistance, legal aid, and potential compensation claims, creating demand for NGOs and law‑firm services specialized in war‑crimes restitution.International sanctions and diplomatic pressure may increase as evidence mounts, potentially affecting Russian financial channels and foreign investment.Why This MattersChildren are a core element of cultural continuity; forced removal threatens Ukraine’s demographic future and fuels resentment that can prolong conflict.Documented transfers strengthen the legal basis for ICC prosecutions, reinforcing the principle of individual accountability for war crimes.The revelations pressure peace‑negotiation tables, as any settlement must address the status and repatriation of thousands of displaced minors.Expert InsightOSINT’s role in uncovering the 45 cases illustrates how open‑source data—social media, satellite imagery, public records—can complement traditional investigative methods, especially when access to conflict zones is restricted. Analysts note that the hackathon model, bringing together diverse expertise, could become a standard tool for tracking human‑rights violations. Strategically, Russia’s denial and framing of the transfers as “evacuations” aim to deflect responsibility, but the growing evidentiary trail narrows diplomatic wiggle room and may accelerate broader sanctions or asset freezes.What Happens NextEuropol will forward the detailed dossiers to Ukrainian authorities, who are likely to file additional criminal complaints and seek repatriation through diplomatic channels.The ICC may expand its indictment list as more evidence emerges, potentially targeting senior Russian officials beyond Putin and Lvova‑Belova.International bodies, including the UN, could launch a coordinated effort to locate remaining missing children, leveraging OSINT networks established during the hackathon.In the longer term, the case sets a precedent for using crowd‑sourced intelligence in war‑crime investigations, influencing how future conflicts are monitored and prosecuted.

Recent research by Barron's, leveraging AlphaSense's market‑intelligence database, reveals a startling four‑fold increase in the use of the “It’s not just X— it’s Y” construction in corporate news releases, earnings reports, and government filings between 2023 and 2025. The trend is being flagged by AI‑detection experts as a linguistic tic of modern generative models, raising questions about the depth of AI integration in corporate messaging.Key DevelopmentsAlphaSense identified 50 instances of the phrase in 2023, climbing to over 200 by 2025.The spike coincides with broader adoption of generative AI tools for drafting press releases and regulatory filings.Industry observers, including Max Spero of detection firm Pangram, note the construction is now a “tic” of frontier language models.Data & Market ImpactThe four‑fold rise represents a 300% increase in a specific linguistic pattern, translating to roughly 150 additional AI‑styled sentences per year across the corporate sector.Given the average press release length of 500 words, this shift adds an estimated 75,000 AI‑influenced words annually to public corporate discourse.Investors and compliance teams are beginning to factor AI‑authorship risk into due‑diligence models.Why This MattersRegulators may need new guidelines to ensure transparency when AI assists in mandatory filings.Investors could misinterpret AI‑generated optimism as genuine corporate sentiment, affecting market pricing.Employees and professional writers face reduced demand for routine corporate copy, reshaping skill requirements.Expert InsightThe surge is less about the phrase itself and more about the data pipelines that train large language models. As AI systems ingest publicly available corporate documents, they internalize recurring stylistic shortcuts—like the “It’s not just X— it’s Y” construction—and reproduce them at scale. This feedback loop amplifies the phrase, turning it into a measurable indicator of AI involvement. Moreover, the reliance on formulaic language reflects a shift toward efficiency‑driven communication, where emotional nuance is deprioritized in favor of rapid, AI‑generated output.What Happens NextDetection tools will likely incorporate phrase‑frequency analytics to flag potential AI‑authored content in SEC filings.Companies may adopt disclosure policies, explicitly stating when AI assistance is used in public documents.Regulatory bodies such as the SEC could issue guidance mandating AI‑usage transparency, similar to existing requirements for financial model disclosures.As language models evolve, new linguistic tics will emerge, prompting a continuous arms race between AI developers and detection specialists.

Key DevelopmentsKamikatsu (population 1,400) requires residents to sort waste into 40 categories at a local "Gomi station".The town reports an 80% recycling rate, aiming for zero waste.Australian households typically use four kerbside bins; national recycling rate for municipal solid waste is 44%.International benchmarks: Japan 79%, Germany 69% recycling rates.Australia collects 9.9m tonnes of waste annually: 1.8m tonnes recycling, 2m tonnes organics.Data & Market ImpactHigher sorting granularity improves material purity, potentially raising the value of recycled commodities by up to 15% in markets with strong demand.More bins increase collection frequency, adding an estimated 5‑7% to municipal transport costs.Germany’s deposit‑return scheme achieves a 98% return rate, driving a robust market for PET and aluminum.Why This MattersAustralia’s relatively low recycling rate means that over half of the 9.9m tonnes of waste ends up in landfill or incineration, contributing to greenhouse‑gas emissions and lost economic value. Adopting more granular sorting could boost material quality, but the associated cost and logistical challenges may strain council budgets, especially in rural areas. The comparison underscores a policy gap: without systemic changes, Australia risks falling behind global waste‑reduction targets and missing out on emerging circular‑economy markets.Expert InsightAmelia Leavesley, University of Melbourne, notes that “effective recycling hinges on three pillars: source separation, processing infrastructure, and market demand.” She warns that expanding bin numbers alone won’t close the gap unless investment in material‑recovery facilities keeps pace. Joe Pickin of Blue Environment adds that “the optimal number of streams varies by density; urban precincts can support four‑plus bins, while remote communities face prohibitive transport costs.” Both experts stress a generational shift: public education and consistent policy signals are required for lasting behaviour change.What Happens NextAustralian states may pilot six‑bin models in high‑density suburbs, paired with subsidies for local MRF upgrades.Policy focus is likely to shift toward upstream measures—mandatory packaging redesign and extended‑producer‑responsibility schemes—to reduce the volume needing sorting.International collaboration, especially with Japan and Germany, could accelerate adoption of best‑practice deposit‑return systems, targeting a national recycling rate of 60% by 2035.

Theron Condemns Chalamet’s Dismissive Ballet RemarksIn a candid New York Times interview, Charlize Theron labeled Timothée Chalamet’s February comment about ballet and opera as “reckless,” joining a growing list of high‑profile figures who have taken issue with the actor’s remarks.The Interview Where Theron Highlighted Ballet’s Physical TollTheron, a former ballet student at New York’s Joffrey School, described the grueling reality of dance training, noting injuries, blood infections from blisters, and the relentless demand for performers to “keep dancing even when you’re bleeding through your shoes.” She warned that while AI may one day mimic Chalamet’s acting, it will never replace a live dancer on stage.Scale of the Celebrity BacklashJamie Lee Curtis – public criticismSam Taylor‑Johnson – expressed disapprovalMisty Copeland – ballet star joined the outcryEva Mendes – voiced concernHelen Hunt – added her voice to the chorusItalian filmmaker Luca Guadagnino defended Chalamet, arguing the comment was being blown out of proportion, but the majority of responses have been negative.Implications for the Performing Arts CommunityThe controversy underscores a broader tension between mainstream celebrity culture and the performing arts, which often rely on advocacy from high‑visibility figures to secure funding and audience interest. By spotlighting the physical sacrifices dancers make, Theron’s remarks may galvanize renewed public support for ballet and opera institutions.What This Controversy Could Mean for Future Celebrity Commentary on the ArtsAnalysts predict that celebrities will face heightened scrutiny when commenting on niche art forms, prompting more careful phrasing or consultation with experts. The episode also highlights the growing conversation about AI’s role in creative industries, with Theron’s warning that technology cannot replicate the embodied experience of live performance serving as a cautionary note for future discourse.

The Lead Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman has accused the United States of violating a ceasefire agreement through the seizure of a shipment, escalating tensions between the two nations amid ongoing diplomatic negotiations. The Diplomatic Accusation The Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman made the formal accusation during a press conference on April 20, 2026, claiming that the US seizure of a shipment constituted a direct violation of the recently established ceasefire terms between the two countries. The spokesman emphasized that the action undermines fragile diplomatic efforts and could potentially derail ongoing negotiations. International Response The accusation comes at a critical juncture in US-Iran relations, with international observers closely monitoring developments. Regional powers and global diplomatic bodies have yet to issue official statements, though some analysts suggest this incident could strain already fragile diplomatic channels. Geopolitical Implications This development occurs against a backdrop of heightened tensions in the Middle East, with both nations navigating complex regional dynamics. The seizure of the shipment and subsequent accusation could potentially affect maritime security in the region and influence other nations' foreign policy decisions regarding both Iran and the United States. Future Outlook Diplomatic experts suggest that this incident may prompt Iran to reconsider its engagement with the US in multilateral forums. The coming weeks will be critical in determining whether this accusation leads to further escalation or if diplomatic channels can be preserved to address underlying concerns.

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 Frontline ParadoxMichael Watkins, a 50-year-old recovery advocate in Dallas, represents the human cost of the evolving opioid crisis. His work involves 'uninvited interventions'—door-knocking strangers within 72 hours of an overdose to offer Narcan and resources. Despite these grassroots efforts, the broader national strategy faces a critical juncture. While Dallas County saw fentanyl deaths drop from 280 in 2023 to 203 last year, a nationwide trend of decline has been complicated by a sudden shift in federal policy and the global supply chain of the drug.The Migration of Fentanyl PrecursorsA critical technical breakthrough in the supply chain has shifted the epicenter of fentanyl production. For years, the focus was on China, where companies like Yuancheng supplied precursor chemicals. However, a new paper in the journal Science suggests that China's crackdown on these companies led to a drop in overdose deaths. Now, the supply chain has migrated to India.The New Route: Precursor chemicals are now largely sourced from India's large, less-regulated pharmaceutical industry.The Destination: These chemicals are exported to Mexico, where they are used to manufacture the lethal drug before it crosses the US-Mexico border.The Blind Spot: Experts like Ben Westhoff argue that the US is 'behind the eight ball' because India is not currently on the radar of policymakers, despite the strong diplomatic relationship between the two nations.Funding Cuts and Data DisruptionThe progress made in reducing overdose deaths is now at risk due to severe federal budget cuts. The Trump administration has declared fentanyl a 'weapon of mass destruction,' yet simultaneously slashed hundreds of millions of dollars in addiction services.Massive Reductions: At least $1.7bn in block grants for state health departments and $350m in addiction prevention funding were cut.Staffing Crisis: The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) has reduced its staff by half.DOGE Impact: Elon Musk's DOGE team fired a team that rigorously tracked Americans' drug use for decades, creating a data vacuum that hampers response efforts.The Cost of Political RhetoricThe administration's militaristic approach, including military strikes on Venezuela (which does not produce fentanyl) and labeling cartels as 'terrorist organisations,' has drawn criticism from public health experts. Jonathan Caulkins of Carnegie Mellon University argues that labeling fentanyl a 'weapon of mass destruction' is a political move that hijacks a specific term and ignores the reality that cigarettes kill more Americans annually.Experts warn that this rhetoric further stigmatizes addiction, discouraging users from seeking help. While military tactics are necessary for interdiction, the consensus is that healthcare and local support services are equally critical for saving lives.Future Outlook: The India Blind SpotThe future of the fentanyl crisis in the US depends on addressing the new supply chain reality. As the precursor trade moves to India, the US must pivot its focus from China to the Indian subcontinent. Without increased funding for community organizations like the Recovery Resource Council and a strategic focus on Indian chemical regulation, the recent decline in overdose deaths could be short-lived. The 'uninvited interventions' of advocates like Michael Watkins will be vital, but they cannot replace the systemic support that federal funding provides.

India’s athletics federation has been re‑classified into the Athletics Integrity Unit’s (AIU) “extremely high” doping risk bracket, triggering tougher anti‑doping requirements for Indian athletes.AIU Elevates India to Category A Doping RiskThe AIU announced on 20 April 2026 that the Athletics Federation of India (AFI) is now in Category A, the highest‑risk tier previously occupied by Russia, Belarus, Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria and Ukraine. Category A status means all Indian athletes must comply with more stringent testing protocols and reporting standards.Violation Statistics Highlight India’s Doping ChallengeIndia ranked in the top two nations for anti‑doping violations in athletics between 2022‑2025.Recent two‑year ban of Asian Games gold‑medallist archer Prathamesh Jawkar for a whereabouts failure.World Anti‑Doping Agency (WADA) chief Witold Banka called India “the biggest producer of performance‑enhancing drugs”.Repercussions for Upcoming International EventsIndia is slated to host the 2030 Commonwealth Games and is eyeing the 2036 Olympic Games. While WADA cautioned that the doping record will not automatically disqualify India from hosting, the heightened scrutiny could affect bid credibility and require demonstrable reforms.Roadmap for Anti‑Doping Reform in IndiaAFI spokesperson Adille Sumariwalla confirmed collaboration with the AIU, the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, and the National Anti‑Doping Agency to overhaul the domestic anti‑doping programme. The AIU pledged to work closely with AFI, mirroring its approach with other Category A federations.Outlook: Strengthening Integrity Ahead of 2030Experts predict a surge in testing volume, stricter athlete education, and possible legal measures to criminalise doping. Successful implementation could restore confidence ahead of the Commonwealth Games and bolster India’s long‑term Olympic ambitions.

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.