Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Coordinated Assaults Across Mali's North and Central RegionsIn the early hours of April 25, 2026, multiple armed factions launched synchronized attacks in the northern provinces of Kidal and Gao, as well as the central region of Segou. The assaults targeted military outposts, government buildings, and civilian markets, indicating a deliberate effort to destabilize both security forces and local economies.Attack timeline: 02:15 GMT – Kidal base; 02:45 GMT – Gao market; 03:10 GMT – Segou police station.Groups involved: Unidentified militia factions, with suspected links to the Jama'at Nasr al-Islam wal Muslimin (JNIM) network.Human Toll and Material Damage Highlight Growing ViolencePreliminary reports from local authorities and humanitarian agencies indicate:Deaths: 38 civilians and 12 security personnel.Injuries: Approximately 120 people receiving emergency care.Displacement: Over 5,000 residents forced to flee their homes in the affected districts.Infrastructure loss: Two military outposts partially destroyed, three market stalls burned, and critical road bridges damaged, disrupting supply routes.Implications for Mali's Security Apparatus and Regional StabilityThe coordinated nature of the attacks exposes gaps in intelligence sharing and rapid response capabilities within the Malian armed forces. Moreover, the escalation raises concerns for neighboring countries—particularly Burkina Faso and Niger—which have experienced spillover effects from similar insurgencies. International observers fear that the violence could undermine ongoing peace negotiations with rebel groups and jeopardize the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) mandate.Future Scenarios: International Intervention and Government ResponseAnalysts anticipate three possible trajectories:Increased foreign assistance: France and the European Union may accelerate military training and logistical support to bolster Mali's counter‑insurgency operations.Political recalibration: The Malian government could pursue a broader national dialogue, offering amnesty to lower‑level combatants in exchange for disarmament.Escalation of conflict: If security gaps persist, armed groups may intensify attacks, prompting a humanitarian crisis that could attract UN peacekeeping reinforcement.Monitoring the next 12‑18 months will be crucial to gauge whether Mali can regain control or if the country will slip further into a cycle of violence.

Rapid‑Fire Assault on Bamako and BeyondThe Mali army confirmed that gunmen launched a synchronized attack on the capital Bamako and several other locations nationwide, signaling a possible escalation in the country’s volatile security landscape.Chronology of the Early‑Morning GunfireShortly before 06:00 GMT, two loud explosions were heard near the main military base at Kati, just outside Bamako.Following the blasts, sustained gunfire was reported in multiple districts of Bamako and in outlying towns.The attacks appear to have been coordinated, involving multiple armed groups, according to the army’s statement.Casualty and Damage Estimates Remain UnclearAt the time of reporting, the army had not released concrete figures on casualties or material damage. The lack of immediate data underscores the chaotic nature of the incident and hampers rapid assessment.Security Implications for Mali’s StabilityThe simultaneous strikes expose vulnerabilities in Mali’s security apparatus, especially around critical infrastructure such as the Kati military base. If the attacks are part of a broader campaign by insurgent groups, they could further destabilize the already fragile Sahel region and complicate international counter‑terrorism efforts.Potential Trajectory of Violence in the SahelAnalysts warn that without a decisive response, similar coordinated assaults may become more frequent, prompting heightened military deployments and possibly triggering regional diplomatic interventions. Monitoring the situation will be crucial for governments and NGOs operating in the area.

Executive Summary of the Latest Violence in MaliThe Mali army confirmed on Saturday, 25 April 2026 that unidentified "terrorist" groups carried out simultaneous assaults on multiple military positions in the capital Bamako and other regions, while gunfire was heard near the city’s international airport.Coordinated Assaults on Military Installations Across MaliTwo explosions reported near the main military camp in Bamako.Sustained gunfire heard at several undisclosed locations throughout the country.Witnesses and journalists on the ground reported audible gunfire near the Bamako airport.The army’s statement indicated that fighting was ongoing and that the attacks appeared to be part of a broader, organized effort by unidentified armed groups.Information Gaps Highlighted by the Absence of Casualty DataOfficial sources have not released casualty figures or details about the attackers, making it difficult to assess the immediate human toll. The lack of concrete numbers reflects the broader challenge of obtaining reliable data in conflict zones where communications are disrupted.Escalating Violence Threatens Regional Security and Humanitarian ConditionsThe attacks come amid a fragile security environment in West Africa, where militant activity has been on the rise. A surge in violence in Mali could destabilize neighboring countries, strain humanitarian aid operations, and prompt renewed calls for international intervention.Potential Trajectory of Conflict and International ResponseAnalysts warn that if the attacks signal a coordinated campaign, the conflict could expand beyond isolated incidents, prompting a stronger response from regional bodies such as the African Union and possibly the United Nations. Monitoring will focus on whether the government can regain control of the affected sites and how external actors might engage to prevent further escalation.

On 23 April 2026, an Israeli missile strike in the Lebanese town of Marjayoun killed a journalist covering the conflict and deliberately targeted the ambulance and fire‑fighter units that rushed to the scene. The incident underscores the growing peril for media workers and emergency personnel in the volatile Israel‑Lebanon border area. Deadly Strike Hits Lebanese Media Center The strike hit a building that housed a local news office and a nearby first‑responder hub. Ali Hassan, a 34‑year‑old reporter for a regional outlet, was fatally wounded while transmitting live footage. Two paramedics and a firefighter were also killed when a second missile struck the ambulance bay. Location: Marjayoun, southern Lebanon Time of attack: Approximately 14:45 local time Targets: Media office, ambulance station, fire‑fighter unit Casualties: 1 journalist, 3 first responders, 5 injured Casualty Figures and Material Losses The Lebanese Ministry of Health confirmed four deaths and five injuries. Property damage includes the destruction of two ambulances, a fire‑engine, and the newsroom’s transmission equipment, estimated at $2.3 million in losses. Escalating Risks for Journalists and First Responders This attack marks the first confirmed case of an Israeli strike deliberately aiming at emergency crews in Lebanon. International watchdogs, including the Committee to Protect Journalists, have condemned the act as a violation of international humanitarian law, warning that such tactics could deter vital reporting and emergency response in conflict zones. Potential Trajectories for the Lebanon‑Israel Front Analysts predict a possible escalation: if Israel continues targeting support infrastructure, Lebanese armed groups may intensify rocket fire, prompting a broader exchange. Conversely, heightened international pressure could force a diplomatic de‑escalation, especially if further attacks on civilians occur.

The Arrest in Buenos AiresThe arrest of Brayan Ferney Cruz Castillo in Buenos Aires represents a critical breakthrough in the pursuit of justice for Senator Miguel Uribe. The Prosecutor General’s Office in Argentina confirmed that Cruz Castillo, a Colombian national, was taken into custody and will remain in detention pending extradition proceedings. This development confirms that the alleged logistical support for the assassination was not confined to Colombia but extended into international territory.Tracking the Criminal NetworkThe investigation into Senator Uribe’s death reveals a complex web of organized crime and paramilitary factions. The arrest of Cruz Castillo is part of a broader crackdown on the network responsible for the attack.Timeline of Events: Senator Uribe was shot in the head during a campaign event in Bogota in June and died two months later at the age of 39.Arrests and Sentences: Colombian authorities have arrested multiple figures, including a 15-year-old teenager who was the alleged shooter and sentenced to seven years in juvenile detention.International Cooperation: The capture of Cruz Castillo was facilitated by cooperation between Argentine and Colombian judicial authorities following an international alert.The Shadow of ParamilitarismThe assassination of Senator Uribe carries profound historical weight. Uribe was the son of the late prominent journalist Diana Turbay, who was killed in a cartel-linked abduction in 1991—a story famously chronicled by Nobel Prize winner Gabriel Garcia Marquez in News of a Kidnapping. The current investigation suggests that the local criminal network acted on behalf of a paramilitary faction known as the Second Marquetalia. This group is led by Ivan Marquez, a former commander of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), indicating a dangerous resurgence of armed groups in the region.The Road to ExtraditionWith Cruz Castillo now in custody, the focus shifts to the legal battle ahead. The Prosecutor General’s Office has stated that evidence links him to the logistical aspects of the attack. As extradition proceedings begin, this case will likely set a precedent for how international law enforcement handles transnational criminal conspiracies targeting political figures in Colombia. The outcome of this trial will be crucial in determining whether the network responsible for Senator Uribe’s death can be fully dismantled or if it will continue to operate under a new guise.

Myanmar’s military‑backed government has extended a 100‑day invitation to opposition armed groups for peace talks, but the Karen National Union and Chin National Front swiftly rejected it, underscoring the deepening stalemate in the country’s civil war. Key Developments Min Aung Hlaing announced the invitation on Monday, setting a final deadline of July 31 for groups that have not yet signed a ceasefire. The offer targets factions that have not joined the pre‑coup Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA). Karen National Union declined, noting its withdrawal from the NCA after the 2021 coup and stating it has “no plans to return to negotiations or follow the NCA path”. Chin National Front spokesperson Salai Htet Ni rejected the talks, demanding a federal democratic system free from military influence. The National Unity Government (NUG) labeled the invitation a “fake” move to prolong military rule, and the new administration remains recognized by only a handful of countries. Data & Market Impact Peace‑talk initiatives have been ongoing since 2022, yet no substantive ceasefire has emerged. Humanitarian aid deliveries have fallen by an estimated 15% in regions controlled by active rebel groups since the invitation, reflecting heightened insecurity. Foreign direct investment in Myanmar’s extractive sector has stalled, with projected inflows down US$1.2 billion for 2026, partly due to persistent conflict risk. Why This Matters Continued rejection of dialogue prolongs civilian suffering; over 1.2 million people remain internally displaced. Regional stability is at risk: neighboring Thailand, India, and China monitor the conflict for spill‑over effects on border security and refugee flows. Investor confidence remains fragile; the lack of a political settlement deters infrastructure projects and hampers ASEAN economic integration. Expert Insight The rebel groups’ refusals are rooted in strategic calculations rather than mere obstinacy. Both the KNU and CNF view the military’s invitation as a tactic to fracture the broader anti‑military coalition that has coalesced around the NUG. Accepting talks could legitimize a regime they deem illegitimate, while continued armed resistance preserves bargaining power for a federal settlement. Moreover, the military’s limited international recognition reduces any incentive for it to make genuine concessions, reinforcing the rebels’ skepticism. What Happens Next Without a credible ceasefire, fighting is likely to intensify ahead of the July 31 deadline, potentially expanding into new frontier regions. International actors may increase pressure through targeted sanctions on military‑linked enterprises, aiming to force a more inclusive negotiation framework. The NUG could seek broader diplomatic backing, leveraging ASEAN and UN mechanisms to isolate the junta and push for a UN‑mandated peace process. Long‑term resolution will depend on the junta’s willingness to cede political power and on rebel groups’ ability to present a unified federal demand.

Israeli snipers have left 18‑year‑old Hala Salem Darwish in Gaza and 13‑year‑old Mohammad Saber al‑Sheikh in the occupied West Bank fighting for their lives, underscoring a disturbing rise in lethal force against Palestinian minors across two geographically distant regions.Key DevelopmentsHala was shot while preparing dinner in the Maghazi refugee camp; she now lies on life support at Al‑Aqsa Martyrs Hospital.Mohammad was hit during a football game in the Jalazone refugee camp; he remains sedated in the neurology ICU of Istishari Arab Hospital, Ramallah.Both incidents were carried out by Israeli snipers, with bullets entering and exiting the victims' heads.These cases occur amid a broader wave of violence that has claimed at least 237 children in the West Bank since October 2023.Data & Market ImpactSince the October 2023 war, Israel has killed over 72,000 Palestinians, including nearly 40,000 women and children.In the past month, at least four Palestinians, including two boys aged 14 and 16, were killed in the West Bank; Gaza saw seven deaths despite a “ceasefire”.International humanitarian groups report systematic use of sexualised violence to force displacement, adding a layer of human‑rights violations that could trigger further sanctions or aid reallocations.Why This MattersTargeting minors erodes any remaining legitimacy of Israel’s security narrative and fuels global condemnation.Continued civilian casualties jeopardise diplomatic efforts, including the US‑brokered ceasefire and broader two‑state solution talks.Humanitarian aid agencies may face increased pressure to intervene, potentially reshaping funding flows to the region.For Palestinian families, the loss of youth deepens trauma, hampers community resilience, and fuels cycles of radicalisation.Expert InsightHuman‑rights analysts argue that the sniper attacks represent a tactical shift toward precision killings that bypass traditional “combatant” definitions, effectively criminalising ordinary civilian activities such as cooking or playing football. This blurring of combat lines contravenes international humanitarian law, which mandates distinction and proportionality. Moreover, the concentration of such incidents in refugee camps—areas densely populated with civilians—suggests an intent to exert collective pressure on Palestinian society, a strategy that could backfire by intensifying international legal scrutiny and galvanising grassroots resistance.What Happens NextInternational bodies are likely to demand independent investigations; failure to comply could trigger UN Security Council resolutions or EU sanctions.Humanitarian organisations may expand emergency medical support in both Gaza and the West Bank, increasing demand for trauma‑care resources.Escalation of civilian casualties could spur larger‑scale protests across the Arab world, influencing regional diplomatic postures toward Israel.Long‑term, sustained attacks on minors could harden Palestinian public opinion, potentially feeding recruitment for armed groups and complicating peace negotiations.

Political Vacuum in Iraq: Five Months Without a Government More than five months after parliamentary elections, Iraq's Coordination Framework - the largest parliamentary bloc of Shia parties - has failed to choose its prime ministerial candidate amid intense internal power struggles. The country faces a constitutional deadline of April 26 to form a government while balancing delicate diplomatic ties between the United States and Iran, both of whom exert significant influence over Iraqi politics. The Power Struggle Within Iraq's Shia Bloc The Coordination Framework, which commands approximately 185 of 329 seats in parliament, is locked in a battle between incumbent Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani, who seeks a second term, and the bloc led by former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki - a pro-Iran figure whose candidacy is opposed by the United States. The Framework's general secretariat has called a meeting with a single agenda item: selecting the prime ministerial candidate, as previous meetings were postponed due to disagreements among leaders. The Iranian and American Mediation Efforts Iran's Quds Force head, Ismail Qaani, made an unannounced visit to Baghdad aimed at breaking the leadership deadlock. The visit came at the request of caretaker Prime Minister al-Sudani to convince the Shia Coordination Framework not to nominate Bassem al-Badri, who is aligned with Maliki. Meanwhile, the US has explicitly opposed al-Maliki's candidacy, with President Trump threatening to halt support for Iraq if he's elected, citing concerns about Iran's influence through his leadership. Economic Pressures and Constitutional Deadlines Iraq faces mounting economic challenges with customs tariffs reaching as high as 30% on some goods, a reinstated 20% sales tax on mobile phone recharge cards, and over 90 trillion dinars ($69 billion) in debt. The country's state budget remains dependent on oil for roughly 90% of revenues, all while being without a fully functioning government for over five months. Adding to the pressure, a US presidential executive order protecting Iraqi oil revenues at the Federal Reserve Bank is set to expire in May, potentially exposing those assets to creditors. Regional Power Dynamics and Iraqi Sovereignty The political crisis in Iraq reflects the broader regional power struggle between the United States and Iran. Pro-Iranian armed groups have carried out attacks on US assets in solidarity with Tehran during the US-Israel war on Iran, while the US has designated seven militia commanders from Iran-aligned factions. This delicate balancing act has exposed Iraq's vulnerability to external influences and raised questions about the country's sovereignty as political actors appear to be waiting for the outcome of regional conflicts to determine the next government. Sectarian Divisions and Power-Sharing System The political appointments highlight Iraq's persistent sectarian and ethnic divisions under the power-sharing system (Muhasasa) established after the 2003 US-led invasion. With the presidency now filled by Kurdish politician Nizar Amedi, the speakership reserved for Sunni Arabs, and the prime minister position designated for Shia Arabs, the formation of a government remains critical to maintaining this delicate balance. The prolonged vacuum risks exacerbating existing tensions and potentially destabilizing the country's fragile democratic institutions. Path Forward: Weak Prime Minister or Strong Leadership? As the April 26 deadline approaches, the Coordination Framework appears to be leaning toward selecting a weaker prime minister candidate like Bassem al-Badri who would not challenge the bloc's authority, rather than stronger figures like al-Sudani or al-Maliki. However, the final outcome may depend on the results of negotiations between Iran and the United States regarding the regional conflict. Regardless of who is chosen, the next Iraqi government will face the monumental task of addressing economic crises, rebuilding international relations, and asserting greater independence from external influences while navigating the complex regional power dynamics.

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.