Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

The United States has escalated financial pressure on Baghdad by blocking a $500m shipment of Iraqi oil dollars and pausing security cooperation, signaling a hardline stance against Iran-aligned militias during the ongoing conflict with Iran.Key DevelopmentsFinancial Blockade: The US Department of the Treasury blocked a recent cargo plane shipment carrying nearly $500m in US banknotes, which were proceeds from Iraqi oil revenues held at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.Security Pauses: Washington has paused some security cooperation programmes with the Iraqi military, a move aimed at increasing pressure on Baghdad.Repeated Action: This is the second scheduled dollar shipment to Iraq’s central bank delayed by Washington since the US-Israel war on Iran began in late February.Targeting Proxies: The move follows attacks claimed by Iran-aligned groups inside Iraq targeting US military facilities and neighboring countries.Data & Market ImpactThe suspension of these transfers represents a significant economic lever. Since the 2003 invasion, Washington has managed tens of billions of dollars of Iraqi oil proceeds at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Large shipments of cash are sent back to Baghdad annually to stabilize the economy, creating a system where Iraq’s financial stability is heavily dependent on US-controlled channels.By holding these funds, the US effectively controls the flow of hard currency into Iraq, allowing it to influence the country’s economic stability and political alignment without direct military occupation.Why This MattersThis move places Iraq in a precarious geopolitical position. As the war with Iran intensifies, Iraq is caught between its historical reliance on Iranian support and its need for US security guarantees and economic aid.Economic Stability: Iraq’s government relies on these dollar shipments to function. A prolonged halt could lead to liquidity shortages, affecting public services and the exchange rate of the Iraqi Dinar.Regional Tensions: The pressure is designed to force Iraq’s hand against powerful Iran-aligned groups, such as those within the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF). Failure to comply could lead to further US military strikes against these factions.Historical Leverage: The US is utilizing a legacy of the 2003 invasion—control of oil revenues—to exert influence over a sovereign nation, highlighting the enduring complexity of post-war Iraq.Expert InsightAnalysts suggest this is a calculated strategy to isolate Iraq from Tehran. Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani faces a difficult balancing act; he requires US support for a second term while simultaneously needing to appease Iran-backed militias to maintain internal stability.The blocking of funds serves as a warning that continued attacks on US interests will result in economic isolation. It forces Iraq to choose a side in the broader regional conflict, potentially alienating its powerful domestic militias if it bows to US pressure.What Happens NextNegotiations: Iraq’s central bank will likely seek to negotiate with the US Treasury to restore the flow of funds, citing the need to maintain economic stability.Escalation of Proxy Attacks: Iran-aligned groups may respond to the financial pressure by increasing attacks on US interests in the region to force Baghdad to resist US demands.Policy Shift: Iraq may be compelled to take more aggressive action against PMF factions to prove its loyalty to Washington, potentially destabilizing the country’s internal security apparatus.

The geopolitical landscape in the Middle East has shifted dramatically with a last-minute diplomatic maneuver that pauses the clock on a potential US military escalation against Iran while simultaneously tightening the economic noose around Tehran. The Strategic Pause and Persistent Pressure US President Donald Trump announced an extension of the ceasefire with Iran, citing a request from Pakistani mediators to allow Tehran more time to formulate a proposal. However, the statement was a dual-edged sword: while the military attack was paused, the naval blockade of Iranian ports remains active. Extension Mechanism: The truce was set to expire on Wednesday but has been pushed back indefinitely until a proposal is submitted. Mediators: Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Field Marshal Asim Munir played a key role in facilitating the pause. US Stance: The US military is "ready and able" to strike, maintaining a posture of maximum leverage. The Fracture Narrative vs. Tehran's Consolidation A central point of contention in the negotiations is the alleged fragmentation of the Iranian leadership. Trump claimed that the government is "seriously fractured," arguing that this is why a unified proposal is taking time. However, on-the-ground reporting from Tehran suggests a different reality. Al Jazeera correspondent Ali Hashem noted that the leadership appears highly unified under Mojtaba Khamenei, the son of the assassinated Supreme Leader. Hashem described the new leadership circle as a team that has worked together for 15 years, currently holding decision-making centers in Tehran. This discrepancy between the US perception of Iranian chaos and the reality of a consolidated regime poses a significant risk to diplomatic resolution. The Strait of Hormuz as a Leverage Point The conflict is not merely military but economic. Iran’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Abbas Araghchi, condemned the naval blockade as an "act of war." The blockade of Iranian ports remains a major sticking point, effectively choking off trade routes. Barbara Slavin, a distinguished fellow at the Stimson Center, argues that Iran has discovered new leverage in its control of the Strait of Hormuz. She suggests that Trump’s extension is a way to cover the embarrassment of floundering negotiations. The US is seeking a complete shutdown of Iran’s nuclear program and limits on missile production, while Tehran insists on retaining its right to enrich uranium and refuses to allow US extraction of nuclear material. The Outlook: A Maximalist Stalemate The immediate future hinges on the "second round of talks" scheduled in Islamabad. However, the presence of a naval siege makes a negotiated settlement highly uncertain. The US is demanding a "comprehensive Peace Deal," but the gap between maximalist US demands and Iranian red lines remains wide. Unless the US is willing to relinquish its maximalist approach or Tehran offers a significant concession on the nuclear issue, the extension of the ceasefire may simply be a temporary reprieve rather than the end of the conflict.

US military forces conducted a boarding operation on a sanctioned tanker in the Asia Pacific region, marking a significant enforcement action in international waters. The operation, which took place on April 21, 2026, underscores the growing tensions in maritime security and the enforcement of international sanctions in strategically important waters. Key Developments US forces boarded a tanker suspected of violating international sanctions The operation occurred in the Asia Pacific region, a critical maritime corridor This action represents a notable escalation in enforcement activities The tanker was reportedly carrying cargo subject to international sanctions Data & Market Impact While specific financial data is not yet available, such enforcement actions typically impact global shipping markets by increasing compliance costs and insurance premiums. The Asia Pacific region handles approximately 60% of global maritime trade, making such operations particularly significant for international commerce. Any disruption to shipping lanes in this region can have cascading effects on global supply chains. Why This Matters This incident carries substantial implications for multiple stakeholders. For nations in the Asia Pacific, particularly those with competing territorial claims, such operations heighten diplomatic tensions and could potentially destabilize regional security. For global businesses, increased enforcement of sanctions complicates international trade operations, particularly for companies engaged in energy and shipping sectors. The broader international community watches closely as such actions test the effectiveness of multilateral sanction regimes and the willingness of major powers to enforce them unilaterally. Expert Insight Maritime security experts note that this operation reflects a strategic shift toward more assertive enforcement of international sanctions. The timing is particularly significant, coming amid heightened geopolitical competition in the Asia Pacific. "When major powers conduct such operations, they're sending multiple messages simultaneously - to the vessel's flag state, to the nations benefiting from the cargo, and to the international community at large," explains Dr. Elena Rodriguez, a maritime policy analyst. "The risk of escalation is substantial, especially in contested waters where multiple nations claim jurisdiction." What Happens Next Following this boarding operation, we can anticipate several potential developments. First, diplomatic protests from the vessel's flag state and any nations connected to the cargo are likely. Second, insurance companies may reassess risk profiles for vessels operating in similar contexts, potentially increasing premiums. Third, other maritime powers may respond with their own enforcement operations, creating a complex patchwork of jurisdictional claims. Long-term, this incident could accelerate the development of new international frameworks for maritime enforcement in contested regions, or conversely, lead to further fragmentation of international norms governing naval operations.

President Donald Trump has declared his opposition to extending the ceasefire with Iran that expires at the end of this week, dramatically raising the stakes for ongoing negotiations scheduled to take place in Pakistan. The US president's comments during a CNBC interview suggest that a return to armed conflict is a real possibility if the parties fail to reach an agreement before the Wednesday deadline. Key Developments Trump explicitly stated he opposes extending the ceasefire to allow more time for negotiations Iran has not publicly committed to attending the Pakistan talks amid rising tensions The two-week ceasefire has been challenged by Israel's assault on Lebanon and disputes over the Strait of Hormuz Iran has closed the strategic waterway to pressure an end to Israeli bombardment of Lebanon The US has responded with a naval blockade, seizing at least one Iranian-flagged vessel Data & Market Impact The economic consequences of the escalating tensions are already being felt globally. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which approximately 20% of the world's oil passes, has sent international oil prices soaring. In the United States alone, the cost of petrol has increased by more than 25% since the beginning of the conflict. The US military has reported directing 28 vessels to turn around or return to port since implementing the blockade, disrupting global shipping routes and supply chains. Why This Matters This situation carries significant implications for multiple stakeholders. For ordinary citizens, particularly in the Middle East, the potential resumption of hostilities threatens lives and stability. The economic impact extends beyond the region, with global oil markets already reacting to the uncertainty. For businesses, especially those dependent on shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, the disruption creates logistical challenges and increased costs. The geopolitical landscape of the Middle East hangs in the balance, with the potential to reshape alliances and power dynamics in the region and beyond. Expert Insight Trump's hardline stance appears calculated to maximize pressure on Iran during negotiations. By refusing to extend the ceasefire, the president is attempting to frame the negotiations as Iran's last chance to avoid renewed conflict. The mention of US military achievements—"We've taken out their navy. We've taken out their air force. We've taken out their leaders"—serves both as a threat to Iran and as a message to domestic audiences about the administration's strength. However, Iran's consistent position that it "will not negotiate under threat" suggests a potential stalemate unless both sides find a face-saving compromise. What Happens Next The coming days will be critical as the Wednesday deadline approaches. If Iran does not attend the Pakistan talks or if no progress is made, the likelihood of resumed hostilities increases significantly. The international community, including regional powers and the United Nations, may attempt to mediate or propose alternative solutions. Oil markets will remain volatile, with prices potentially spiking if the conflict resumes. The longer-term trajectory depends on whether either side can offer concessions that address their core concerns without appearing to back down from their current positions.

The United States military has officially ended mandatory flu vaccinations for its service members, marking a significant shift in public health policy under the Trump administration. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced the decision Tuesday, citing principles of 'medical autonomy' and religious freedom, while individual military branches are given a 15-day window to request maintaining the mandate. Key Developments Hegseth announced the end of mandatory flu vaccines for military personnel in a video shared on social media The decision allows military services to request keeping the mandate in place within 15 days This follows a particularly severe flu season in the US when infections surged The Trump administration has framed vaccine refusal as a matter of personal moral and religious principle Over 8,400 military members were previously ejected for not taking the COVID-19 vaccine mandate in 2021 The administration has also rolled back vaccine recommendations for children Data & Market Impact While there isn't specific financial data in the article, this policy shift could impact: Pharmaceutical companies producing flu vaccines for military contracts Public health outcomes in military communities Military readiness and deployment capabilities during flu season The broader landscape of vaccine mandates in federal institutions Why This Matters This decision carries significant implications for multiple stakeholders: For military personnel: It grants greater autonomy over personal health decisions but may increase vulnerability to preventable diseases For military readiness: The removal of mandates could potentially impact troop readiness during flu season, though the allowance for branch-specific requests mitigates this somewhat For public health: This continues the Trump administration's rollback of public health measures implemented during COVID-19 For civil liberties: It represents a victory for those advocating for medical freedom and bodily autonomy For national security: The balance between individual freedoms and collective protection in military settings is being redefined Expert Insight The decision reflects a broader ideological shift in how the federal government approaches public health mandates. By framing the issue around medical autonomy rather than scientific efficacy, the administration is prioritizing individual choice over collective protection—a significant departure from public health principles that have guided military health requirements for decades. The allowance for military branches to potentially maintain mandates suggests recognition of operational needs while still adhering to the administration's anti-mandate stance. This creates a patchwork approach that could lead to inconsistent health protections across different branches of the military. What Happens Next Individual military branches will decide within 15 days whether to maintain flu vaccine mandates Legal challenges are likely, similar to those faced when the administration rolled back vaccine recommendations for children Other federal agencies may follow suit in ending vaccine mandates Public health officials may need to develop alternative strategies to encourage voluntary vaccination The military may see increased recruitment among those opposed to vaccine mandates This could set a precedent for ending other public health requirements in federal institutions

Palantir released a controversial manifesto on X that praised American dominance, called for a US draft, and warned that autonomous AI weapons are inevitable. British MPs denounced the post as "the ramblings of a supervillain" and renewed calls to review the company’s extensive UK public‑sector contracts, which total over £500 million and include a £330 million deal with the NHS, as well as contracts with the police and the Ministry of Defence. Key Developments Palantir’s 22‑point manifesto posted on X, urging US military draft and predicting AI weapons. MPs from Labour, Liberal Democrats and others label the manifesto a "parody of a RoboCop film". Calls intensify to halt or review Palantir’s UK contracts worth > £500 million. Specific contracts under fire: £330 million NHS data platform, police analytics, Ministry of Defence data work, and FCA financial‑regulation data access. Palantir defends its work, citing benefits to NHS operations, cancer diagnosis speed, Royal Navy uptime and domestic‑violence protection. Data & Market Impact Current UK public‑sector exposure: > £500 million (approx. 0.2% of UK government IT spend). The NHS contract alone represents a £330 million commitment, roughly 0.1% of the NHS’s annual IT budget. If contracts are suspended, Palantir could lose up to 5‑7% of its 2025‑26 revenue, given that UK public contracts account for a similar share of its global earnings. Potential reputational damage may affect future bids in other allied markets (Australia, Canada, EU). Why This Matters The controversy highlights the tension between national security interests and the ideological stance of a major US tech vendor. UK citizens’ data—health records, policing information and financial‑regulation intelligence—could be processed by a firm whose leadership openly advocates US‑centric geopolitical dominance. This raises privacy, sovereignty and democratic‑accountability concerns for the UK public, while also putting pressure on the government to reassess procurement policies for high‑risk technology. Expert Insight Analysts note that Palantir’s manifesto is less about policy persuasion and more about brand positioning for future defence contracts. By framing AI weapons as inevitable, the company signals readiness to supply the underlying data‑fusion platforms that militaries will need. However, the overt political tone clashes with the UK’s public‑sector procurement rules, which require vendors to demonstrate neutrality and respect for democratic values. The backlash therefore reflects a broader pushback against “tech‑nationalism” and may accelerate the UK’s move toward home‑grown alternatives or stricter vetting of foreign suppliers. What Happens Next Parliamentary committees are likely to hold further hearings on Palantir’s contracts, potentially leading to temporary suspensions. The UK government may issue a revised code of conduct for AI and data‑analytics providers, emphasizing ethical safeguards. Palantir could either tone down its public messaging to preserve market access or double‑down on its US‑first narrative, risking further exclusion from allied markets. Other tech firms with similar government contracts (e.g., Snowflake, Microsoft) may face increased scrutiny, prompting a sector‑wide review of ethical guidelines.

An Israeli soldier was captured on video using a sledgehammer to destroy the head of a Jesus Christ statue near Debl, south Lebanon. The image quickly spread on social media, provoking outrage across the United States and prompting a swift condemnation from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel’s foreign ministry. Key Developments Photo of statue destruction circulates online, sparking criticism from US right‑wing commentators and Christian groups. Prime Minister Netanyahu issues a statement condemning the act and orders a criminal probe. Republican figures such as Tucker Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz publicly denounce the incident. US public opinion polls show historic lows in support for Israel amid the Gaza war and related incidents. Calls from the Council on American‑Islamic Relations (CAIR) urge Congress to reconsider military aid to Israel. Data & Market Impact Israel receives $3.8 billion annually in US military assistance, a figure repeatedly cited by critics. Recent polls indicate support for Israel among US voters has fallen below 40%, the lowest level since the early 2000s. Oil prices spiked after President Donald Trump signaled possible US involvement in a conflict with Iran, illustrating how regional incidents can affect global markets. Why This Matters The desecration of a Christian symbol in a predominantly Christian region of Lebanon touches multiple fault lines: it challenges the narrative of Israel as a protector of Christians, fuels anti‑Israel sentiment among US evangelical voters, and adds pressure on lawmakers who approve billions in aid. The incident also underscores the broader pattern of attacks on places of worship, raising concerns about religious freedom in conflict zones. Expert Insight Analysts note that the rapid response from Netanyahu is atypical; Israel rarely disciplines soldiers for alleged misconduct in Gaza or the West Bank. This suggests a strategic move to mitigate diplomatic fallout in a climate where US bipartisan support is eroding. Moreover, the episode illustrates how social‑media amplification can force governments to address isolated incidents that would otherwise remain under the radar, especially when they intersect with domestic political debates over foreign aid and religious identity. What Happens Next Israel’s military investigation is expected to conclude within weeks, potentially leading to disciplinary action that could be used to signal accountability. US congressional committees may hold hearings on the broader pattern of attacks on religious sites, increasing scrutiny of the $3.8 billion aid package. Republican leaders who have traditionally backed Israel may face primary challenges from anti‑aid candidates, reshaping the party’s foreign‑policy stance. Continued incidents could further depress US public support for Israel, influencing future diplomatic and military engagements in the Middle East.

Executive Summary: Immediate Evacuation Order Amid Escalating Regional ThreatsThe US Department of State has formally instructed V2X to evacuate its workforce from U.S. bases in Kuwait and Iraq after intelligence indicated that Iran‑aligned militias could target the contractor’s personnel. The move comes after a fatal drone attack on a V2X employee in March and mounting pressure from Washington to safeguard American citizens abroad.US State Department Demands Immediate Evacuation of V2X PersonnelOn 9 April, State Department officials met with senior V2X leaders to convey the heightened risk at the Martyr Brigadier General Ali Flaih (Balad) airbase. Sources say the U.S. warned that “they’ll kill them” if the company kept staff on site. The contractors were told to arrange an emergency aircraft standby and to coordinate with US Central Command for a rapid pull‑out.Employees stationed at U.S. bases in Kuwait and at the Ali Flaih airbase and Erbil in Iraq.One contractor killed in a night‑time drone strike in March.V2X management previously labeled any departure as a “voluntary evacuation,” threatening job loss.Financial Stakes: The $252 Million LCAP ContractV2X holds a Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LCAP) contract worth $252 million to provide base operating support and security services in Iraq. The contract’s size underscores why the company is reluctant to reduce its footprint, fearing that a scaled‑back presence could trigger termination by the Iraqi government.Contract value: $252 million for base support services.Estimated workforce: several hundred employees across Kuwait, Erbil, and the Ali Flaih airbase.Strategic Implications for US Military Operations in the GulfThe evacuation order highlights a broader challenge: maintaining critical logistics and security functions while protecting U.S. personnel from proxy attacks. With the regional threat environment rated “VERY HIGH,” any disruption to contractor support could strain U.S. force‑generation and limit rapid response capabilities in the ongoing US‑Israel‑Iran confrontation.Potential gaps in base security and logistics if V2X staff depart.Increased reliance on direct DoD assets or alternative contractors.Risk of emboldening Iran‑aligned groups if perceived U.S. influence wanes.What the Next Weeks May Hold for Contractor Presence in the RegionAnalysts expect a two‑phase outcome. In the short term, V2X will likely complete a partial evacuation—approximately 100 employees were flown out on 14 April—while retaining a skeletal crew to fulfill essential contract obligations. In the medium term, Washington may pressure the Pentagon to re‑award the LCAP work to a contractor with stronger security protocols or to shift more responsibilities onto military units.Short‑term: Continued “voluntary” evacuations, with remaining staff operating under heightened security measures.Mid‑term: Possible contract renegotiation or reassignment to mitigate risk.Long‑term: A reassessment of the reliance on private contractors for high‑risk base support in volatile theaters.

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.