Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

President Donald Trump issued a stark warning that the United States would eradicate Iran’s “civilisation” unless the regime reopens the Strait of Hormuz and complies with his demands. The statement, posted on his Truth Social account less than twelve hours before the self‑imposed deadline, declared that a whole civilisation could die “tonight, never to be brought back again.” Trump set the cutoff for compliance at 8 p.m. Washington time (00:00 GMT) on Tuesday, framing the moment as a decisive point in what he called a long‑standing struggle against Iranian extortion and corruption. For more than two weeks, the president has threatened to strike Iran’s civilian infrastructure—bridges, power stations, roads and other non‑military assets—if his terms are not met. Legal analysts have warned that such actions would constitute a war crime under international law. “It’s horrific. It’s pure evil. It’s disqualifying,” said Yasmine Taeb, legislative and political director of MPower Change Action Fund, condemning the president’s rhetoric as that of “a deranged, unstable madman.” She called for a stronger response from both U.S. lawmakers and the global community. Democratic leaders reacted forcefully. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer labeled Trump “an extremely sick person,” while House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries urged Republican colleagues to “put patriotic duty over party and stop the madness,” warning that the conflict could spiral into a world war. Representative Rashida Tlaib suggested invoking the 25th Amendment to remove Trump, citing the recent bombing of a school in Minab that killed over 170 children. Congressional attempts to curb the president’s war powers have stalled; a recent resolution to limit his authority failed to pass, leaving the legal basis for the campaign in question. Critics argue that launching a military operation without congressional approval violates the U.S. Constitution, which reserves the declaration of war to Congress. Republican reactions were muted. Representative Mike Lawler downplayed the threat, stating that any strikes would target only Iran’s energy and civilian infrastructure to cripple the regime’s economy, and affirmed that Trump is acting within his constitutional authority as commander‑in‑chief. The conflict, which began on February 28 when the United States and Israel allegedly killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and other senior officials, has already claimed more than 2,000 lives, including civilians in schools, residential blocks and medical facilities. Iran’s retaliatory rocket and drone attacks have hit Israeli and U.S. assets across the Middle East, while Iranian forces have blocked the Strait of Hormuz, driving global energy prices higher. Despite the heavy toll, Iran’s governing structure appears intact, bolstered by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, designated by the United States as a terrorist organization. No major defections or anti‑government protests have emerged, and Khamenei’s son, Mojtaba Khamenei, has assumed a leading role. Trump, while maintaining a hardline stance, left a narrow window for diplomacy, suggesting that “maybe something revolutionary wonderful can happen.” He framed the deadline as “one of the most important moments in the long and complex history of the world,” promising that “47 years of extortion, corruption, and death will finally end.” Vice President J.D. Vance echoed the president’s message, warning Iran that the United States possesses additional, undisclosed tools and will employ them if Tehran does not alter its conduct, emphasizing the U.S. desire for free flow of oil and gas.

The application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology to target Palestinians has sparked widespread concern. This technology, increasingly being utilized in various sectors, has been reportedly used to enhance surveillance and monitoring capabilities. Sources indicate that AI-powered tools are being employed to gather and analyze data on individuals and communities within Palestine. This has led to fears about the potential for biased and discriminatory outcomes, exacerbating existing tensions and human rights issues. Critics argue that the use of AI in this context undermines privacy and freedom, potentially leading to a disproportionate impact on Palestinian communities. The integration of AI into surveillance systems raises questions about accountability and transparency in the use of such technologies. As AI continues to evolve and become more pervasive, the need for robust regulations and safeguards to protect human rights has become increasingly apparent. The situation highlights the importance of ensuring that technological advancements are developed and implemented in a manner that respects and upholds universal human rights standards.

Who: FC Barcelona vs. Atletico MadridWhat: UEFA Champions League quarter‑final, first legWhere: Camp Nou, Barcelona, SpainWhen: Wednesday, 21:00 CET (19:00 GMT)How to follow: Live text commentary starts at 16:00 GMT on Al Jazeera Sport. The Spanish giants are set to clash again after a grueling schedule that has seen them meet five times in just two months, including three matches within a ten‑day span. Barcelona entered the encounter fresh from a dramatic 2‑1 victory over Atletico in La Liga on Saturday, a win that pushed them seven points clear at the top of the table. Robert Lewandowski netted a late winner after Marcus Rashford had equalised, while Atletico midfielder Nico González received a second yellow card just before halftime, leaving the visitors with ten men. With the league title largely secured, Diego Simeone opted to rotate his squad for Wednesday’s match, focusing his energy on the European tie. Barcelona coach Hansi Flick echoed the sentiment, noting that players typically give “5‑10 % more” in Champions League fixtures. Both managers highlighted the importance of the upcoming game. Flick described the fixture as “very difficult” and urged his side to take it “step by step, match by match.” Midfielder Dani Olmo called the tie “all or nothing,” stressing the need to avoid a repeat of their recent Copa del Rey disappointment. Simeone praised Barcelona as “the best attacking team in Europe,” while Atletico forward Ademola Lookman warned that the clash would be “special” and demanded thorough preparation. How the clubs reached the quarter‑finals Barcelona earned their spot with a commanding 7‑2 aggregate win over Newcastle United, highlighted by a fourth‑minute strike from Raphinha and a second‑half surge that saw Lewandowski score a brace. Atletico advanced after a 7‑5 aggregate triumph over Tottenham Hotspur, despite a 3‑2 loss in the second leg. Their early dominance in the first leg, a 5‑2 home win, set the foundation for progression. Head‑to‑head snapshot Across 250 meetings, Barcelona have claimed 115 victories, Atletico 78, with 57 draws. The most recent ten encounters feature a mix of league and cup results, the latest being Barcelona’s 2‑1 La Liga win on Saturday. Team news and predicted line‑ups Barcelona injuries: Raphinha, Marc Bernal, Frenkie de Jong and Andreas Christensen are sidelined. Ronald Araujo is expected to start after missing the weekend match. Predicted XI: Joan Garcia; Koundé, Cubarsi, Martín, Cancelo; Eric Garcia, Pedri; Yamal, Fermin, Rashford; Lewandowski. Atletico injuries: Pablo Barrios out with a thigh problem; José Giménez and Johnny Cardoso are doubtful. Jan Oblak, Marc Pubil and Rodrigo Mendoza have returned to training and could feature. Predicted XI: Jan Oblak; Llorente, Le Normand, Hancko, Ruggeri; Koke, Baena; Simeone, Griezmann, Lookman; Álvarez. The stage is set for a high‑stakes European duel, with both sides eager to translate domestic form into continental success.

The White House has firmly denied that it has any plans to use nuclear weapons against Iran, amid escalating tensions and a looming deadline imposed by President Donald Trump. Trump has warned that if Iran does not capitulate to his demands, a 'whole civilisation will die tonight'.The denial from Washington came as Trump employed apocalyptic language, insisting that Iran must make a deal or face a massive onslaught. The original ultimatum was made by Trump on Saturday, demanding that Iran open the Strait of Hormuz, through which about a fifth of global energy exports pass, or face an assault on key infrastructure.The deadline falls at 8pm Eastern time (00:00 GMT), and legal experts warn that targeting civilian infrastructure could amount to a war crime. Texas Democratic Congressman Joaquin Castro called on Trump to immediately clarify that he is not considering using nuclear weapons.Vice President JD Vance later stated that US forces could employ tools they 'so far haven't decided to use', sparking concerns. The Iranian response has been defiant, with the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) vowing to respond in kind if the US attacks civilian facilities.Iran has proposed a 10-point peace plan to end the war, which Trump called a 'significant step' but 'not good enough'. The situation remains volatile, with Israel-US strikes on Iran and Iranian attacks across the region and Israel intensifying.

The ongoing conflict between the US and Iran has taken a critical turn with the involvement of US Vice President JD Vance in Pakistan-led mediation efforts. Vance has been working closely with Pakistani officials to facilitate a ceasefire and prevent further escalation. The mediation efforts, which began in late March, have gained significant momentum in recent days.According to sources close to the talks, Vance has been in direct communication with Iranian officials, including Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. The Pakistani government has been playing a crucial role in facilitating the talks, with Field Marshal Asim Munir, the country's army chief, having spoken with Vance and Araghchi.The mediation efforts have produced tangible movement, with Iran confirming receipt of a ceasefire proposal. However, Tehran eventually rejected the plan, calling it 'illogical'. Despite this setback, the talks are ongoing, with Pakistani officials describing the negotiations as being at an advanced stage.Iran's preference for Vance is rooted in his record on foreign intervention. As a senator, Vance argued that Trump's success in office rested partly on avoiding new wars. He also warned that a conflict with Iran would not serve US interests and would be a 'huge distraction of resources'. This stance has been seen as more sympathetic to ending the conflict than other US officials.The mediation efforts have significant implications for the region, with a potential ceasefire having the potential to prevent further escalation and destabilization. The involvement of Vance and other officials has also raised questions about the political calculus of the US administration and its approach to the conflict.

U.S. Vice President JD Vance touched down in Budapest on Tuesday for a two‑day series of bilateral meetings, a move the White House billed as a show of support for Prime Minister Viktor Orban ahead of Hungary’s April 12 parliamentary election. Orban’s Fidesz Party faces its toughest test in more than a decade, with recent polls indicating the opposition enjoys an 8‑12 percentage‑point advantage, and some surveys showing a lead as high as 20 points. Princeton sociologist Kim Lane Scheppele warned that Vance’s visit, while symbolically important, is unlikely to significantly alter the electoral math. “One visit by a relatively low‑profile American vice president is not going to change that,” she said. Nevertheless, the trip underscores the close ties between the Trump administration and Orban. Former President Donald Trump endorsed Orban in February, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio visited Hungary that same month, signaling U.S. backing for the right‑wing leader. Orban’s 16‑year rule has been marked by the erosion of judicial independence and media freedom, reforms that critics argue tilt the electoral system in Fidesz’s favour. Yet the opposition, led by 45‑year‑old former Fidesz insider Peter Magyar of the Tisza Party, is rallying around anti‑corruption and economic grievances. Magyar’s campaign promises a more constructive relationship with the European Union, hoping to restore billions of euros in funding suspended in 2022 over democratic backsliding. He positions himself as centre‑right, sharing many of Orban’s policy stances but rejecting the incumbent’s alleged corruption. “Magyar is centre‑right; he’s basically a believer in much of what Orban has done, minus the corruption,” Scheppele noted, adding that his eurosceptic leanings could still facilitate the return of EU money. The Hungarian‑U.S. connection extends beyond politics to financial incentives. Scheppele highlighted that Trump has hinted—though not formally promised—a fiscal safety net for Orban if he wins, reminiscent of U.S. aid pledges made to right‑wing allies in Argentina’s 2025 elections. “If Vance makes that kind of announcement, it could be a real game‑changer,” she warned, suggesting that a concrete U.S. financial commitment could bolster Orban’s standing in the final days of the campaign. Orban’s appeal to the U.S. far right has been evident since Hungary hosted the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in 2024, where Trump lauded him as a defender of “Western civilisation.” The personal rapport between Orban’s political director and Vance—evident in a 2024 photo captioned ‘A Trump‑Vance administration sounds just right’—further cements this transatlantic alliance. As the election approaches, the key question remains whether symbolic diplomatic support or a tangible financial pledge will prove decisive in a race where domestic issues—corruption, social services, and economic stagnation— dominate voter concerns.

Amid growing international focus on the Iran‑Israel conflict, Israel is pressing ahead with a systematic annexation of the West Bank, centred on the contentious E1 settlement project. The plan envisions the construction of 3,400 new homes on Palestinian land, a move designed to split the territory and undermine the viability of a future Palestinian state. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has publicly condemned the annexation drive, labeling the E1 scheme illegal. Although the war in Iran and Israel’s military actions in southern Lebanon have delayed the release of construction tenders, officials confirm that the tenders will be issued on 1 June. Criticism from the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Italy has so far failed to deter the Israeli government, which appears accustomed to rhetorical rebukes without concrete repercussions. As former EU officials note, the Union has yet to leverage its economic and diplomatic weight to stop the settlement expansion. The British Prime Minister has reaffirmed the stance of the International Court of Justice, declaring the 1967 occupation of Gaza, East Jerusalem and the West Bank unlawful. This follows the United Kingdom’s formal recognition of the State of Palestine last year, alongside France, Canada and Australia. Given its historic ties and recent diplomatic recognitions, the UK is uniquely positioned to galvanise European and Commonwealth partners. Experts propose a three‑pronged approach: first, issue a clear warning that any contractor involved in designing, building or financing the E1 settlement jeopardises its commercial interests with the UK; second, impose a comprehensive ban on UK trade in goods, services and investment linked to the settlements; and third, suspend the trade concessions granted under the UK‑Israel trade and partnership agreement for breaching its human‑rights provisions. New Prime Minister Keir Starmer is urged to embed these measures within a broader strategy to strengthen European cooperation, champion equal rights, and secure mutual security for Israelis and Palestinians. Without enforceable consequences, the illegal settlement programme is likely to expand, heightening the risk of further violence. Vincent Fean – former consul‑general in JerusalemDavid Hannay – former UN ambassadorAnn Grant – former high commissioner to South AfricaEmyr Jones Parry – former UN ambassadorDavid Manning – former US ambassadorDavid Richmond – former FCO director generalPeter Westmacott – former US ambassadorJeremy Greenstock – former UN ambassadorFrances Guy – former Lebanon ambassadorPeter Millett – former Jordan ambassadorDerek Plumbly – former Egypt ambassadorEdward Clay – former Kenya high commissionerTony Brenton – former Russia ambassadorWilliam Patey – former Afghanistan ambassadorColin Budd – former Netherlands ambassadorAnthony Cary – former Canada high commissionerAlan Charlton – former Brazil ambassadorEdward Chaplin – former Iraq and Jordan ambassadorPeter Collecott – former Brazil ambassadorRichard Dalton – former Iran ambassadorMichael Hone – former Iceland ambassadorNicholas Hopton – former Iran ambassadorPeter Jenkins – former UN (Vienna) ambassadorRupert Joy – former EU ambassador to MoroccoRobin Kealy – former Tunisia ambassadorRobin Lamb – former Bahrain ambassadorAnthony Layden – former Morocco ambassadorRichard Makepeace – former UAE ambassadorMark Matthews – former Chad ambassadorRichard Northern – former Libya ambassadorChristopher Segar – former Iraq ambassadorAdrian Sindall – former Syria ambassador

Researchers at Rothamsted Research in Harpenden, Hertfordshire, have made a groundbreaking discovery in the field of food safety. By utilizing Crispr genome editing, they have successfully developed wheat that can be used to make bread with reduced levels of acrylamide, a toxic compound classified as a probable carcinogen.The innovation lies in the reduction of free asparagine, an amino acid in wheat that converts into acrylamide when bread is toasted, fried, or baked. Field trials over two years demonstrated that gene-edited wheat can have significantly lower concentrations of free asparagine without impacting crop yields. This translates into lower acrylamide formation in food products, making toasted bread safer for consumption.In tests, bread and biscuits made from the edited wheat showed substantially reduced acrylamide levels, with some bread samples having concentrations below detectable limits even after toasting. The Crispr editing targeted the gene responsible for asparagine production, achieving a reduction of up to 93% in free asparagine in dual-edited lines.Compared to conventional methods that achieved a 50% reduction in free asparagine but resulted in a 25% yield penalty, the Crispr-edited wheat offers a more efficient and effective solution. Dr. Navneet Kaur, a lead researcher, highlighted the potential of Crispr technology to deliver precise, beneficial changes in crop genetics, emphasizing the importance of supportive regulatory frameworks to unlock benefits for agriculture and food systems.The UK has become a global hub for gene editing research since Brexit, with the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act of 2023 facilitating the development and marketing of genetically modified crops. However, the future of these advancements may be influenced by negotiations with the EU over sanitary and phytosanitary agreements.Prof. Nigel Halford, who led the study, noted that low-acrylamide wheat could help food businesses meet safety standards without compromising product quality or incurring major costs, ultimately reducing consumers' dietary exposure to acrylamide.

The notion that space exploration is pointless is gaining traction, and for good reason. As the world grapples with pressing crises, the urgency to address them on our own planet grows. The idea of venturing into space, once driven by the possibility of encountering little green people, now seems less compelling.The "Where is everybody?" paradox, first posed by physicist Enrico Fermi in 1950, remains a profound question. If intelligent life exists elsewhere, why has it not made contact? The author's conclusion is that there is no intelligent life out there, and that our planet is unique in its beauty.The latest moon mission has sparked renewed debate, with many people taking offense to the idea that space exploration is unnecessary. Some argue that it stifles innovation and modernity, while others point to the technological advancements that have come from space exploration. However, the author counters that many of these advancements have been used for military purposes, and that the focus on space exploration detracts from more pressing issues on Earth.The author, Zoe Williams, a columnist for The Guardian, emphasizes that her criticism is not directed at the astronauts themselves, but rather at the financial outlay and energy expenditure dedicated to space travel. She questions whether the United States, in particular, has bigger priorities to address, such as domestic issues.