Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Farmers in India and Sri Lanka are bracing for a potential food crisis as the conflict in Iran disrupts global fertiliser supplies. The war has led to a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical shipping route for oil and gas supplies from the Gulf states, causing a shortage of natural gas and fertilisers.In India, farmers like Gurvinder Singh are worried about the impact on their crops. 'If we don't get fertilisers, there will be less yield. That will affect my entire family and the entire region, because we are completely dependent on agriculture.' India is the world's second-largest fertiliser consumer, using over 60 million tonnes annually, with most of its imports coming from Gulf countries.The World Food Programme has estimated that an extra 45 million people could be pushed into acute food insecurity if the conflict does not end by June. Experts warn that South Asian countries, including India and Sri Lanka, are particularly vulnerable due to their heavy reliance on imported fertilisers and gas.In Sri Lanka, the situation is dire, with farmers facing massive price increases and warning of a potential food crisis. The Sri Lankan government has attempted to control prices and ration fertiliser, but the chairman of the National Agrarian Unity warns that the fertiliser crisis is even bigger than the fuel crisis and poses a threat to national security.The conflict has already begun to strain supply chains, with gas supplies to fertiliser factories cut by 30%. Farmers are stocking up on fertiliser in advance, but many small-scale farmers are already operating with heavy losses and are crushed by debt.

More than 100 United States‑based international law scholars have signed an open letter denouncing the recent US‑Israeli strikes on Iran as a violation of the United Nations Charter and potentially amounting to war crimes. The letter, released on Thursday, asserts that the campaign – launched on February 28 – proceeded without UN Security Council authorization and without credible evidence of an imminent Iranian threat. According to the scholars, the legal basis for force against another state exists only in self‑defence against an actual or imminent armed attack, or when expressly sanctioned by the Security Council. Iran has not attacked the United States or Israel, and the Security Council did not approve the operation. The experts organize their concerns into four categories: the legality of the war decision, the conduct of hostilities, threatening rhetoric from senior officials, and what they describe as the dismantling of civilian‑protection safeguards within the US defence establishment under Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s “gloves‑off” approach. Among the most alarming incidents highlighted is the strike on a primary school in Minab, Iran on the first day of the conflict, which killed at least 175 people, the majority of them children. The letter also cites attacks on hospitals, water treatment facilities, and energy infrastructure, emphasizing that schools, health facilities, and homes have been targeted. The signatories condemn public statements by senior US officials, including a mid‑March remark by former President Donald Trump that the United States might strike Iran “just for fun,” and early‑March comments from Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth dismissing “stupid rules of engagement.” They argue that such rhetoric reflects an “alarming disrespect” for international humanitarian law, which is designed to protect civilians and combatants alike. Financially, the letter notes that the war is costing US taxpayers up to $2 billion per day, underscoring the broader economic burden of the conflict. The open letter was co‑authored by prominent legal scholars such as Yale Law School’s Oona Hathaway, former State Department legal adviser Harold Koh, NYU’s Philip Alston, and former Human Rights Watch chief Kenneth Roth. While the authors focus on the United States’ conduct, they warn of a heightened risk of atrocities throughout the region. Emphasizing the need for consistent application of international law, the scholars write: “We urge US government officials to uphold the UN Charter, international humanitarian law, and human rights law at all times, and to publicly make clear US commitment to and respect for norms of international law.”

The Panama Papers, a massive leak of 11.5 million documents from Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca, exposed a vast network of offshore shell companies used by global elites to evade taxes and scrutiny. The leak, which involved over 350 journalists from 80 countries, revealed that hundreds of people, including over 140 politicians, were linked to offshore entities.The scandal led to significant consequences, including the resignation of Iceland's Prime Minister Sigmundur Gunnlaugsson and the disqualification of Pakistan's Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif from office. Mossack Fonseca ultimately shut down in 2018 following the leak.Governments worldwide have recovered around $2 billion in taxes, penalties, and levies since 2016, with countries like the UK, Sweden, and France each recovering between $200-250 million. However, the amount of unaccounted funds remains significantly higher.The leak has also driven regulatory changes, including the Corporate Transparency Act in the US, which requires disclosure of beneficial owners of offshore entities. The United Nations is considering a Convention on Taxation to address global tax challenges.Despite progress, gaps remain in the global tax system, allowing individuals and companies to exploit loopholes and avoid taxes. Experts stress the need for a multilateral tax convention to address tax competition and treaty shopping.

US President Donald Trump has intensified his rhetoric against Iran, suggesting that the United States aims to seize the country's oil industry. In a recent social media post, Trump stated that with more time, the US can 'easily open the Hormuz Strait, take the oil, and make a fortune.' This assertion marks a significant escalation in his statements regarding Iran. The strategic Hormuz Strait, a critical waterway for global oil shipments, has been effectively blocked by Iran early in the conflict, leading to a surge in energy prices. Trump's comments come as the US and Israel continue their military campaign against Iran, with the war now entering its sixth week. Under international law, specifically the doctrine of Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1962, oil and minerals are considered to belong to the countries where they are located. Trump's repeated calls for 'taking the oil' in countries involved in US military actions, including Iraq and Venezuela, have been controversial. Despite the assassinations of top Iranian officials and daily bombardments by the US and Israel, the Iranian government remains in control of the country's natural resources. The US has no publicly known military presence on the ground in Iran, and Trump did not provide details on how his administration plans to control Iran's oil. Trump's suggestion that replicating the Venezuelan model in Iran is possible but would require prolonging the war has sparked concerns. He expressed a preference for taking Iran's oil but noted that the US public may not have the patience for a prolonged conflict. Legal experts have criticized Trump's threats to bomb civilian infrastructure, including power stations and water desalination plants, as potential war crimes under international law. Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesperson has likened the US attacks to ISIS tactics, highlighting the devastating impact on civilian populations.

The ongoing conflict between Iran and the US-Israeli alliance has sent shockwaves through global oil markets, with Brent crude prices surging 5% to $106.16 per barrel on Thursday morning. Despite being heavily reliant on Iranian oil, China appears to have largely insulated itself from the crisis.China's strategy involves utilizing 'teapot refineries,' small, privately owned oil refineries primarily based in Shandong province. These facilities have been importing discounted Iranian and Russian oil, accounting for one-quarter of China's processing capacity. This approach allows China to circumvent US sanctions and maintain a stable oil supply.China's teapot refineries have been stockpiling oil reserves, providing a buffer against potential supply disruptions. According to Muyu Xu, a senior crude oil analyst at Kpler, China's seaborne crude imports in March stood at 10.19 million barrels per day (mbd), down from 11.51mbd in February but still in line with the 2025 average of 10.41mbd.The US has previously imposed sanctions on some of these teapot refineries for importing Iranian oil. However, China's tolerance of this independent system has proved strategically useful, allowing the country to maintain a flexible buffer for bargain barrels during crises.Experts note that while China's measures will not completely immunize the country from rising fuel prices, they do provide Beijing with more flexibility to survive a crisis compared with other nations. China's approach involves aggressive stockpiling, tolerating shadow networks, and keeping flexible buffers, demonstrating its preparedness for energy shocks.

Israel's ongoing attacks on Lebanon have led to a significant deterioration of the country's healthcare infrastructure. In the past month, 53 medical workers have been killed, 87 ambulances and medical centers destroyed, and five hospitals forced to close, according to Lebanon's Ministry of Public Health.The attacks have resulted in the displacement of 1.2 million people, putting an enormous strain on the already struggling Lebanese healthcare system. Experts and analysts say that Israel's actions are part of a broader strategy to force people out of southern Lebanon.“Israeli strikes and blanket evacuation orders are cutting people off from care and shrinking the space for health services to function,” said Luna Hammad, Lebanon medical coordinator for Doctors Without Borders (MSF). MSF has documented a pattern of attacks affecting healthcare.The destruction of healthcare infrastructure has also led to a significant increase in emergency room admissions. Healthcare facilities are under higher strain than before, with many patients needing treatments like chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and dialysis being transferred further north.Direct attacks on healthcare workers and facilities have been documented by Human Rights Watch (HRW), which has noted repeated, apparently deliberate attacks on medical workers in Lebanon. Medical workers and healthcare facilities are protected under international humanitarian law, and Israel's attacks on medics in 2024 were described as an apparent war crime by HRW.The attacks on healthcare infrastructure during times of war are not new. Forensic Architecture has documented systematic targeting of hospitals and healthcare workers in Gaza. Experts warn that such attacks have compounding effects, including treatable injuries getting worse, war wounds not healing properly, and long-term consequences.Experts and analysts say that the attacks are unlikely to cease as long as the pattern of impunity continues. Lebanon's government has a responsibility to ensure accountability and to give jurisdiction to the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate and prosecute war crimes.

The ongoing war in Iran has ignited a fresh oil supply shock, sending crude prices soaring and rippling through economies worldwide. Analysts note that the conflict’s persistence is tightening global oil flows, prompting immediate spikes in gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel costs. Energy traders report that the heightened uncertainty has amplified market volatility, with benchmark crude benchmarks climbing to levels not seen in months. The price surge is pressuring both consumers and businesses, as higher fuel costs translate into increased transportation expenses and broader inflationary pressures. Governments and central banks are now monitoring the situation closely, aware that sustained higher oil prices could erode economic growth and strain household budgets, especially in regions heavily dependent on imported energy. While the full economic impact remains to be quantified, the consensus among experts is clear: the prolonged Iran war is reshaping the global energy landscape, underscoring the fragility of supply chains and the need for diversified energy strategies.

The ongoing conflict between the US and Israel against Iran has significantly impacted global oil supplies, causing prices to surge. Despite this, US President Donald Trump claims that the US is 'totally independent' of the Middle East and doesn't need their oil. However, experts argue that the oil market is highly interconnected, making it unlikely that the US can escape the effects of the crisis.The US is a major oil producer, having surpassed other countries due to the fracking boom. Yet, it still imports millions of barrels per day, with a significant portion coming from Gulf nations. This reliance on imports means that the US is not as insulated from global price trends as Trump suggests.Oil prices have risen by nearly half since the start of the war, with Brent crude trading above $100 per barrel. This increase has had a ripple effect on the global economy, with US fuel prices breaching $4 per gallon for the first time since 2022. The surge in fuel costs is likely to impact the US economy and may influence the midterm elections.Experts warn that the concept of 'energy independence' may be a 'smokescreen' and that low-income households will be disproportionately affected by higher fuel prices. While some sectors of the US economy, such as energy production, may benefit from the current situation, the overall impact on consumers is expected to be negative.The article also highlights the broader implications of the conflict, including disruptions to global fertilizer supplies and helium production. With the Strait of Hormuz remaining paralyzed, the effects of the crisis are likely to be prolonged, and experts are skeptical that fuel prices will quickly return to normal even if the conflict ends soon.

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