Explainer

United States President Donald Trump has said a nuclear agreement currently being negotiated with Iran will be “far better” than the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which he withdrew from in 2018 during his first term in office.

The original 2015 accord took roughly two years of negotiations to reach and involved hundreds of specialists across technical and legal fields, including multiple US experts. Under it, Iran agreed to restrict the enrichment of uranium and to subject itself to inspections in exchange for the relaxation of sanctions.

But Trump took the US out of that pact, calling it the “worst deal ever”. Before the initial US-Israeli strikes on Iran at the end of February, the US had made new demands – including additional restrictions on Tehran’s nuclear programme, the restriction of its ballistic missiles programme and an end to its support for regional armed groups, primarily in Lebanon, Yemen and Iraq.

Trump’s latest remarks come amid growing uncertainty about whether a second round of talks will proceed in the Pakistani capital Islamabad, as a two-week ceasefire between the US-Israel and Iran approaches the end in just a day.

So, what was the JCPOA, and how did it compare to Trump’s new demands?

What was the JCPOA?

On July 14, 2015, Iran reached an agreement with the European Union and six major powers – China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, the US, and Germany – under which these states would roll back international economic sanctions and allow Iran greater participation in the global economy.

In return, Tehran committed to limiting activities that could be used to produce a nuclear weapon.

These included reducing its stockpile of enriched uranium by about 98 percent, to less than 300kg (660lb), and capping uranium enrichment at 3.67 percent – far below weapons-grade of 90 percent, but high enough for civilian purposes such as power generation.

Before the JCPOA, Iran operated roughly 20,000 uranium-enriching centrifuges. Under the deal, that number was cut to a maximum of 6,104, and only older-generation machines confined to two facilities, which were subject to international monitoring.

Centrifuges are machines which spin to increase the concentration of the uranium-235 isotope – enrichment – in uranium, a key step towards potential bomb-making.

The deal also redesigned Iran’s Arak heavy water reactor to prevent plutonium production and introduced one of the most intrusive inspection regimes ever implemented by the global nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

In exchange, Iran received relief from international sanctions which had severely damaged its economy. Billions of dollars in frozen assets were released, and restrictions on oil exports and banking were eased.

The deal came to halt when Trump formally withdrew Washington from the nuclear deal in 2018, a move widely criticised domestically and by foreign allies, and despite the IAEA saying Iran had complied with the agreement up to that point.

“The Iranian regime supports terrorism and exports violence, bloodshed and chaos across the Middle East. That is why we must put an end to Iran’s continued aggression and nuclear ambitions. They have not lived up to the spirit of their agreement,” he said in October 2017.

He reimposed crippling economic sanctions on Tehran as part of his “maximum pressure” tactic. These targeted Iran’s oil exports, as well as its shipping sector, banking system and other key industries.

The goal was to force Iran back to the negotiating table to agree to a new deal, which also included a discussion about Tehran’s missile capabilities, further curbs on enrichment and more scrutiny of its nuclear programme.

What has happened to Iran’s nuclear programme since the JCPOA?

During the JCPOA period, Iran’s nuclear programme was tightly constrained and heavily monitored. The IAEA repeatedly verified that Iran was complying with the deal’s terms, including one year after Trump announced the US’s withdrawal from the agreement.

Starting in mid-2019, however, Iran began incrementally breaching the deal’s limits, exceeding caps on uranium stockpiles and enrichment levels.

In November 2024, Iran said it would activate “new and advanced” centrifuges. The IAEA confirmed that Tehran had informed the nuclear watchdog that it planned to install more than 6,000 new centrifuges to enrich uranium.

In December 2024, the IAEA said Iran was rapidly enriching uranium to 60 percent purity, moving closer to the 90 percent threshold needed for weapons-grade material. Most recently, in 2025, the IAEA estimated that Iran had 440kg (970lb) of 60-percent enriched uranium.

What are Trump’s latest demands for Iran’s nuclear programme?

The US and its ally, Israel, are pushing Iran to agree to zero uranium enrichment and have accused Iran of working towards building a nuclear weapon, while providing no evidence for their claims.

They also want Iran’s estimated 440kg stock of 60pc enriched uranium to be removed from Iran. While that is below weapons-grade, it is the point at which it becomes much faster to achieve the 90 percent enrichment needed for atomic weapons production.

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 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”.

On Sunday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, in a strongly worded statement, said Trump had no right to ⁠⁠”deprive” Iran of its nuclear ⁠⁠rights.

What else is Trump asking for?

Restrictions on ballistic missiles

Before the US-Israel war on Iran began, Tehran had always insisted negotiations should be exclusively focused on Iran’s nuclear programme.

US and Israeli demands, however, extended beyond that. Just before the war began, Washington and Israel demanded severe restrictions on Iran’s ballistic missile programme.

Analysts say this demand was at least partly triggered by the fact that several Iranian missiles had breached Israel’s much-vaunted “Iron Dome” defence system during the 12-day war between the two countries in June last year. While Israel suffered only a handful of casualties, it is understood to have been alarmed.

For his part, Trump has repeatedly warned, without evidence, about the dangers of Iran’s long-range missiles, claiming Iran is producing them “in very high numbers” and they could “overwhelm the Iron Dome”.

Iran has said its right to maintain missile capabilities is non-negotiable. The JCPOA did not put any limits on the development of ballistic missiles.

However, a United Nations resolution made when adopting the nuclear agreement in July 2015 did stipulate that Iran could not “undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons”.

Ending support for proxy groups

The US and Israel have also demanded that Iran stop supporting its non-state allies across the Middle East, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen and a number of groups in Iraq. Together, these groups are referred to as Iran’s “axis of resistance”.

In May last year, Trump said Tehran “must stop sponsoring terror, halt its bloody proxy wars, and permanently and verifiably cease pursuit of nuclear weapons”, during a GCC meeting in Riyadh.

Three days before the war on Iran began in February, during his State of the Union address to Congress, Trump accused Iran and “its murderous proxies” of spreading “nothing but terrorism and death and hate”.

Iran has refused to enter a dialogue about limiting its support for these armed groups.

Can Trump really get a new deal that is ‘much better’ than the JCPOA?

According to Andreas Kreig, associate professor of Security Studies at King’s College, London, Trump is more likely to secure a new deal that closely resembles the JCPOA, with “some form of restrictions on enrichment, possibly with a sunset clause, and international supervision”.

“Iran might get access to frozen assets and lifted sanctions much quicker than under the JCPOA, as it will not agree to a long drawn-out, gradual lifting of sanctions,” Krieg pointed out.

However, he warned that the political landscape in Tehran has hardened. “Iran now is a far more hardline and less pragmatic player that will play hardball at every junction. Trump cannot count on any goodwill in Tehran,” he said.

“The IRGC is now firmly in charge… with likely new powerful and tested levers such as the Strait of Hormuz,” he said, referring to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which operates as a parallel elite military force to the army and has a great deal of political and economic power in Iran. It is a constitutionally recognised part of the Iranian military and answers directly to the supreme leader.

Overall, Krieg stressed, the US-Israel war on Iran “leaves the world worse off than had Trump stuck to the JCPOA”, even if a new compromise is eventually reached.

Moreover, since the revocation of the JCPOA, the US and Israel have waged two wars on Iran, including the current one. The 12-day war in June last year included attacks on Iran’s nuclear sites and killed more than 1,000 people.

Attacks on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure have continued since the latest war began on February 28, including on the Natanz enrichment facility, Isfahan nuclear complex, Arak heavy water reactor, and the Bushehr nuclear power plant.

Nevertheless, King’s College’s Krieg said there is still room for a negotiated outcome if Tehran and Washington scale back their demands.

“Both sides can compromise on enrichment thresholds, and on temporary moratoriums on enrichments. But Iran will not surrender its sovereignty to enrich altogether, and the Trump administration will have to meet them halfway,” he said.

“While the Iranians will commit on paper not to develop a nuclear weapon, they will want to keep R&D [research and development] in this space alive.”

Economic incentives will be central, he added. “Equally, Iran would want to get immediate access to capital and liquidity. Here, the Trump administration is already willing to compromise.”

Voters in Virginia head to the polls on Tuesday to decide on a measure that could redraw the state’s congressional map and potentially shift the balance of power in Washington.

Major political figures, including former President Barack Obama and House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson, have weighed in on the high-stakes vote, with nearly $100m spent on campaigning around it.

Part of a broader redistricting battle that began in Texas and spread nationwide, the vote may be the Democrats’ last chance this year to gain seats by changing district maps. The vote comes about six months before the 2026 midterm elections.

Here is what we know:

What is Virginia voting on?

Virginia currently sends 11 members to the House. At the moment, six of them are Democrats, and five are Republicans, reflecting the state’s balance.

Democrats now want to redraw the map to favour them in a way that could help them win up to 10 of the 11 seats. Under the proposal, most districts would be safely Democratic or lean towards the party, with only one strongly Republican.

A breakdown would be:

• Eight districts would be safely Democratic
• Two would be competitive but lean Democratic
• Only one would be safely Republican

If approved, this could give the Democrats several extra seats in Congress, helping them win back or strengthen control of the House in Washington, where majorities are often decided by just a few seats.

That would be a big political shift for the state, which was once closely contested but has become more Democratic-leaning in recent years.

How would the vote work?

Voters in Virginia can cast their ballots either early or on Election Day.

Polling stations will be open across the state on Tuesday:

• Polls open at 10:00 GMT
• Polls close at 23:00 GMT

Votes will be counted after polls close, with early results expected later that evening and fuller results overnight or the next day.

What are voters being asked to decide?

The proposed constitutional amendment is the only statewide contest on the ballot.

It reads:

“Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to allow the General Assembly to temporarily adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness in the upcoming elections, while ensuring Virginia’s standard redistricting process resumes for all future redistricting after the 2030 census?”

A “yes” vote would support allowing the General Assembly to redraw congressional districts before the midterms.

A “no” vote would leave current boundaries unchanged until the next round of regularly scheduled redistricting after the 2030 census.

What do the latest polls suggest?

The result is expected to be close.

A recent poll by State Navigate, a nonpartisan research group, suggests a small lead for supporters, with about 53 percent in favour and 47 percent against.

Why do district lines matter so much?

District lines decide how voters are grouped, which can shape who wins elections.

Moving the lines can make a district more favourable to a Democratic or Republican win, by adding or removing neighbourhoods and communities that lean one way or the other.

It can turn a close race into a safe seat, or the other way around. It affects which communities are kept together and who represents them.

This process, often called gerrymandering, allows parties to draw maps that benefit them.

In a closely divided state like Virginia, even small changes to the map can shift several seats and influence who holds power in Congress.

A 2023 study by Harvard University researchers found that gerrymandering often creates “safe” seats for politicians, meaning their races are less competitive.

In turn, those politicians become less responsive to the needs of their constituents, who become discouraged about voting as a result.

When could new maps take effect?

If approved, the new map could be used as early as the next election cycle, including the upcoming midterms, depending on legal approval.

However, the plan could face legal challenges. Critics have questioned the ballot wording and the process used by lawmakers.

The Virginia Supreme Court has allowed the vote to go ahead while reviewing those concerns.

If it later finds that rules were broken, the results could be overturned, and the current maps would remain.

Why this vote could shape power in Washington?

A handful of seats could decide control of the US House.

Republicans currently hold a narrow 218–213 majority, but Democrats are seen as competitive heading into the midterms.

Political leaders have underscored the stakes.

Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic Party’s leader in the House, has pointed to Virginia as a crucial battleground, while Mike Johnson has said the result will be closely watched across the country.

What it means to control the US House

The party with the majority (more seats) in Congress can:

• Set the agenda, deciding which bills are brought up for debate
• Control committees, including investigations and hearings
• Pass legislation more easily (if they stay united)
• Block bills from the minority party.

The majority party also chooses the speaker of the House, who has major influence over what reaches the floor.

Where else has this happened?

Virginia’s redistricting vote is part of a larger political battle playing out in the US. Republicans in Texas, encouraged by Donald Trump, have redrawn district maps to strengthen their advantage, prompting similar efforts in other states.

In rare cases, voters have been asked to decide directly, including in California last year and now in Virginia.

In California, voters backed the changes despite concerns about fairness. Now it’s Virginia’s turn to decide.

What Democrats are saying, and why?

Democrats argue the plan is a response to Republican actions in other states, not just a power grab.

Leaders like Obama had long opposed gerrymandering in principle, but have now backed the Virginia move, even releasing a video asking voters to go out and vote for the constitutional amendment.

The US tech giant Palantir Technologies has posted what it terms a summary of Palantir CEO Alex Karp and head of corporate affairs Nicholas Zamiska’s book, The Technological Republic, on social media.

Many of the positions articulated in the book go far beyond what would normally be expected of a tech company: calling for the introduction of national service, the “moral” duty of technology companies to participate in defence, the necessity for hard power if what it calls free and democratic powers are to prevail, and an embrace of religion in public life.

The publication of what appears to be a 22-point manifesto comes at a critical time for Palantir, which faces global criticism for its support of US President Donald Trump’s controversial immigration crackdown and its backing of the Israeli military’s actions in Gaza and the occupied West Bank.

Many have expressed alarm at the book’s emphasis on cultural hierarchies and what it calls “regressive” cultures.

Eliot Higgins, the founder of the online investigations platform Bellingcat, sarcastically pointed out how “completely normal” it was for a tech company to post what he said was a manifesto attacking democratic norms. “It’s also worth being clear about who’s doing the arguing,” Higgins added. “Palantir sells operational software to defence, intelligence, immigration & police agencies. These 22 points aren’t philosophy floating in space, they’re the public ideology of a company whose revenue depends on the politics it’s advocating.”

So, what is Palantir, why is it so controversial, and why has it posted the “manifesto” now?

What does the book say?

As well as referring to the hard power needed to replace the “soaring rhetoric” previously used to defend “free and democratic societies”, the book rails against what it calls the “psychologization of modern politics”, which appears to criticise anyone the authors feel has become too emotionally invested in their political representatives and identity.

The call for people to care less about politics appears to critics as a way of deflecting from Palantir’s own controversial political positions and its openness to working with government policies that clamp down on liberty. Worryingly for some is also the book’s emphasis on what it calls the technology sector’s “obligation to participate in the defence of the nation”, and on the supposed inevitability of developing AI weapons.

Among other points, the writers appear to defend billionaires, such as Elon Musk, whose achievements, they say, are not met with “curiosity or genuine interest” but are instead dismissed by those who “snicker” at the South African-born businessman. Musk was heavily criticised for his role as the head of DOGE, or the US Department for Government Efficiency, which scrapped several government agencies without much regard for the roles those agencies played, or the legal and political process necessary to shut such agencies down.

Palantir’s post concludes by criticising “the shallow temptation of a vacant and hollow pluralism”. It argues that an unthinking commitment to inclusivity and pluralism “glosses over the fact that certain cultures and indeed subcultures… have produced wonders. Others have proven middling, and worse, regressive and harmful”.

How have people reacted?

Not well.

Mark Coeckelbergh, a Belgian philosopher of technology who teaches at the University of Vienna, described Palantir’s messaging as an “example of technofascism”, while Greek economist and former Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis said Palantir had effectively signalled a willingness “to add to nuclear Armageddon the AI-driven threat to humanity’s existence”.

Posting on social media, Arnaud Bertrand, the entrepreneur and geopolitical commentator, claimed that Palantir had revealed a dangerous “ideological agenda”.

“They’re effectively saying ‘our tools aren’t meant to serve your foreign policy. They’re meant to enforce ours’,” he wrote.

What is Palantir?

Palantir Technologies is widely regarded as one of the world’s most influential data analytics firms, securing major contracts with governments, militaries and global corporations.

Founded in 2003 by Alex Karp and Peter Thiel, with support from In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s venture capital arm, it built its early business on post-9/11 intelligence work and has since expanded internationally, with contracts across Europe, the Middle East, and beyond.

While retaining his shares in Palantir, Thiel is understood to no longer play an active role in its day-to-day operations. Karp has positioned himself as the public face of the company.

Under Karp’s leadership, Palantir has drawn heavily on the expertise of former members of Israel’s cyber-intelligence unit, 8200. After the company announced a “strategic partnership” with Israel in January 2024, its involvement in Gaza and the occupied West Bank expanded considerably. Using a mix of intercepted communications, satellite material and other digital data sources, Palantir began integrating these inputs to help produce targeting databases – effectively, “kill lists” – for the Israeli military.

It has also cultivated close ties with US security agencies, particularly during the Trump administration, of which Thiel has been an enthusiastic backer, and has also worked with Israel in its occupation of the West Bank and genocide in Gaza.

According to its critics, including the rights group Amnesty International, “Palantir has a track record of flagrantly disregarding international law and standards, both in the violations of the human rights of migrants in the United States, to which it risks contributing to, and its ongoing supply of artificial intelligence (AI) products and services to the Israeli military and intelligence services that are linked to Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza.”

What exactly has Palantir been accused of in Israel and the US?

Palantir Technologies has faced criticism across the world for its enabling of government surveillance and military systems in the US and Israel.

In the US, it has been accused of supporting immigration enforcement and policing tools that aggregate vast personal datasets, including medical information, enabling profiling and raising due process and privacy concerns. In Israel, critics allege that its AI and data platforms have been used in military operations in Gaza, potentially contributing to the targeting decisions that have underpinned Israel’s genocide there.

Responding to questions from Al Jazeera earlier this year, a spokesperson for Palantir said, “As a company, Palantir does support Israel. We’ve chosen to support them because of the appalling events of October 7th. And more broadly, we’ve chosen to support them because we believe in supporting the West and its allies – and Israel is an important ally of the West.” The spokesman was referring to the Hamas-led October 7, 2023, attack on Israel, after which Israel launched its genocidal war on Gaza.

Why post the ‘manifesto’ now?

Palantir’s politics and alarm over its influence are growing and gaining traction across much of the West.

As well as concern among US Democrats, politicians in Germany, Ireland, and in the European Parliament have criticised the tech giant, whose products, according to one German lawmaker and cyber security expert, have fallen short of security standards across the bloc.

In the UK, the row over the National Health Service’s adoption of Palantir technology has led to some of the fiercest criticism yet. MPs calling for the UK to take advantage of an early break in the tech giant’s 330 million-pound ($446.4m) contract with the health service labelled Palantir “dreadful” and “shameful” in a debate last week, after which even the government conceded that it was “no fan” of the US company’s politics.

Louis Mosley, the head of Palantir Technologies UK, defended the company by arguing that it had no interest in patient data and existed only as a tool to better manage health service resources.

Bulgaria’s eighth parliamentary election in five years has concluded with former president Rumen Radev’s Progressive Bulgaria party emerging as the clear winner. Radev will be the next prime minister.

While pollsters predicted a win for Radev ahead of the election, they did not necessarily expect it to be such a large one.

With 98.3 percent of ballots tallied on Monday, official figures show Radev’s party taking 44.7 percent of the vote, and likely to secure roughly 130 of the 240 seats in parliament. The centre-left party has come in far ahead of rivals, raising hopes among voters for a more stable government after years of fragile coalitions and repeated votes.

However, questions remain over what Radev’s foreign policy will entail and what his election means for Bulgaria’s position within the European Union and NATO.

Here is what you need to know:

Who is Rumen Radev?

The 62-year-old served as Bulgaria’s president for nearly a decade before stepping down in January this year to launch his bid to become prime minister.

The former air force commander has positioned himself as an outsider, saying he wants to rid the country of its “oligarchic governance model”, amid widespread frustration with corruption and political turmoil that has gripped the country of 6.6 million people.

In 2025, Radev supported anti-corruption protests that brought down the conservative-backed government of former Prime Minister Rosen Zhelyazkov. He urged voters to turn out in large numbers to counter vote-buying.

At a pre-election rally on Wednesday last week, he pledged to “remove the corrupt, oligarchic model of governance from political power”.

Radev’s stance on foreign policy has drawn attention in Europe, however.

Although he publicly condemned Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, he has also opposed providing military support to Ukraine and called, instead, for renewed, “practical relations with Russia based on mutual respect and equal treatment”.

Radev objected to a 10-year defence pact concluded between Bulgaria and Ukraine in March.

He has also called for the resumption of Russian imports to Europe, despite EU sanctions on Russian oil and a decision at the end of last year to cease all energy imports from Russia by 2027.

All this has led to critics labelling him “pro-Russian”. Radev, however, says he is merely taking a pragmatic approach.

“We are the only member state of the European Union that is both Slavic and Eastern Orthodox,” he said in an interview with Bulgarian journalist Martin Karbovski.

“We can be ‌a very important ⁠link in this whole mechanism … to restore relations with Russia,” he added.

Following the election, Russia congratulated Radev, welcoming his victory.

“Of course, we are impressed by the statements made by Mr Radev, who won the election, and by some other European leaders regarding their willingness to resolve problems through pragmatic dialogue,” said Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov on Monday.

On Europe, some label Radev a eurosceptic, as he has criticised aspects of EU policy, including reliance on renewable energy and Bulgaria’s adoption of the euro.

At his campaign rally on Wednesday last week, he said: “The coalition-makers introduced the euro in Bulgaria without asking you. And now, when you pay your bills, always remember which politicians promised you that you would be in the ‘club of the rich’.”

Following his victory, he told reporters: “A strong Bulgaria and a strong Europe need critical thinking and pragmatism. Europe has fallen victim to its own ambition to be a moral leader in a world with new rules.”

Nevertheless, Radev has signalled his willingness to cooperate with pro-European parties on issues like judicial reform and has stated that Bulgaria will “continue on its European path”.

Following his win, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said: “Bulgaria is a proud member of the European family and plays an important role in tackling our common challenges.”

How significant is this result?

Since 2021, Bulgaria has been through multiple governments, many brought down by protests or parliamentary disagreements.

The election result places Radev’s party, with 44 percent of the vote, well ahead of the centre-right GERB party of former Prime Minister Boyko Borissov, which secured 13.4 percent of the vote, and the reformist PP-DB coalition, with 12.7 percent.

The margin between the parties is wider than pollsters predicted. On Friday last week, according to Bulgaria’s Alpha Research, Radev’s Progressive Bulgaria was projected to win, but with only 34.2 percent of the vote, followed by Borissov’s GERB-UDF with 19.5 percent. This led observers to predict that a coalition government would be necessary.

Despite securing a clear majority, however, Radev has yet to rule out creating a coalition with a smaller party to form a government.

“We are ready to consider different options so that Bulgaria can have a regular and stable government,” he told reporters on Sunday.

This latest election was called after former PM Zhelyazkov announced in December that his cabinet would resign, amid a looming no-confidence vote.

The election campaign centred heavily on cost-of-living pressures, corruption, and other economic concerns, with many voters expressing frustration at the lack of credible political alternatives.

What will Radev’s role as prime minister be?

Although Radev is best known for holding the title of president, that is a largely ceremonial role in Bulgaria’s political system.

The president serves as head of state, representing national unity and playing a role in foreign policy; executive power lies primarily with the prime minister and his cabinet.

The prime minister appoints his cabinet ministers, sets the government agenda, and is the key representative of Bulgaria in international affairs, including within organisations like the European Union and NATO.

The prime minister remains in office unless he chooses to resign or is removed in a no-confidence motion.

Islamabad talks in limbo as Tehran says it will retaliate after US marines capture an Iranian-flagged ship near the Strait of Hormuz.

Donald Trump announced on Sunday that a second round of US-Iran talks is to be held in Pakistan on Monday – but Tehran has not confirmed participation, two days before a ceasefire deal expires.

The capture by US Marines of an Iranian-flagged container ship near the Strait of Hormuz on Sunday has further clouded the Islamabad talks, as Tehran has pledged to retaliate.

The attack came hours after President Trump announced he is sending a team to Islamabad for talks, while once again threatening to knock out Iran’s power plants and bridges if there is no deal. The ceasefire, which ended more than a month of war, expires on Wednesday.

Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Shehbaz Sharif, spoke on Sunday with Iranian President, Masoud Pezeshkian, as he reaffirmed his government’s readiness to mediate the conflict.

Here is what we know:

In Iran

• ⁠Iran’s top ⁠joint ⁠military command, Khatam al-Anbiya, accused the US of ⁠violating the ceasefire by shooting at ⁠an Iranian ship in the Gulf of Oman and vowed ‌to retaliate.
• President Trump ⁠posted on Truth ⁠Social on Sunday that US Marines ‌captured a vessel that tried to get past ⁠the American blockade on ⁠Iranian ports, adding that ⁠US forces ⁠stopped the ⁠ship by blowing a hole in ‌its engine room.
• Iran ⁠executed ⁠two men convicted of cooperating with Israel’s Mossad ⁠intelligence service and planning attacks inside the ⁠country, the judiciary’s news outlet Mizan reported on Sunday.
• French ⁠shipping ⁠company, CMA CGM, confirmed on Sunday that “warning shots” were fired at one ⁠of its ships in the Strait of Hormuz on Saturday. 
• ⁠Iran’s ⁠armed forces turned back two tankers attempting ⁠to transit the Strait ⁠of Hormuz on Sunday after issuing warnings. The semi-official Tasnim ‌news agency said that was a result of the continuing US maritime ⁠blockade on Iran.
• International flights from Mashhad airport in northeast Iran will resume on Monday, the civil aviation authority said.

War diplomacy

• Iranian state media reported that Tehran had rejected new peace talks, citing the ongoing blockade, threatening rhetoric, and Washington’s shifting positions and “excessive demands.”
• Iranian state media reported on Sunday that Tehran was not planning to take part in talks with the United States, hours after Trump said he was dispatching negotiators to Islamabad.
• The US president posted on Truth Social ⁠on Sunday that representatives are going to Islamabad “tomorrow night” for Iran negotiations. “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.
• Pakistan’s Prime Minister ⁠Sharif ⁠said on Sunday that he spoke with ⁠Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian about the conflict ⁠in the Gulf.
  Sharif posted on X that he shared insights with Pezeshkian regarding his recent ‌conversations with the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkiye.
• “I appreciated ⁠Iran’s engagement, including ⁠its high-level delegation to Islamabad for the historic talks, and ⁠recent discussions with Field Marshal Syed ⁠Asim Munir in ⁠Tehran,” Sharif said.
• Turkiye’s Foreign Minister, Hakan Fidan, said on Sunday he was “optimistic” that a two-week ceasefire between Iran and the United States, which expires on Wednesday, would be extended, allowing more time for talks between the sides.
  

  

In the US

• Trump said on Sunday that the guided-missile destroyer, USS Spruance, fired on and seized the Iranian-flagged cargo ship, Touska, in the Gulf of Oman, and US Marines were “seeing what’s on board!”
• The US president said Iran has committed a “serious ⁠violation” of the ceasefire ⁠but still thinks he can get a peace deal, ABC ‌News reporter Jonathan Karl posted on X on Sunday. Trump added that a peace deal “will happen. ⁠One way or another”.

In Israel

• Argentine President Javier Milei, has reaffirmed his country’s support for the campaign against Iran, citing his government’s earlier decision to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a “terrorist organisation”.
• Milei, who is visiting Israel for the third time since taking office, declared on Sunday that the joint US-Israel war against Iran was the “right thing to do”, as he signed on to the so-called Isaac Accords aimed at deepening bilateral ties between Israel and Latin American countries.

In Lebanon

• ⁠The Israeli ⁠military on Monday warned residents in southern ⁠Lebanon not to move ⁠south of a specified line of villages or approach areas ‌near the Litani River, saying its forces remain deployed in the area during a ceasefire ⁠due to what ⁠it described as continued Hezbollah activity.
• The Israeli army also said it had determined that an image circulating on social media showing a soldier in south Lebanon hitting a statue of Jesus Christ is authentic and depicts one of its troops.
• The viral photo of the Israeli soldier hitting the Jesus statue with a sledgehammer has sparked outrage.
• French President Emmanuel Macron is due to meet Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam in Paris on Tuesday. The announcement follows the killing of a French peacekeeper in Lebanon during the fragile 10-day ceasefire between Israel and Iran-backed militant group Hezbollah.
• Israel’s Defence Minister Israel Katz said the military will use “full force” in Lebanon – even during the ongoing ceasefire – should Israeli troops face any threat from Hezbollah.
• Lebanon’s military said it has reopened a road and bridge between Nabatieh and Khardali, which were damaged by Israeli strikes in the south.

Oil prices rise

• Oil prices surged on Monday following the re-escalation of hostilities in the Middle East war However, lingering hopes that a deal to end the seven-week crisis continued to support equities, despite Tehran saying it was not planning to attend peace talks.

Hungary’s newly elected leader, Peter Magyar, stormed to power last weekend after campaigning to, among other things, take a step back from Russia.

Instead, Magyar has promised voters he will steer Hungary back towards the European Union, following the 16-year rule of far-right Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who went to great lengths to deepen ties with Russia.

Under Orban, Hungary opposed most of the European Union’s stances against Russia and  blocked sanctions and obstructed military aid for Ukraine.

Above all, he and his Fidesz party entrenched Hungary’s reliance on Russian oil.

Now, following a massive electoral turnout and a landslide victory, Magyar – once a devotee of Orban and now leader of the centre-right Tisza party – has promised to end Russian oil imports by 2035. But how realistic a goal is that? And can he achieve it?

How much does Hungary depend on Russia for energy?

Hungary has been central to keeping Russian oil and gas flowing into the EU, even as Europe and the US banned some imports and imposed sanctions on anyone paying more than $60 a barrel for Russian oil.

Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the EU banned seaborne imports of Russian oil but kept land flows legal. That allowed Hungary to continue importing most of its crude by pipeline via Ukraine.

The EU first announced plans to phase out Russian energy imports in May 2022, shortly after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In December 2025, a binding agreement was made for member nations to completely phase out Russian oil and gas imports by late 2027. But, instead of diversifying from Moscow, Hungary increased its dependency.

According to a 2026 report by the Center for the Study of Democracy (CSD), Hungary had expanded its reliance on Russian crude from 61 percent in 2021 to 93 percent by 2025.

Much of the crude oil Hungary imports from Russia comes via the Druzhba pipeline. It is one of the key pipelines that ensures the continued flow of Russian crude to both Hungary and Slovakia. At 5,500 km (3,420 miles) long, it begins in Almetyevsk in western Russia and runs into Belarus. It splits at Mozyr, with one branch going to Poland and Germany and the southern branch goes through Ukraine into Slovakia, Hungary and Czechia.

In January, the section of the pipeline running through Ukraine suffered significant damage. Ukraine blamed a Russian airstrike – Moscow denies that.

Hungary and Slovakia have complained that Ukraine has been deliberately slow to repair the damage. As a result, in March, Orban vetoed a 90 billion euro ($106bn) loan from the EU to Ukraine until the pipeline reopens.

On Tuesday this week, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said oil will flow again through the conduit by the end of April as he expects the new Hungarian leadership to lift its veto on the loan by then.

As for gas, Hungary remains one of the most dependent EU member states on Russian natural gas, accounting for roughly three-quarters of its annual imports, the CSD report shows.

Since the start of Russia’s invasion, Hungary has imported an estimated 15.6 billion euros ($18.4bn) worth of Russian gas. Long-term contracts with Russia’s state-owned Gazprom, the continued reliance on TurkStream – a natural gas pipeline running from Russia to Turkiye – and “the weak use of alternative interconnectors have locked the country into Russia’s reconfigured gas export system”, the CSD report states.

Nuclear energy dependency is yet another issue. Hungary granted Rosatom, the Russian state nuclear energy corporation, the construction contract for the expansion of its Paks atomic plant, 100km (62 miles) southwest of Budapest on the Danube River. Russia, in turn, provided Hungary with a state loan to finance most of the development of new reactors. The European Commission approved the plan in 2017 and construction started in February.

Now, Magyar says he intends to reassess the project’s financing. But the Paks plant provides 40 to 50 percent of all electricity generated in Hungary. The expansion plans will increase that to between 60 and 70 percent, which would cut reliance on imported energy, but keep Hungary tied to Russia. 

According to a 2025 joint research paper by the Center for the Study of Democracy and the Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air, Hungary could potentially diversify its energy supply by importing non-Russian oil via alternative sources such as the Adria pipeline. It transports crude from the Adriatic Sea to refineries in Croatia, Serbia, Hungary and Slovakia. Their refiners, which are controlled by Hungarian oil and gas company MOL, are capable of processing non-Russian crude, the research paper said.

Russian oil has been coming in at a discounted rate as a result of Western sanctions, so any diversification will likely be more expensive.

Can Hungary wean itself off its dependence on Russian oil?

It won’t be easy, and Magyar knows it. “The geographical position of neither Russia nor Hungary will change. Our energy exposure will also be here for a while,” he said before last weekend’s election. And in an interview with the Financial Times, Magyar insisted that Russian imports should remain an option. “This does not mean that by ending dependence on someone you no longer continue to buy from them,” he said.

Magyar will seek to strike a balance between respecting current contracts with Moscow to ensure Hungary’s energy security, while establishing political distance, said Pawel Zerka, a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations.

“I would expect this government not to be pro-Russia in the sense of going to Moscow and keeping ties with the Russian government, but they don’t have easy options to replace Russian fuel with something else, especially considering the international situation with the Middle East,” Zerka said, referring to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz in the Gulf which has blocked the shipping of 20 percent of the world’s oil and LNG supplies.

Zerka added that the newly elected leader will not have political room to be particularly cordial with Russian President Vladimir Putin, considering the disapproval of Russia by his electoral base. A recent poll by the European Council on Foreign Relations shows that a majority of Tisza’s voters see Russia as an adversary or rival to compete with.

“It will be interesting to see how he combines this with energy needs,” Zerka said.

How does the EU view Hungary’s energy ties to Russia?

The strong energy ties between Russia and Hungary have long caused friction with the EU. Following Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the European bloc has worked to cut imports of Russian oil and gas. Budapest has done the opposite.

In January, the EU passed legislation to completely phase out Russian gas and LNG imports by late 2027.

Orban’s government had called for all restrictions on Russian oil to be lifted as a result of the global energy crisis triggered by the war in the Middle East. While Trump has made some concessions on Russian oil already loaded on tankers at sea – causing several heading for China to head to India instead – EU leaders have maintained they will hold firm on sanctions.

In the lead-up to last weekend’s election, Magyar’s manifesto called the dependence on Russian energy a “systemic risk” and he would wean Hungary off its reliance by 2035. But whether he can do that in time to beat the EU’s 2027 deadline is likely to provoke discussion in Brussels.

The International Monetary Fund has downgraded its global growth forecast for 2026 from 3.3 to 3.1 percent, citing the impact of the United States-Israeli war on Iran and the shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz on the world economy.

The war has damaged energy infrastructure across the Gulf, while critical exports like oil, gas, chemicals and fertiliser remain largely stranded by Iran’s shutdown of the strait and the subsequent US naval blockade of Iranian ports.

In the worst-case scenario of a prolonged war, the IMF said global growth could fall to 2.5 percent in 2026, with low-income and developing economies hit the hardest by soaring commodity and energy prices. The global shipping and logistics industry is facing a separate crisis.

But every economic crisis also has beneficiaries: despite the dire macroeconomic outlook, some corners of the global economy are thriving on the uncertainty.

Here’s a look at five industries that are doing well either despite – or because of – the darkening economic outlook.

Wall Street investment banks

Global investors have been on a rollercoaster since the start of US President Donald Trump’s second term last year. The president’s erratic decision-making, where he often issues an ultimatum one day and then changes it the next, has led traders to coin the term “TACO trade”, where TACO stands for “Trump Always Chickens Out”.

The recent volatility has made some investors anxious, but it’s been a boon to investment banks, which make millions in commissions and revenue from the surging volume of trade, according to Sean Dunlap, a director of equity research at Morningstar Research Services.

“Clients want to reposition, so they trade frequently,” he told Al Jazeera. “Spreads tend to increase, which increases the profitability for trade intermediaries like banks.”

First-quarter results for 2026 – released this week – showed that Morgan Stanley reported a profit of $5.57bn, up 29 percent year on year, while Goldman Sachs reported a profit of $5.63bn, up 19 percent year on year.

JP Morgan Chase also reported major gains, with first-quarter earnings of $16.49bn, up 13 percent year on year. The banks all cited high levels of trading, deal-making, and “robust client engagement” as the reasons behind surging profits.

The boomtime for banks could reverse course, however, if volatility persists for too long, Dunlap warned, because investors may become increasingly cautious and less willing to borrow money to make trades.

Prediction markets

As mainstream Wall Street banks reap profits, the crypto-based prediction platform Polymarket has been earning upwards of $1m a day since the start of the month by letting users make peer-to-peer bets on everything from sports tournaments to elections.

Polymarket has been doing well since the start of the war, but it revised its fee structure on March 30 to cash in even more on its popularity.

Rival platforms like Kalshi, Novig and Robinhood also follow the same business model, but Polymarket has been the standout winner of 2026 because it controversially allows users to bet on the outcome of conflicts like the Iran war.

Polymarket revised its fee structure on March 30 to cash in on its popularity. The change has already netted the platform more than $21m in fees since April 1, up from $11.6m for all of March and $6.23m for all of February, according to DefiLlama, a website that provides data analysis for decentralised finance platforms.

If the current trend continues, Polymarket could make $342m in fees this year alone, according to DefiLlama’s analysis.

Anonymous users have also made millions correctly predicting the dates of major events like the US-Iran ceasefire, but the outcomes for rank-and-file users are typically less impressive.

Researchers found that the top 1 percent of Polymarket users captured 84 percent of all trading gains, according to a new report released this month analysing 70 million trades from 2022 to 2025. The returns are so high that US federal regulators have pledged to crack down on insider trading in prediction markets following suspiciously well-timed bets on Iran war outcomes.

Aerospace and defence

Unsurprisingly, the aerospace and defence industries are booming this year due to major conflicts in Ukraine, Iran, Sudan, Gaza and Lebanon and a surge in global defence spending.

About half of the world’s countries have increased their military budgets over the past five years, according to an April report from the IMF, which means they are also buying everything from drones to missiles — more than ever before. Demand is growing particularly fast in Europe, where NATO countries have committed to raising defence spending to 5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2035.

The defence industry has, in turn, seen major gains on the stock market. The MSCI World Aerospace and Defence Index – which tracks aerospace and defence stocks across 23 global markets – reported net returns of 32 percent year on year at the end of March.

The defence index outpaced the MSCI World Index, which tracks 1,300 large and mid-cap companies across the same 23 markets. The index, which gives a broader overview of global stock markets, reported net returns of 18.9 percent over the same period.

Artificial intelligence

Last year, the United Nations Trade and Development (UNCTAD) office predicted that the AI industry would grow from $189bn in 2023 to $4.8 trillion by 2033, and the Iran war does not seem to have dented the outlook.

“Despite the shocks from the Iran war, we’re still seeing resilience in a lot of sectors like artificial intelligence and renewable energy,” said Nick Marro, lead analyst for global trade at the Economist Intelligence Unit.

One metric for the AI boom has been the high volume of semiconductor chips still being exported out of East Asia, he said. At the top of the chart is chipmaking powerhouse Taiwan, which reported record-breaking merchandise exports of $80.2bn in March, up 61.8 percent year on year, according to EIU analysis.

The surge was led by exports to the US, which grew by 124 percent year on year, the EIU said.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, the world’s top chipmaker better known by its acronym “TSMC,” on Thursday posted a net income of 572.8 billion New Taiwan Dollars (NTD) ($18.1bn) for the first three months of 2026 – up 58 percent year on year in NTD.

Another metric, initial public offerings or “IPOs,” also shows that the industry is confident for the moment, with industry leaders Anthropic and OpenAI both planning to go public this year.

Renewable energy

The Iran war has highlighted the need to transition from fossil fuels not only for environmental reasons, but also for reasons of energy security. The war marks the third major energy shock this decade, following the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

The Iran war has “boosted” renewable energy “given the urgency to switch away from fossil fuels and diversify towards renewable sources,” Marro of the EIU said.

Even before the Iran war began, the International Energy Agency reported that global governments were already taking active measures to invest in renewable energy for geopolitical reasons.

According to an IEA report released this month, “150 countries have active policies to advance renewable and nuclear deployment, 130 have energy efficiency and electrification policies, and 32 have policies to incentivise supply chain resilience and diversification across critical minerals and clean energy technologies.”

The Iran war has triggered another flurry of policymaking in Asia, which typically buys 80 to 90 percent of the oil and gas that transits through the Strait of Hormuz. Since the shutdown, the region has been struggling to find alternative sources of energy, forcing governments to deploy emergency measures like fuel rationing and price caps.

South Korea, Thailand, India, Cambodia, Indonesia, Vietnam and the Philippines have all announced a variety of measures from tax breaks for at-home solar panels to commissioning new renewable energy projects – and even restarting nuclear reactors.

The surge in policymaking has been good for the renewable industry. The S&P Global Clean Energy Transition Index, which tracks 100 companies that produce solar, wind, hydro, biomass and other renewable energy across emerging and developed markets, is up 70.92 percent year on year.

US–Iran talks gain pace as Pakistan mediates, with fresh optimism for a new round of talks in Islamabad.

Efforts to revive US-Iran negotiations are gathering pace, with Pakistan again having an important mediating role as its leaders hold high-level talks in Tehran and the Gulf.

Amid a renewed push to end the war, a Pakistani delegation, led by army chief Field Marshal Asim Munir is in Tehran. He is expected to relay messages from the United States, while Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Shehbaz Sharif, arrived in Saudi Arabia as part of a regional tour that includes Qatar and Turkiye.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman, Esmael Baghaei, said Tehran and Washington have remained in contact since talks in Islamabad ended on Sunday. On Wednesday, Washington signalled optimism about a new round of talks in the Pakistani capital.

But the diplomatic push comes amid increasing tension, as Iran warns it could expand its response to the US naval blockade beyond its own waters.

Divisions in Washington persist, with the US Senate rejecting a measure to limit the war without congressional approval.

Here is what we know:

In Iran

• Hormuz tensions remain high: Adviser Mohsen Rezaei warned that Iran could target US ships, if Washington continues to enforce its naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz. The warning comes as the US tightens restrictions on vessels linked to Iranian ports, with ships already being turned back amid the standoff.
• Nuclear issue shows potential breakthrough: Analyst Abas Aslani says Tehran is open to nuclear transparency if Washington is serious about a deal, but new US sanctions and the blockade of Iranian ports are fuelling distrust.
• “There is a sense of distrust, and at the moment, Iran is ready for every possible scenario, either progress in the negotiations or returning to the military conflict,” he told Al Jazeera.
• Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi warned of consequences over US “provocative actions” in the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz during a call with his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi.

War diplomacy

• Round two of talks: The US is discussing holding a second round of peace talks with Iran and is optimistic about reaching a deal, the White House said.
• China supports ‘momentum’ of peace talks: China’s Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, told his Iranian counterpart that Beijing “supports maintaining the momentum of the ceasefire and peace talks”.
• Saudi crown prince, Pakistan PM meet: Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Shehbaz Sharif met in Jeddah to discuss regional issues, including US-Iran negotiations. Talks hosted by Pakistan were a key focus, said the Saudi Press Agency.
• US and Qatar: US President Trump discussed regional developments and energy concerns, specifically regarding the oil market and gas prices, with Qatari Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani.

In the US

• US President Donald Trump has announced that Israeli and Lebanese leaders will hold direct talks later today – their first such contact in 34 years.
• New oil sanctions: US officials targeted more than two dozen individuals, along with companies and vessels linked to the oil transport network of Iranian shipping magnate Mohammad Hossein Shamkhani.
• US says 10 vessels blocked from Iranian ports: The US military’s Middle East command (CENTCOM) said 10 ships were stopped or redirected within the first 48 hours of a naval blockade, with none leaving Iranian ports.
• US Congress divisions: The Senate rejected efforts to limit US involvement in the war and blocked measures targeting arms sales to Israel, though growing opposition signals shifting political pressure.

In Israel

• ‘Identical’ goals: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel and the US are fully aligned in their objectives to contain Iran.
• Ceasefire pressure, no halt in fighting: Despite pressure, Netanyahu said Israel would continue military operations.
• End of Hezbollah: The Israeli prime minister said the country’s top priority in Lebanon was to secure the “dismantling” of Hezbollah, in its first direct talks with the country in decades.
• “There are two central objectives: first, the dismantling of Hezbollah; second, a sustainable peace… achieved through strength,” he said.

In Lebanon

• Relentless strikes continue: Air raids and shelling hit southern and eastern Lebanon, including Kafr Sir and Nabatieh, while a “triple-tap” strike in Mayfadoun killed four paramedics. Israeli vehicles and bulldozers remain active.
• Lebanon’s Minister for Administrative Reform Fadi Makki said an Israeli attack that killed four paramedics in southern Lebanon was “a new war crime”.
• Rising toll: Israeli strikes have killed at least 2,167 and injured more than 7,000 people, according to the Lebanese Health Ministry. About 1.2 million people have been displaced since March 2. Israel has been accused of destroying homes in southern Lebanon, as happened in Gaza.
• ‘Homes that no longer exist’: “Even if a ceasefire is reached, the reality on the ground is devastating.. entire communities along the border have been destroyed,” Al Jazeera’s Malcolm Webb reported from Beirut. He added that Israel has yet to secure its objective of controlling territory up to the Litani River.
• Balakrishnan Rajagopal, the UN special rapporteur on the right to housing, has joined other UN human rights experts, calling for Israel to immediately stop its bombing of Lebanon. Rajagopal wrote on social media that the Israeli military is using the “same strategy” in southern Lebanon as in Gaza or the occupied West Bank.
• Diplomatic tensions grow: Hezbollah has condemned US-hosted Israel-Lebanon talks as “shameful,” while a failed Senate vote to block bulldozer sales to Israel highlights increasing concern over civilian harm.

Global economy

• Growing hunger fears: The war could push millions more towards hunger as its economic fallout reverberates around the globe, the World Bank’s chief economist told AFP.
• “You have about 300 million people who suffer from acute food insecurity already,” Indermit Gill said.  “That’ll go up by about 20 percent very, very quickly,” as knock-on effects grow.
• Wall Street records: Major Wall Street stock indices finished at record highs on Wednesday following optimism about an accord in the US-Iran conflict.