US-Iran peace talks look “largely negotiated” — but Israel’s strikes and AI rules could derail everything

President Trump said the US is “largely” through negotiations on a deal with Iran to end the war, while also dismissing critics inside his own party as “loser” voices. Multiple outlets on 2026-05-25 framed the diplomacy as nearing a peace agreement, with Trump publicly projecting confidence that any resulting accord will be “great and meaningful.” At the same time, Pope Leo XIV issued his first encyclical warning that AI cannot be treated as morally neutral, and specifically cautioned about the danger of AI in wars, calling for strict limits. The cluster therefore ties together a fast-moving Iran track with a parallel debate over AI governance in conflict settings, raising questions about how technology will be handled during any de-escalation. Strategically, the core geopolitical tension is that a US-Iran bargain may not translate into regional calm if Israel chooses to keep striking what it calls regional and nuclear threats. Al Jazeera’s framing—“Could Israel sabotage US-Iran deal?”—highlights a classic spoiler dynamic: Washington seeks a diplomatic end-state, while Tel Aviv signals operational autonomy to prevent perceived nuclear or regional risks. This puts the US in a delicate position of balancing alliance management against the credibility of its Iran diplomacy, especially as Trump tries to lock in domestic political support. Meanwhile, the Pope’s intervention adds a soft-power layer: it signals that Western moral and institutional actors are increasingly willing to publicly constrain military AI, potentially influencing public legitimacy and policy constraints around wartime tech. Market and economic implications are already visible in energy flows and shipping exposure. Al Jazeera reports that China and India are ramping up imports of Brazilian crude as Strait of Hormuz disruptions continue, implying a re-routing of barrels and a relative gain for Brazil-linked supply chains. Separately, TASS says US LNG exports hit a record high in March, with the share of shipments to Asia rising to 24.4% from 14.5% in February, indicating that Middle East conflict risk is still reshaping global gas trade patterns. If a US-Iran deal reduces disruption risk, the direction of these flows could partially reverse, but the near-term effect is continued volatility in oil and LNG pricing, shipping insurance premia, and regional benchmark spreads tied to chokepoint risk. What to watch next is whether Israel’s strike tempo changes as the US and Iran move closer to a peace deal, and whether Washington publicly conditions its diplomacy on restraint. Key indicators include any US-Iran announcement milestones, changes in Israeli operational posture described by regional reporting, and signals from US domestic politics about how much leverage Trump is willing to use. On the technology front, the Pope’s encyclical and related policy discussions could become a reference point for regulators and defense establishments debating rules for AI in targeting and decision support. For markets, the trigger is whether Hormuz-related disruption risk declines enough to cool rerouting into Brazilian crude and Asia-bound LNG, or whether disruptions persist and keep the “risk premium” embedded in energy pricing.

Geopolitical Implications

• 01

  Alliance management and spoiler risk could determine whether diplomacy holds.

• 02

  AI governance may become a parallel constraint on wartime decision-making.

• 03

  Energy chokepoint risk is already reshaping crude and LNG trade routes.

Key Signals

• —Changes in Israel’s strike tempo during US-Iran talks.
• —Milestones or setbacks in US-Iran announcements.
• —Policy or regulatory moves referencing AI-in-war limits.
• —Data on LNG Asia share and crude import mix tied to Hormuz risk.