Iran has vowed revenge on Israel after the political leader of Hamas, one of its key regional proxies, died in a rocket strike in Tehran today.

Israel hasn't acknowledged the strike but had vowed to kill Haniyeh and other Hamas figures after the 7 October massacres. Israel did, however, claim responsibility for killing senior Hezbollah commander Fuad Shukur in Beirut a few hours earlier. The two deaths of leaders from Iran's key proxies – one on Iranian soil – threatens to ignite the tinderbox of tensions between the long-time foes.

"You killed our dear guest in our house and now have paved the way for your harsh punishment," said Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. "We consider it our duty to ask for the blood of our dear guest."

What did the commentators say?
Israel will face "political consequences", said the BBC's Paul Adams in Jerusalem. The "most obvious" is that Haniyeh's death will "damage" efforts to negotiate a ceasefire in Gaza, and imperil the return of the remaining Israeli hostages. Haniyeh was a "critical interlocutor" in the negotiations. Now, it is extremely difficult to see how progress can be made, said Adams.

"How can mediation succeed when one party assassinates the negotiator on other side?" said Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al-Thani, the prime minister of Qatar, the site of Hamas' political bureau. A key mediator, he wrote "Peace needs serious partners & a global stance against the disregard for human life," on X.

Domestically, however, the two deaths may present a tactical victory for Benjamin Netanyahu, who is fighting for his political survival amid increasing pressure from far-right ministers. But all eyes will be on Iran's response to both strikes. Haniyeh's assassination in Tehran is a "deep embarrassment" to Iran, said The Times' Middle East correspondent Samer Al-Atrush.

What next?
There's a "great possibility" of an "orchestrated region-wide campaign" by Iran's militias and "maybe even Tehran itself in a direct response on Israel", Firas Maksad, senior fellow and senior director for strategic outreach at the Middle East Institute, told CNN.

But Iran's options for response are "limited and none of them are great", said CNN. Israel has demonstrated an "extraordinary capability" to assassinate senior figures of Iranian proxies. "Yet still, red lines were again crossed, and another rung on the ladder of escalation has been climbed."

Debate about artificial intelligence, especially over the last couple of years, "usually goes one of two ways", said Vox: "AI is either the beginning of the end of human civilisation, or a shortcut to utopia".

The truth, as is so often the case with new technology, will probably lie somewhere in between.

Utopia?
AI-powered assistants already promise a "workplace utopia, making employees more productive, improving workflows, and helping share knowledge across an organisation", said Fortune. And in his latest book, "Deep Utopia", Nick Bostrom, a philosopher at the University of Oxford, imagines AI technology progressing to the point at which it "can do all economically valuable work at near-zero cost", said The Economist. 

Speaking at the Aspen Ideas Festival in June, Mustafa Suleyman, Microsoft AI's CEO, predicted a future where new scientific and cultural knowledge will be "widely open-sourced and available to everybody".

Or dystopia?
In a widely read Op-Ed in Time magazine last year, AI pioneer Eliezer Yudkowsky warned that the most likely outcome of "building a superhumanly smart AI" is that "literally everyone on Earth will die".

AI sceptics such as Yudkowsky "envision a future in which amoral AI continues on its path of increasing intelligence to a tipping point beyond which their intelligence will be so far beyond us that we can't stop them from inadvertently destroying us", said Skeptic magazine.

And those in between?
Most AI scientists believe the way forward is moderation – making "machines incrementally smarter and our lives gradually better". Technology historian and visionary Kevin Kelly compares this pathway for AI to the evolution of automobiles – we may not have flying cars, but vehicles have become faster, safer and more efficient over the past 50 years.

Who knows which of the two extreme scenarios is nearer the truth, said Vox, but "the polarised nature of the AI discourse is itself interesting".

In a period of rapid technological growth and political disruption "there are many reasons to worry about the course we're on" concluded Vox, and that at least is "something almost everyone can agree with".

"Deadpool & Wolverine" has taken a record-breaking $211 million at the US box office, making it the best-ever opening weekend for an R-rated movie.

"It's no secret that Marvel has been struggling recently," said Vicky Jessop in the London Evening Standard. Thankfully, though, Ryan Reynolds has "stepped in to save the day". "Deadpool & Wolverine" feels like the "comic-book equivalent of the Super Bowl: massive, glitzy, crammed to bursting with stars, blood-pumping action and an excellent soundtrack".

Directed by Shawn Levy (best known for the "Night at the Museum" franchise), the action follows Deadpool (Reynolds) who finds out his world's timeline is on the verge of collapse and recruits Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) to help him save it.

If you're a "deep-cut Marvel fan", said Olly Richards in Empire, you may want to bring "several changes of underwear" and "pre-book an ambulance", because "Deadpool & Wolverine" goes "hard on the in-jokes and wish fulfilment". 

"It's a relentless onslaught of surprises designed to get audiences screaming and throwing popcorn in the air." Even if you're not one of the "franchise faithful", the "delightful" thing about the film is its ability to "bring everyone along for the ride" – including those who "don't know their Professor X from their X-23".

The duo are on "top form", said Mark Hughes in Forbes. Reynolds was "born to play Deadpool" and it's testament to Jackman's talent that he manages to craft a new version of Wolverine all over again. It's no insult to say that the movie "smartly" doesn't let the plot get in the way of telling a "fun story" carried by the magnetism of its stars.

Even the Olympics can't unite France
John Keiger for The Spectator
France is a "profoundly divided nation", writes John Keiger, and "one might have thought that the Paris Olympic Games could have united the country but they have "deepened division". The opening ceremony caused "dissension" and a "positively dithyrambic" article in Le Monde said it had "enthused the left but outraged part of the right and extreme right". France "seeks respite from years of political and social turmoil" but "the Olympics will not deliver it".

As a young, confused lesbian I would have chosen puberty blockers – impressionable kids should not be given that option
Julie Bindel for The Sun
"I will not be alone" in feeling enormous relief at a High Court ruling that banning puberty-blocking drugs was "perfectly legal", writes Julie Bindel. Growing up as a lesbian, "I know only too well" how "easy it is for outsiders to become convinced that, if you are not a feminine girl or a macho boy, there is something wrong with you". I "would have taken the opportunity to become a 'trans boy' as soon as it was offered to me" and that should not be allowed.

We have allowed the demonisation and dehumanisation of male refugees. They are victims too
Zoe Williams in The Guardian
Scrapping of the "expensive and cruel" Rwanda policy was "both common sense and a moral imperative", says Zoe Williams. Although welcome, "it's too soon to rejoice at a return to humanity". The migration "debate" is still "sliding towards necropolitics". Refugees have been "sorted, implicitly and explicitly, into the deserving and the undeserving"; male refugees fall into the latter category. It's "incredibly rare" to hear them mentioned at all, as though their plights and their deaths "aren't an outrage".