标签： North America

WASHINGTON – The United States is pushing for a nuclear agreement with Iran that would impose permanent restrictions on Tehran’s nuclear activities, according to a report by Axios. Steve Witkoff, the US president’s special envoy, articulated this position at a private gathering in Washington, D.C., stating the administration’s foundational premise that “there is no sunset provision” in any future deal.

Witkoff emphasized that regardless of whether an agreement is reached, the expectation remains that Iran must maintain compliant behavior indefinitely. The current negotiations are reportedly centered on two critical issues: Iran’s uranium enrichment capabilities and the disposition of its existing stockpile of enriched uranium.

While discussions currently focus on nuclear matters, the White House intends to pursue subsequent negotiations addressing Iran’s ballistic missile program and its support for proxy militias throughout the Middle East should an initial nuclear accord be achieved.

This stance represents a significant departure from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) negotiated during the Obama administration, which included expiration dates for most nuclear restrictions between 8 and 25 years after implementation. President Trump withdrew from that agreement in 2018.

According to officials familiar with the matter, the administration might consider allowing limited “token” enrichment in Iran if Tehran provides verifiable assurances that such activities would not contribute to nuclear weapons development. Mediators including Oman, Qatar, Egypt, and Turkiye are reportedly applying substantial pressure on Iran to reach an agreement with the United States that would avert military conflict.

The diplomatic efforts continue with a new round of US-Iran talks scheduled for Thursday in Geneva, where uranium enrichment levels and sanctions relief are expected to dominate the agenda. The negotiations occur against a backdrop of heightened military preparedness, with the US having deployed significant forces to the region. President Trump recently warned that while he prefers a diplomatic solution, failure to reach an agreement would result in “a very bad day” for Iran, alluding to potential military action.

GENEVA – Critical indirect negotiations between the United States and Iran have entered a third round in Geneva, facilitated by Omani diplomatic channels, as both nations demonstrate what mediators describe as “unprecedented openness to new and creative ideas” despite escalating military posturing.

Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi, serving as primary mediator in the talks held at Oman’s ambassador’s residence, reported constructive engagement from both delegations. The U.S. contingent, led by Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Presidential Advisor Jared Kushner, faces Iranian officials headed by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in discussions aimed at preventing open conflict.

The negotiations unfold against the backdrop of the largest U.S. military deployment in the Middle East since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, including two aircraft carrier groups and thousands of troops that President Trump has characterized as an “armada.” This show of force coincides with explicit threats from Trump regarding potential limited strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and Revolutionary Guard assets if diplomatic efforts fail.

Iranian officials have maintained their longstanding position against nuclear weapons development, with Araghchi publicly affirming that Iran would “under no circumstances ever develop a nuclear weapon” while expressing optimism for an “historic opportunity to strike an unprecedented agreement.”

Substantive discussion points reportedly include potential establishment of a regional uranium enrichment consortium and disposition of Iran’s existing stockpile of approximately 400kg of highly enriched uranium. In exchange, Tehran seeks relief from crippling economic sanctions that have devastated its economy.

Significant obstacles remain, however, as Iran continues to reject limitations on its ballistic missile program or cessation of support for regional proxy groups comprising what Tehran terms the “Axis of Resistance” – including Hamas, Hezbollah, and Yemen’s Houthi rebels.

The political landscape is further complicated by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s opposition to any agreement excluding missile and proxy limitations, while regional U.S. allies express concerns about potential escalation into broader conflict. Congressional leaders have received classified briefings on the situation, with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer acknowledging the seriousness of the situation and emphasizing the administration’s need to “make its case to the American people.”

Military analysts note the considerable risks associated with strikes against Iranian targets, potentially drawing the U.S. into prolonged engagement, despite Trump’s assertions that any conflict would be “easily won.” Iran has vowed to retaliate against any attack by targeting U.S. military assets throughout the Middle East and Israel.

The negotiations represent the most significant diplomatic engagement between the two nations since U.S. airstrikes destroyed Iranian nuclear facilities eight months ago during the Israel-Iran conflict, after which Iran claims to have halted enrichment activities though international inspectors have been denied access to verify these claims.

In a record-length State of the Union address spanning 108 minutes, President Donald Trump utilized his prime-time platform to champion controversial tariff policies while confronting Democratic opponents who largely refused to applaud his agenda. The February 2026 speech before a joint session of Congress served as a critical opportunity for the Republican president to shape voter perceptions ahead of the impending midterm elections.

Trump positioned his tariff framework as the cornerstone of what he characterized as a historic economic resurgence, despite recent polling indicating widespread public disapproval. A Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos survey released concurrently revealed only 39% approval of his job performance, with 60% expressing dissatisfaction. Particularly damaging were the findings on economic perceptions: 57% disapproved of his economic handling, 64% opposed his tariff approach, and nearly half believed the economy had deteriorated since January 2025.

The president defiantly addressed the Supreme Court’s recent 6-3 ruling that struck down his authority to impose sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, dismissing the decision as “very unfortunate” while vowing to continue the duties through alternative statutory mechanisms. He reiterated his contested assertion that foreign nations bear the cost of tariffs, claiming these revenues could eventually “substantially replace the modern-day system of income tax.”

This claim stands in direct contradiction to economic analysis from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which determined that 94% of tariff costs during the first eight months of implementation were absorbed by U.S. entities rather than foreign exporters.

The address was marked by persistent tension between Trump and Democratic legislators, most of whom remained seated during standing ovations from Republican colleagues. The president explicitly chastised Democrats for not rising during his statements on immigration enforcement and when honoring a young woman killed by a repeat offender, demanding: “How do you not stand?”

The proceedings were briefly interrupted when Democratic Representative Al Green of Texas was escorted from the chamber after displaying a protest sign reading “Black People Aren’t Apes!”—a reference to controversial social media content shared from Trump’s account earlier that month depicting the Obamas with primate imagery.

A rare moment of bipartisan agreement emerged when Trump advocated for legislation to prohibit insider trading among congressional members, drawing surprised approval from both sides of the aisle.

Canadian Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne has framed a potential baseline tariff as the necessary cost for maintaining trade flows with the United States, signaling a strategic shift in response to America’s evolving trade policy. This acknowledgment follows President Donald Trump’s State of the Union declaration advocating tariffs as a primary revenue source to replace income taxes.

The comments align with recent statements from US trade chief Jamieson Greer, who asserted Canada must accept elevated tariff levels to retain business relations. This development comes amid renewed trade tensions triggered by Trump’s imposition of a universal 10% tariff under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act—a previously unused mechanism activated after the Supreme Court invalidated his earlier sweeping tariff policy.

‘It’s increasingly clear that the American administration expects market access to come at a price,’ Champagne told journalists in Ottawa. ‘Every nation I’m aware of is paying this price, and Canada currently pays the lowest.’

While Canada maintains exemptions under the USMCA continental trade agreement, it faces heightened tariffs on strategic commodities including steel, aluminum, and softwood lumber. The US trade representative suggested Canada could mitigate these increases by opening protected sectors like dairy to American competition.

In response to these tensions, Prime Minister Mark Carney has announced ambitions to double non-US exports within the next decade, particularly in automotive and metals industries. This diversification strategy emerges despite the United States remaining Canada’s dominant trading partner, accounting for approximately 75% of all exports.

The diplomatic recalibration follows Friday’s Supreme Court ruling that declared Trump’s April tariff policy unconstitutional due to presidential overreach. The administration promptly implemented replacement tariffs through Section 122, which authorizes temporary levies of up to 15% for 150 days before requiring congressional approval.

During his congressional address, Trump envisioned tariffs ‘paid by foreign nations’ eventually supplanting income taxes, potentially reshaping fundamental aspects of US fiscal policy and international trade dynamics.

Washington D.C. – President Donald Trump’s controversial nominee for Surgeon General, Dr. Casey Means, endured a rigorous confirmation hearing before lawmakers on Wednesday, facing intense bipartisan interrogation over her unconventional health views, ethical commitments, and professional qualifications.

The 38-year-old Stanford-educated physician, who leads the ‘Make America Healthy Again’ movement aligned with Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., found herself defending her lack of an active medical license and her history as a health influencer promoting dietary supplements and teas. Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut presented evidence alleging dozens of Federal Trade Commission violations, claiming Means failed to disclose compensation received while promoting corporate products. Means vehemently denied these allegations, calling the documentation ‘incorrect’ and a ‘false representation.’

The hearing’s most contentious moments centered on vaccine policy. Means repeatedly declined to commit to advocating universal immunization against diseases like measles and Hepatitis B, instead emphasizing individual medical autonomy. ‘I believe each patient, mother, parent, needs to have a conversation with their pediatrician,’ she stated, while acknowledging vaccines ‘save lives’ and are key to public health strategy.

Regarding Hepatitis B vaccinations specifically, Means described them as ‘life-saving’ but controversiallly asserted they weren’t necessary for all newborns—contradicting American Association of Pediatrics guidelines recommending administration within 24 hours of birth.

When questioned about vaccines and autism, Means acknowledged scientific evidence shows no link but notably added ‘science is never settled,’ while describing the autism crisis as ‘devastating’ to families. Her comments aligned with recent CDC guidance updates under Secretary Kennedy that now state a connection cannot be ruled out, contrary to established medical consensus.

The nominee also addressed past controversial statements about contraceptive pills, which she had previously called ‘a disrespect of life’ and claimed Americans use ‘like candy.’ During the hearing, she affirmed support for accessibility of both contraceptives and mifepristone (the abortion pill) while emphasizing their potential ‘horrifying’ side effects for certain women.

Means confirmed she had been fully cleared by the Office of Government Ethics and committed to divesting from her business interests if confirmed. The committee is expected to vote on her nomination soon, with the outcome determining whether she will lead the 6,000-person U.S. Public Health Service.