united states

US President Donald Trump said the US is in talks with the government of Cuba and that “we could very well end up having a friendly takeover of Cuba.” The country is facing a severe energy shortage after the US imposed a fuel blockade.

Tehran, Iran – Another round of indirect talks between Iranian and United States officials ended with a mediator claiming “significant progress” but still no clear evidence that either side was willing to concede enough on their positions to avoid war.

After the conclusion of the talks in Geneva on Thursday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said further technical talks would be held next week in Vienna and progress had been “good”.

“These were the most serious and longest talks,” Araghchi said.

Omani Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi, who mediated the talks, said Iranian and US diplomats would consult with their governments before the Vienna talks.

Few details have emerged about the discussions, but Araghchi was reported to have met US envoy Steve Witkoff – if only briefly, according to Iran’s Tasnim news agency.

The Iranian team, led by Araghchi, handed over on Wednesday night Tehran’s written proposals to Al Busaidi, who also mediated previous rounds of talks in Geneva and Muscat.

The Omani diplomat then met with the US delegation on Thursday, led by Witkoff and US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner. Al Busaidi mediated between the two teams throughout the day, and the US delegation also held separate talks over Ukraine.

Also taking part in the talks was Rafael Grossi, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which will have to undertake nuclear monitoring and verification duties in Iran in case of any agreement.

The UN watchdog will hold several days of board meetings starting on March 6, which is around the 10- to 15-day deadline floated by Trump last week for Iran to reach a deal.

Western media outlets have suggested the board could once again consider a move to censure Iran depending on the results of the Geneva talks. Iran has accused Grossi of taking politicised action and criticised the IAEA after Israel attacked Iran in June, one day after the agency passed a resolution saying Tehran was not complying with its commitment to nuclear safeguards.

Fundamental differences

The two sides have been at odds over key issues, including uranium enrichment and missiles.

Washington has repeatedly emphasised, in lockstep with Israel, that it will not accept any nuclear enrichment taking place on Iranian soil, even at civilian-use levels agreed during the 2015 nuclear deal that Iran agreed with world powers. Trump unilaterally abandoned that deal in 2018.

In the days leading up to the Geneva talks, US officials increasingly focused on Iran’s ballistic missile programme, saying the missiles threaten US military bases across the Middle East as well as Israel. Iran has refused to entertain any talks on its conventional weapons. Iranian officials, including President Masoud Pezeshkian, have repeatedly said they will never develop nuclear weapons.

Speaking to local officials during a provincial visit, Pezeshkian also shot back at Trump’s assertion during a lengthy State of the Union speech that Iran was “the world’s number one sponsor of terror”.

Pezeshkian said numerous Iranian officials and nuclear scientists have been assassinated over the decades, particularly in the immediate aftermath of the country’s 1979 Islamic revolution.

“If the realities are seen fairly, it will become clear that Iran is not only not a supporter of terrorism, but one of the main victims of terror in the region and across the world,” he said.

The Iranian government’s IRNA news agency said Tehran’s proposal was expected to gauge US “seriousness” in the talks because it contained “win-win” offers.

Iranian officials have not publicly discussed all the details of their proposals, but they are believed to include diluting part of the country’s 60-percent enriched uranium and keeping the uranium inside the country. Iranian authorities envisage that could be paired with economic opportunities for the US related to Iranian oil and gas and the purchase of airplanes.

Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has maintained his tough rhetoric against the US as well, casting doubt on the chances of any agreement. He also said Trump would be unable to overthrow Iran’s government after the US president said regime change would be “the best thing that could happen” in Iran.

Araghchi said during an interview on Wednesday that even if Khamenei is killed, the theocratic establishment in Iran would carry on because it has legal procedures in place to appoint a successor. Pezeshkian added on Thursday: “They can eliminate me, eliminate anyone. If they hit us, a hundred more like us will come up to run the country.”

Double-digit inflation as Iran braces for war

Iranian and US officials have been hailing supposed “progress” in the indirect talks this month, but many Iranians continue to prepare for war.

In Tehran and across the country, people are buying bottled water, biscuits, canned foods and other essentials in case of a war.

“A few days ago, I bought a power bank to keep the electronics charged. Now I’m looking for a short-wave radio so we can hear the news if the state shuts down the internet and electricity infrastructure is bombed,” said a 28-year-old resident of the capital who asked not to be named.

As bombs fell during the 12-day war with Israel in June, Iranian authorities cut off almost all internet access for several days, followed in January by an unprecedented 20-day total blackout imposed on about 92 million people as thousands of people were killed during nationwide protests.

The Iranian government, which blames “terrorists” armed and funded by the US and Israel for the protests, has rejected Trump’s claim that 32,000 Iranians were killed during the demonstrations. It said more than 3,000 people were killed, and rejects documentation by the United Nations and international human rights organisations that its security forces were behind the killings.

As the threat of war intensifies, not all Iranians are capable of stocking up on food and other necessities due to rising inflation that has gripped the country for more than a decade as a result of a mix of chronic local mismanagement and US and UN sanctions.

According to separate reports by the Statistical Centre of Iran and the Central Bank of Iran released on Thursday, inflation has now shot beyond 60 percent.

The Statistical Centre put annual inflation in the Iranian month of Bahman, which ended on February 19, at 68.1 percent, while the Central Bank said it was 62.2 percent.

Food inflation was by far the strongest driver at a whopping 105 percent. That included a 207-percent inflation rate for cooking oil, 117 percent for red meat, 108 percent for eggs and dairy products, 113 percent for fruit and 142 percent for bread and corn.

Iran’s national currency, the rial, stood at about 1.66 million rials to the US dollar on Thursday, near an all-time low.

Tariffs: The most beautiful word in the dictionary, as Donald Trump says, or unlawful?
The Supreme Court has ruled that the president cannot use emergency powers to impose them.
It’s a significant check on his power and a major setback to his second-term agenda.
But despite the ruling, Trump has already found new ways to keep his trade barriers in place.
Tariffs remain central to his economic policy, both to boost US manufacturing and generate revenue.
The court may have disarmed one of Trump’s trade weapons, but the turn towards protectionism is far from over.

Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton are set to testify in front of a congressional committee investigating the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Alan Fisher looks at what to expect.

Robinson is notorious in the UK where he has been accused of promoting hatred against Muslims and organising mass anti-migrant protests.

British far-right activist Tommy Robinson says he visited the United States Department of State as part of a recent trip to Washington, DC, where he was welcomed by government officials and supporters of the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement.

“In America making alliances & friendships, today I had the privilege of an invite to the @StateDept,” Robinson posted on X on Wednesday, alongside a photo of himself next to a US flag.

Robinson is a household name in the UK, notorious for his anti-Muslim rhetoric and multiple prison terms. He was also a cofounder of the now-defunct far-right English Defence League – a street protest movement.

US State Department official Joe Rittenhouse, who is a senior adviser for the department’s Consular Affairs bureau, said he met with Robinson, calling him a “free speech warrior”.

“Honored to have free speech warrior @TRobinsonNewEra at Department of State today. The World and the West is a better place when we fight for freedom of speech and no one has been on the front lines more than Tommy. Good to see you my friend!” Rittenhouse said in an X post.

Rittenhouse posted photos of what appeared to be Robinson touring the State Department.

The State Department did not answer questions from the Reuters news agency on who else Robinson met, what was discussed and what the objective of his visit was.

A representative for the United Kingdom’s embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Reuters.

Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, has become an icon for British nationalists and one of the UK’s most high-profile anti-migration campaigners, organising a large rally last September in London attended by about 150,000 people.

Social media posts show that during his trip to Washington, Robinson also met far-right US influencer Jack Posobiec and filmed a video with Congressman Randy Fine, a Republican from Florida, who has a history of anti-Muslim rhetoric. Robinson said on X that he will next travel to Florida.

Robinson’s visit to the US State Department follows a surge in support from the administration of President Donald Trump for far-right activists in the UK and Europe under the pretext of protecting “free speech”.

In December, the Trump administration accused Europe of engaging in “civilisational erasure” due to demographic and cultural changes from what Washington has described as weak immigration policies.

US Vice President JD Vance took aim at European countries during his first international trip last year, accusing the region’s leaders of stifling free speech – particularly voices from the far right – and being lax on migration to the detriment of their societies.

“No voter on this continent went to the ballot box to open the floodgates to millions of unvetted immigrants,” Vance said in remarks that shocked European leaders.

The UK and European countries have stronger rules on hate speech than the US, and the European Union has taken a proactive stance on regulating social media and internet content – positions that have angered the White House.

Robinson was banned from Twitter in 2018, but his account was restored in 2022 following its acquisition by Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and SpaceX.

US eases oil embargo on Cuba as Caribbean neighbours warn worsening humanitarian crisis could destabilise region.

The United States has said it will allow the resale of some Venezuelan oil to Cuba in a move that could ease the island’s acute fuel shortages, as neighbouring countries raised the alarm over a rapidly deteriorating humanitarian situation caused by Washington’s oil blockade.

In a statement on Wednesday, the US Department of the Treasury said it would authorise companies seeking licences to resell Venezuelan oil for “commercial and humanitarian use in Cuba”.

It said the new “favorable licensing policy” would not cover “persons or entities associated with the Cuban military, intelligence services, or other government institutions”.

Venezuela had been the main supplier of crude and fuel ⁠to Cuba for the past 25 years through a bilateral pact mostly based on the barter of products and services. But since the US abducted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro last month and took control of the country’s oil exports, Caracas’s supply to Cuba has ceased.

Mexico, which had emerged as an alternate supplier, also halted shipments to the Caribbean island after the US threatened tariffs on countries that send oil to Cuba. The US blockade has worsened an energy crisis in Cuba that is hitting power generation and fuel for vehicles, houses and aviation.

The shift in US policy came as Caribbean leaders gathering in Saint Kitts and Nevis expressed alarm at the impacts of the blockade on the island nation of some 10.9 million people. Speaking to Caribbean leaders during a meeting of the regional political group CARICOM on Tuesday, Jamaican Prime Minister Andrew Holness affirmed solidarity with Cuba.

“Humanitarian suffering serves no one,” Holness said at the meeting. “A prolonged crisis in Cuba will not remain confined to Cuba.”

The Caribbean summit’s host, Saint Kitts and Nevis Prime Minister Terrance Drew, who studied in Cuba to be a doctor, said friends have told him of food scarcity and rubbish strewn in the streets.

“A destabilised Cuba will destabilise all of us,” Drew said.

But addressing the meeting in Saint Kitts and Nevis on Wednesday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio claimed that the humanitarian crisis had been caused by the Cuban government’s policies, not Washington’s blockade.

Rubio, whose parents migrated to the US from Cuba in 1956, warned that the sanctions would be snapped back if the oil winds up going to the government or military.

“Cuba needs to change. It needs to change dramatically because it is the only chance that it has to improve the quality of life for its people,” Rubio told reporters.

It is “a system that’s in collapse, and they need to make dramatic reforms”, he said.

Rubio went on to blame economic mismanagement and the lack of a vibrant private sector for the dire situation in Cuba, which has been under communist rule since Fidel Castro’s 1959 revolution.

“This is the worst economic climate Cuba has faced. And it is the authorities there, and that government, who are responsible for that,” Rubio said.

The US pressure on Venezuela and Cuba ⁠has left several fuel cargoes undelivered since December, according to the Reuters news agency, contributing to the island’s inability to keep the lights on and cars circulating. A Cuba-related vessel that loaded Venezuelan gasoline in early February at a port operated by state-run company PDVSA remained this week anchored in Venezuelan waters waiting for authorisation to set sail.

Mexico and Canada have meanwhile announced they would be sending aid to Cuba, and Russia’s Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak also said his government was discussing the possibility of providing fuel to the island.

Separately on Wednesday, Cuba’s Ministry of the Interior announced killing four people and wounding six others on board a Florida-registered speedboat that it said entered Cuban waters.

Rubio told reporters it was not a US operation and that no US government personnel were involved.

“Suffice it to say, it is highly unusual to see shootouts in open sea like that,” he said. “ It’s not something that happens every day. It’s something frankly that hasn’t happened with Cuba in a very long time.”

US Justice Department accuses former Air Force officer Gerald Brown of training Chinese military pilots.

A former United States Air Force officer and “elite fighter pilot” has been arrested and accused of betraying his country for illegally providing training to Chinese military pilots.

The US Department of Justice said ex-Air Force Major Gerald Brown, once known by his pilot’s call sign “Runner”, was arrested on Wednesday in Indiana and charged with a criminal complaint for providing and conspiring to provide defence services to Chinese pilots without authorisation.

Brown, 65, a former F-35 Lightning II instructor pilot with decades of experience in the Air Force, “allegedly betrayed his country by training Chinese pilots to fight against those he swore to protect”, Roman Rozhavsky, assistant director at the FBI’s Counterintelligence and Espionage Division, said in a statement.

“The Chinese government continues to exploit the expertise of current and former members of the US armed forces to modernise China’s military capabilities. This arrest serves as a warning,” Rozhavsky said.

US Attorney Jeanine Ferris Pirro for the District of Columbia said Brown “and anyone conspiring against our Nation” will be held accountable for their actions.

According to the Justice Department, Brown served in the US Air Force for 24 years, had led combat missions and was responsible for commanding “sensitive units”, including those involved in nuclear weapons delivery systems.

After leaving the US military in 1996, Brown worked as a commercial cargo pilot before working as a defence contractor training US pilots to fly F-35 and A-10 warplanes.

Brown is alleged to have travelled to China in December 2023 to begin his work training Chinese pilots, and he remained in the country until returning to the US in early February 2026.

His contract to train Chinese pilots was negotiated by Stephen Su Bin, a Chinese national who in 2016 pleaded guilty and was sentenced to four years in prison for conspiring to hack a defence contractor in the US to steal military secrets for China, according to the Justice Department.

The department said Brown faces charges similar to those levelled against former US Marine Corps pilot Daniel Duggan, who was arrested in Australia in 2022 and is currently fighting his extradition back to the US, where he faces prosecution for violating the US Arms Export Control Act for providing pilot training to the Chinese armed forces.

Duggan appeared in an Australian court in October 2025 to appeal against his extradition, which was approved in December 2024 by Australia’s then Attorney General Mark Dreyfus.

Duggan, 57, a naturalised Australian citizen, was arrested by Australian police in 2022 shortly after returning from China, where he had lived since 2014.

According to the Reuters news agency. Duggan’s lawyer, Christopher Parkin, told the court that his client’s extradition to the US was “uncharted territory” for Australia.

He argued that his client’s conduct was not an offence in Australia at the time or when the US requested extradition, and so did not meet the requirement for dual criminality in Australia’s extradition treaty with the US.

The governments of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the US published a notice in 2024 warning current and former members of their armed forces that China was seeking to recruit them and other NATO military personnel in order to harness Western military expertise and bolster its own capabilities.

“The insight the PLA [People’s Liberation Army] gains from Western military talent threatens the safety of the targeted recruits, their fellow service members, and US and allied security,” the notice stated.

“Those providing unauthorized training or expertise services to a foreign military can face civil and criminal penalties,” it added.

US judge says that rapid deportation of migrants to countries other than their own violates due process.

A United States federal judge has ruled that the administration of President Donald Trump had violated the law through the swift deportation of migrants to countries other than their own, without giving them an opportunity to appeal their removal.

US District Judge Brian Murphy declared the policy invalid on Wednesday, teeing up a possible appeal from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to the Supreme Court.

“It is not fine, nor is it legal,” Murphy wrote in his decision, adding that migrants could not be sent to an “unfamiliar and potentially dangerous country” without any legal recourse.

He added that due process – the right to receive fair legal proceedings – is an essential component of the US Constitution.

“These are our laws, and it is with profound gratitude for the unbelievable luck of being born in the United States of America that this Court affirms these and our nation’s bedrock principle: that no ‘person’ in this country may be ‘deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law’,” Murphy said.

The ruling is the latest legal setback in the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign.

Trump has long pledged to remove immigrants from the country who violate the law or are in the country without legal paperwork. But critics argue that his immigration crackdown has been marked by widespread neglect of due process rights.

They also point out that some of the deportees have been in the country legally, with their cases being processed through legal immigration pathways like asylum.

Murphy said in his ruling that the swift nature of the deportation obscures the details of each case, preventing courts from weighing whether each deportation is legal.

“The simple reality is that nobody knows the merits of any individual class member’s claim because [administration officials] are withholding the predicate fact: the country of removal,” wrote Murphy.

In the decision, Murphy also addressed some of the Trump administration’s arguments in favour of swift deportation.

He highlighted one argument, for instance, where the administration asserted it would be “fine” to deport migrants to third-party countries, so long as the Department of Homeland Security was not aware of anyone waiting to kill them upon arrival.

“It is not fine, nor is it legal,” Murphy responded in his decision.

Murphy has previously ruled against efforts to swiftly deport migrants to countries where they have no ties, and over the past year, he has seen some decisions overturned by the Supreme Court.

Noting that trend, Murphy said Wednesday’s decision would not take effect for 15 days, in order to give the administration the opportunity to appeal.

Last year, for instance, the conservative-majority Supreme Court lifted an injunction Murphy issued in April that sought to protect the due process rights of migrants being deported to third-party countries.

The injunction had come as part of a case where the Trump administration attempted to send eight men to South Sudan, despite concerns about human rights conditions there.

Wednesday’s decision, meanwhile, stemmed from a class-action lawsuit brought by immigrants similarly facing deportation to countries they had no relation to.

A lawyer for the plaintiffs, Trina Realmuto from the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, hailed Murphy’s latest ruling.

“Under the government’s policy, people have been forcibly returned to countries where US immigration judges have found they will be persecuted or tortured,” Realmuto said in a statement.

Realmuto added that the ruling was a “forceful statement” about the policy’s constitutionality.

Release of documents show close relationship between high-profile economist and disgraced sex offender.

Former United States Treasury Secretary Larry Summers says he will resign as a professor at Harvard University at the end of the semester after revelations of his close relationship with disgraced sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Summers, a longtime influential figure in economic policymaking circles and a former president of Harvard, said on Wednesday that he would resign from teaching at the end of the academic year.

“In connection with the ongoing review by the University of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein that were recently released by the government, Harvard Kennedy School Dean Jeremy Weinstein has accepted Professor Lawrence H Summers’ resignation from his leadership position as co-director of the Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Government,” Harvard spokesperson Jason Newton said in a statement.

Documents released as part of an effort to bring greater transparency to Epstein’s relationships with powerbrokers in politics, business and culture shed light on Summers’s extensive correspondence with Epstein, whom he once emailed asking for advice on wooing women.

Summers, who has denied any wrongdoing and has not been charged with any crime, previously resigned from the board of the company OpenAI over his ties to Epstein, with whom he remained in contact as late as July 2019.

“I take full responsibility for my misguided decision to continue communicating with Mr Epstein,” Summers said in a statement to US media after releases of Epstein files in November, at which time Harvard announced a review of those named in the documents, which were compiled during criminal investigations of Epstein.

Documents released in December also showed that Summers had been designated as a successor executor in a 2014 draft of Epstein’s will, according to the student newspaper The Harvard Crimson. The paper reported that a spokesperson for Summers denied any knowledge of the matter.

A sinkhole suddenly opened at an intersection in Omaha, Nebraska, swallowing two cars stopped at a red light. Police said both drivers escaped before crews arrived and no injuries were reported. Authorities warn the street could remain closed for days amid fears the hole may expand.

Venezuela’s National Assembly says thousands of people have regained freedom under a new amnesty law.

A special commission of Venezuela’s National Assembly reports that more than 3,200 individuals have been granted full release from prison since the country’s amnesty law took effect last week.

The figures, announced on Tuesday, include former prisoners and individuals who were previously held under house arrest or subject to other restrictive judicial measures.

Lawmaker Jorge Arreaza, head of the commission overseeing implementation of the amnesty, said during a news conference that authorities had received a total of 4,203 applications for amnesty since the law was passed on February 20.

Arreaza said after evaluating these requests, 3,052 people previously under house arrest or other restrictive measures were granted full freedom. Additionally, 179 individuals who were in prison have also been released.

Last week, Venezuela’s interim President Delcy Rodriguez signed the amnesty legislation into law after it was unanimously adopted by the National Assembly, which authorities said is intended to ease political tensions, promote reconciliation and accelerate the release of political prisoners.

During its signing, Rodriguez said the law showed that the country’s political leaders were “letting go of a little intolerance and opening new avenues for politics in Venezuela”.

Opposition figures have criticised the amnesty, which appears to include carve-outs for some offences previously used by authorities to target former President Nicolas Maduro’s political opponents.

Critics say the law explicitly does not apply to those prosecuted for “promoting” or “facilitating … armed or forceful actions” by foreign actors against Venezuela’s sovereignty.

The law also excludes amnesty for members of the security forces convicted of terrorism-related charges.

Hundreds of detainees had already been granted conditional release by Rodriguez’s government since the deadly US raid that led to the abduction of Maduro last month.

United Nations human rights experts welcomed the amnesty with “caution”, stressing that it must apply to all victims of unlawful prosecution and be embedded in a comprehensive transitional justice process consistent with international standards.

Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Venezuelans have been jailed in recent years over plots, real or imagined, to overthrow the government of Maduro, who was flown to New York after his abduction by the US military.

Venezuela-based prisoners’ rights group Foro Penal said on Tuesday that it has verified only 91 “political releases” since the amnesty law took effect on February 20.

The organisation added that it has requested a review of 232 cases currently excluded from the amnesty, and that nearly 600 people remain in detention.

In his State of the Union address, US President Trump reiterated claims the US “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear programme last year, contradicting his special envoy Steve Witkoff, who said Iran is “one week away” from a nuclear bomb.

In a significant foreign policy shift, Bolivia has reopened its doors to the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).

The move, confirmed on Monday, ends a nearly two-decade hiatus in bilateral efforts to stem drug trafficking.

Bolivian Minister of Government Marco Oviedo told local media this week that DEA agents were already operating in the country.

“The DEA is in Bolivia,” he said. “Just as the DEA is now present, we also have cooperation from European intelligence and police bodies.”

Oviedo explained that the initial focus of the law enforcement efforts would be to tighten border surveillance and dismantle trafficking networks.

He added that the cooperation with the DEA and European agencies was only the start of Bolivia’s expanded international efforts.

“We want neighbouring countries’ anti-narcotics agencies on board as well,” Oviedo said.

End to Morales order

The announcement marks an end to an order issued under former left-wing President Evo Morales in 2008, effectively expelling all DEA agents from the country.

Morales, the leader at the time for Bolivia’s Movement for Socialism (MAS), had accused the US of using drug enforcement efforts to pressure countries in Latin America to bend to its political and economic agenda.

Under Morales, all drug enforcement cooperation with the US came to a halt, and he refused to let DEA officers into the country, accusing them of destabilising his government. Diplomatic relations were likewise suspended.

In turn, MAS received strong support from rural parts of Bolivia, where the cultivation of coca, the raw ingredient in cocaine, is a key economic driver.

Bolivia, along with other Andean countries like Colombia and Peru, is a key producer of coca, which has traditional uses, including as a remedy for altitude sickness. Morales himself led a union of coca growers, or cocaleros, before taking office.

Advocates have accused the US’s militaristic “war on drugs” of harming impoverished rural farmers through the forced eradication of coca crops. Such campaigns, they argue, can leave farmers without a means of supporting themselves and their families.

MAS remained in power from the start of Morales’s term in 2006 until 2025, when its coalition fractured amid economic instability and internal fighting.

New political direction

In October 2025, two right-wing candidates proceeded to a run-off for the presidency: centrist Rodrigo Paz of the Christian Democratic Party and a former right-wing president, Jorge Quiroga.

It was the first presidential run-off in modern times for Bolivia, and it marked a sharp turn away from two decades of socialist government.

Both candidates made improving the relationship with the US a central pillar of their campaigns, viewing it as essential to solving Bolivia’s severe economic crisis.

Paz, who was educated in Washington, DC, argued that normalising ties would attract the international investment needed to modernise the energy and lithium sectors.

Meanwhile, Quiroga, a conservative who studied at Texas A&M University, campaigned on a more aggressive platform, including fiscal austerity and security partnerships with the US.

His vice presidential candidate, Juan Pablo Velasco, is credited with popularising the tagline “Make Bolivia Sexy Again”, a twist on US President Donald Trump’s slogan, “Make America Great Again”.

Paz ultimately emerged as the victor in the race, with nearly 54.9 percent of the vote. After his inauguration in November, Paz moved quickly to fulfil his promises by restoring diplomatic ties with the US.

The US, meanwhile, called Paz’s presidency a “transformative opportunity” for the region.

Earlier this month, both Bolivia and the US agreed to appoint ambassadors to one another’s countries for the first time in nearly 18 years.

Uncertainty remains

But it is unclear to what extent the DEA will be operating in Bolivia. Left-wing leaders like Morales continue to have strong pockets of support, particularly in highland and rural areas.

Bolivian Foreign Minister Fernando Aramayo has said negotiations are still under way to finalise the specific areas of cooperation between his country and the DEA, as well as operational limits for the US agency.

A full agreement outlining the scope of the agency’s activities is expected in the coming months.

Since returning to office on January 20, 2025, Trump has intensified the US campaign against drug trafficking in Latin America, including by designating several major cartels as “foreign terrorist organizations”.

Trump has also pressured Latin American governments to take more aggressive actions against the illicit drug trade, using economic sanctions and military threats as leverage.

Already, in late December and early January, Trump has authorised two strikes on Venezuela on the premise of combating drug trafficking.

One, on December 29, targeted a port that the Trump administration said was used for drug smuggling. The second, on January 3, resulted in multiple explosions, dozens dead and the abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. He remains in custody in the US, where he faces drug trafficking and weapons possession charges.

Critics have argued that Trump’s anti-drug campaign has blurred the line between law enforcement and military activities.

The increasing use of military force against criminal suspects has raised concerns that human rights are being violated and legal processes circumvented, including through the use of extrajudicial killings.

One example has come as part of a military campaign called Operation Southern Spear.

On September 2, the US announced the first of nearly 44 “lethal kinetic strikes” against suspected drug-smuggling vessels in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific.

As many as 150 people have been killed in the attacks. Operation Southern Spear has continued, despite international organisations like the United Nations questioning its legality and calling for its end.

Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum has warned she could take possible legal action following comments from right-wing tech billionaire Elon Musk, accusing her of ties to cartels.

At her morning news conference on Tuesday, the president was asked for her response to Musk’s statements a day prior. Musk had described her as being beholden to the cartels.

“Well, we are considering whether to take any legal action,” she began. “The lawyers are looking into it.”

She then proceeded to describe the allegations that she leads a “narco-government” as “absurd” and demonstrably false.

“It falls apart all on its own,” she said, dismissing the accusation as hackneyed. “They don’t even know what to invent any more, right? Honestly, it’s laughable.”

Sheinbaum has faced criticism for her national security policies following a spate of cross-country violence over the weekend.

Killing of El Mencho

The violence erupted after the death on Sunday of a top cartel leader, Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes, known by the nickname El Mencho.

The Mexican military had tracked El Mencho to the town of Tapalpa in central Mexico. He died while en route to medical care after being shot by authorities.

Members of El Mencho’s criminal organisation, the Jalisco New Generation Cartel, responded to the news of his death with road blocks, arson and clashes with security forces. Dozens of people were killed in the violence.

Musk was among the online commentators criticising Sheinbaum’s handling of Mexico’s security in the aftermath of the attacks.

His posts came in response to a video clip circulating on social media, showing Sheinbaum advocating for alternatives to the militaristic “war on drugs” approach.

“She’s just saying what her cartel bosses tell her to say,” Musk wrote in response to the video.

“Let’s just say that their punishment for disobedience is a little worse than a ‘performance improvement plan’.”

A vocal critic of left-wing governments like Sheinbaum’s, Musk is closely aligned with United States President Donald Trump, who has likewise pushed for more military action against cartels.

In September, for instance, Trump’s State Department listed Mexico as an area of concern for drug-trafficking and outlined steps it expected to see to address the issue.

“Much more remains to be done by Mexico’s government to target cartel leadership, along with their clandestine drug labs, precursor chemical supply chains, and illicit finances,” the State Department wrote.

“Over the next year, the United States will expect to see additional, aggressive efforts by Mexico to hold cartel leaders accountable and disrupt the illicit networks engaged in drug production and trafficking.”

Trump himself has accused Sheinbaum of inefficacy in her campaign to crack down on illicit drug trafficking.

“She’s not running Mexico. The cartels are running Mexico,” Trump told Fox News in the hours after launching a January 3 military operation to abduct Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

“She’s very frightened of the cartels. They’re running Mexico. I’ve asked her numerous times, ‘Would you like us to take out the cartels?’”

Sheinbaum has repeatedly refused the prospect of unilateral US intervention, arguing it would violate Mexican sovereignty. Still, Trump has repeatedly warned that the US is considering military strikes on Mexican soil.

“Something’s going to have to be done with Mexico,” he told Fox News.

Upping the pressure

Sheinbaum, however, has defended her administration’s track record. Faced with US tariffs in February 2025, she deployed nearly 10,000 members of Mexico’s National Guard to the country’s northern border to crack down on fentanyl trafficking.

She has also taken targeted military actions against cartels, though she has argued that the process should be focused on prosecuting criminals, rather than killing them in law enforcement operations.

Her administration has also overseen the extradition of dozens of Mexican nationals suspected of crimes in the US. In January 2025, for instance, 37 people were sent to the US. In April and August, groups of 13 and 14 suspects were transferred, respectively.

Sunday’s capture and killing of El Mencho was the fulfilment of a decades-long goal for the Mexican government, which has long sought his arrest.

Still, on Monday, Trump briefly posted a message on his Truth Social platform indicating that he expected Sheinbaum to do more.

“Mexico must step up their effort on Cartels and Drugs,” he wrote in a post that was later removed.

Sheinbaum, meanwhile, used Tuesday’s news conference to dismiss the criticism as out of touch with what was happening in Mexico. She added that what matters to her is the opinion of the Mexican people, not Musk.

“The vast majority of people recognise the work of the armed forces and the work we are doing every day, not only in security, but for the good of the country, for the wellbeing of all Mexicans,” she said. “That is what will guide us.”

US embassy services will be available in the illegal West Bank settlement of Efrat, starting on February 27.

The United States has announced it will soon provide in-person passport services at an illegal Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank.

The US Embassy in Jerusalem said it would start providing the service for Efrat, located between the Palestinian towns of Bethlehem and Hebron, on February 27.

It will be the first time the US has “provided consular services to a settlement in the West Bank”, according to a US embassy spokesperson quoted by the Reuters news agency.

The embassy said it would plan similar on-site services in the Palestinian city of Ramallah, the illegal Israeli settlement of Beitar Illit near Bethlehem, and in cities within Israel, such ⁠as Haifa.

The US currently offers passport and consular services at its embassy in West Jerusalem as well ⁠as at a Tel Aviv branch office.

Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, home to 3 million Palestinians who seek the territory as part of a future state, are illegal under international law.

Nevertheless, far-right Israeli politicians have openly called for Israel to increase settlement expansion, or even annex the Palestinian territory.

This month, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing government approved measures to expand control over the occupied West Bank and claim large tracts of Palestinian territory as Israeli “state property”.

The move was roundly condemned by more than 80 United Nations member countries.

Much of the West Bank is already under Israeli military control, with limited Palestinian self-government in some areas run by the Western-backed Palestinian Authority.

According to the International Court of Justice, about 465,000 Israeli settlers live in the occupied Palestinian territory, spread across some 300 illegal settlements and outposts.

Among them are an estimated tens of thousands of dual US-Israeli nationals. The Efrat settlement is home to many American immigrants.

US President Donald Trump, a staunch supporter of Israel, has said he opposes Israeli annexation of the occupied West Bank. But his administration has ‌not taken any steps to curb Israel’s expanding settlement presence.

In addition to advancing settlements, Israeli forces regularly carry out violent raids, demolitions, and arrests in the occupied West Bank, where attacks by Israeli settlers against Palestinians have also intensified, often under the protection of Israeli soldiers.

In January alone, at least 694 Palestinians were driven from their homes in the West Bank because of Israeli settler violence and harassment, the highest number since Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza erupted in October 2023, according to the United Nations.

If Warner’s board changes course and deems Paramount’s latest offer superior, Netflix will be able to revise its bid.

Warner Bros Discovery (WBD) says it is reviewing a new takeover offer from Paramount Skydance, but it continues to recommend a competing proposal from Netflix to its shareholders in the meantime.

Warner disclosed on Tuesday that it had received a revised offer from Paramount after a seven-day window to renew talks with the Skydance-owned company elapsed on Monday. Paramount – which is run by David Ellison, son of United States President Donald Trump ally and Oracle cofounder Larry Ellison – confirmed it had submitted the proposal, but neither company provided details about it. The company was widely expected to have raised its offer.

A WBD buyout would reshape Hollywood and the wider media landscape, bringing HBO Max, cult-favourite titles like Harry Potter and, depending on who wins the Netflix vs Paramount tug-of-war, potentially even CNN under a new roof.

Paramount wants to acquire Warner Bros in its entirety, including networks like CNN and Discovery, and went straight to shareholders with an all-cash, $77.9bn hostile offer just days after the Netflix deal was announced in December. Accounting for debt, that bid offered Warner stakeholders $30 per share, amounting to an enterprise value of about $108bn.

Paramount maintained on Tuesday that its tender offer remains on the table while Warner evaluates its latest proposal.

Netflix wants to buy only Warner’s studio and streaming business for $72bn in cash, or about $83bn including debt. Warner’s board has repeatedly backed this deal and on Tuesday maintained that its agreement with Netflix still stands.

Warner shareholders are to vote on the Netflix proposal on March 20.

If Warner’s board changes course and considers Paramount’s latest offer superior, Netflix would have a chance to match or revise its proposal, potentially setting the stage for a new bidding war. It could also choose to walk away.

Further consolidation

Paramount, Warner and Netflix have spent the last couple of months in a heated back and forth over who has the stronger deal. But along the way, lawmakers and entertainment trade groups have sounded the alarm, warning that either buyout of all or parts of Warner’s business would only further consolidate power in an industry already run by just a few major players. Critics said that could result in job losses, less diversity in filmmaking and potentially more headaches for consumers who are facing rising costs of streaming subscriptions as is.

Combined, that raises tremendous antitrust concerns – and a Warner sale could come down to who gets the regulatory greenlight. The US Department of Justice has already initiated reviews, and other countries are expected to do so too.

Both Paramount and Netflix have argued that their proposals are good for consumers and the wider industry. And the companies have taken aim at each other publicly with regulatory arguments.

Paramount has pointed to Netflix’s much larger market value, and it has argued that if the streaming giant acquires Warner, it would only give it more dominance in the subscription video-on-demand space. But Netflix is trying to persuade regulators that it’s up against broader video libraries, particularly Google’s YouTube, America’s most-watched TV distributor.

Paramount’s bid will create a studio bigger than market leader Disney and fuse two major TV operators, which some Democratic senators said would control “almost everything Americans watch on TV”.

It will also hand control of CNN to the conservative-leaning Ellisons, soon after they acquired CBS News and installed as its editor-in-chief Bari Weiss, a right-leaning opinion editor who had no prior TV experience. The network settled for $16m a lawsuit that Trump had filed, accusing CBS’s 60 Minutes programme of editing an interview with Kamala Harris to his 2024 presidential election rival’s advantage. It also appointed Kenneth Weinstein, a former Trump administration official, as ombudsman to investigate allegations of bias.

In December, Ellison visited the White House, media reports said, and told Trump that Paramount would execute “sweeping changes” if it acquired CNN’s parent company.

More recently, Trump, in a Truth Social post on Saturday, demanded that Netflix fire former US National Security Adviser Susan Rice from its board. Rice, a Black woman, had served under former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, both Democrats.

“This is a business deal. It’s not a political deal,” Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos told BBC Radio 4’s flagship Today programme on Monday. “This deal is run by the Department of Justice in the US and regulators throughout Europe and around the world.”

Trump previously made unprecedented suggestions about his involvement in seeing a deal through before walking back those statements and maintaining that regulatory approval will be up to the Justice Department.

The White House’s comment comes days after a senior Trump aide said Iran is one week away from having material for nuclear bomb.

The White House has insisted that last year’s strikes against Iran destroyed the country’s nuclear programme despite a recent claim by a senior US official that Tehran is a week away from having bombmaking material.

Karoline Leavitt, the White House spokesperson, told reporters on Tuesday that the June 2025 attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, known as Operation Midnight Hammer, was an “overwhelmingly successful mission”.

The attack “did, in fact, obliterate Iran’s nuclear facilities“, Leavitt said.

But just this weekend, President Donald Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff suggested that Iran is close to having enough material to build a nuclear weapon.

“They’re probably a week away from having industrial-grade bomb-making material,” Witkoff told Fox News on Saturday.

Since last June’s strikes, Trump has repeatedly hailed the attack, arguing that it eliminated Iran’s nuclear programme and led to “peace” in the Middle East. Operation Midnight Hammer came towards the end of a 12-day war Israel initiated with Iran that month.

But eight months later, US and Iranian officials are once again holding talks to reach a nuclear deal and avert another war.

On Tuesday, Leavitt said the destruction of Iran’s nuclear programme had been “verified” by Trump and the United Nations’ watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

“That does not mean that Iran may never try again to establish a nuclear programme that could directly threaten the United States and our allies abroad, and that’s what the president wants to ensure can never happen again,” she added.

Last year, after the US attack, IAEA chief Rafael Grossi said Iran could resume uranium enrichment “in a matter of months”.

But the UN agency’s inspectors have not been able to assess Iran’s nuclear sites since the US strikes.

The Pentagon’s public assessment was that the Iranian nuclear programme was set back by one to two years.

There has been no official confirmation of the US claims that Iran has restarted nuclear enrichment after the attack.

After a visit by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the US in December, Trump renewed his threats to attack Iran if it tries to rebuild its nuclear or missile programme.

Tensions have spiralled since then, with the US amassing military assets near Iran.

Still, Tehran and Washington are set to hold the third round of negotiations this year to push for a nuclear deal.

Iran, which denies seeking a nuclear weapon, has said it would agree to minimal uranium enrichment under strict IAEA supervision in exchange for lifting sanctions against its economy.

But Trump has repeatedly stressed that it is seeking zero enrichment.

Enrichment is the process of isolating and concentrating a rare variant, or isotope, of uranium that can produce nuclear fission.

At low levels, enriched uranium can power electric plants. If enriched to approximately 90 percent, it can be used for nuclear weapons.

Before the June 2025 war, Iran was enriching uranium at 60 percent purity.

Tehran had been escalating its nuclear programme since 2018, when Trump, during his first term, nixed a multilateral agreement that capped Iran’s enrichment at 3.67 percent. He instead started piling up sanctions on the Iranian economy, as part of a “maximum pressure” campaign.

The White House on Tuesday suggested the military option against Iran remains on the table.

“President Trump’s first option is always diplomacy. But as he has shown, he is willing to use the lethal force of the United States military if necessary,” Leavitt said.

Last week, American diplomats and their Iranian counterparts sat down in Geneva for yet another round of talks mediated by Oman. The outcome seemed unclear. While the Iranians said “good progress” had been made, the Americans claimed there was “a little progress”. Meanwhile, United States President Donald Trump threatened once again to strike Iran.

In recent weeks, there has been a heavy US military build-up in the Middle East in preparation for what many observers see as an imminent attack. In this context, it may be apt to question whether the current negotiations are not simply a tactic to buy time to better prepare for the inevitable.

In the face of US military might, some have suggested that Iran’s only option is negotiating an agreement with the US, however unfair it may be. While Iranian military capabilities stand no chance against an army with the world’s biggest budget, accepting capitulation through a debilitating deal that may be broken again by Washington may not necessarily be Tehran’s only choice.

There is another way in which Iran can stand up to US bullying and win.

The fate of past negotiations

The ongoing US-Iran talks cannot be viewed in isolation. For Iran, any diplomatic engagement with the US is overshadowed by the legacy of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

Signed by the US, China, Russia, France, the United Kingdom, Germany, the European Union and Iran in 2015, the agreement provided sanctions relief in exchange for full transparency of the Iranian nuclear programme. Tehran accepted the deal even though it had some unfair provisions, including some US sanctions remaining in place.

Nevertheless, it fulfilled its obligations – a fact that was repeatedly verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

In return, however, the US as a signatory did not uphold its end of the deal. In 2018, Trump unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA and reimposed maximum pressure sanctions aimed at crippling Iran’s economy.

It was a stark reminder that American promises are nonbinding. As a leader who has shown no regard for the interests of American allies in pursuit of an “America first” policy, Trump could hardly be expected to respect the interests of American adversaries.

However, even if a Democratic president had been in the White House, there would not have been any guarantee that the JCPOA would have remained in place. In the US’s polarised political climate, an American president’s signature is only valid until the next election.

For the US, negotiations can also be little more than a facade intended to lull adversaries into a false sense of security. Last year, just as US and Iranian representatives were scheduled to meet in Oman for another round of talks, Israel, a key American ally, launched a massive military campaign against Iran.

While the US denied direct involvement, it acknowledged having received prior notice. Given the close ties between the two countries, this prior knowledge strongly implied that the US had given Israel tacit approval for the air attacks.

Today, Iran is engaging in negotiations with the US again, and it is being pressured to accept an even more unfair deal. Should it back down and submit to US demands, then Trump – who preys on perceived weakness – would simply move the goalpost. Demands would shift from Iran’s nuclear programme today to its ballistic missiles tomorrow and regime change the day after.

The special US relationship with Israel means that Washington is fundamentally hostile to an Iranian government that sees the Israeli state as an enemy. Consequently, Trump’s goal is not to reach a durable agreement but to ensure that Iran can never fully comply with his demands, thereby justifying a permanent campaign of maximum pressure and hostility.

In this context and given its recent experience, it would be foolish for Iran to rely on US promises and negotiated agreements.

Leverage through strong regional ties

The current US-Iran standoff is a high-stakes game in which an all-out war is a likely outcome. While the US could achieve an initial victory through overwhelming military superiority, it could also get bogged down fighting a protracted counterinsurgency in Iran’s mountainous terrain.

Conversely, while Iran could eventually repel an American invasion – just as its Afghan neighbours did – the country would be reduced to rubble in the process.

That does not mean Iran should back down. The Greenland crisis and the China-US trade war have demonstrated that Trump’s propensity for sabre-rattling is tempered by his aversion to losses. Even though the EU and China are far more powerful than Iran, a clear show of resolve could compel Trump to retreat.

And Tehran does not have to be alone in its defiance. In its neighbourhood, there are other big players who recognise that another disastrous war led by the US is not in their interests. Iran can and should leverage the regional desire for stability.

For years, Iran pursued a policy of confrontation in the region until it realised that carving out a sphere of influence was actually exacerbating its security dilemma. This recognition ultimately led to the historic normalisation of relations with Saudi Arabia in 2023 – a breakthrough facilitated by China, Oman and Iraq – which in turn set in motion a broader detente with other Arab countries.

Three years later, that decision is yielding dividends. Notably, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Turkiye and Qatar are lobbying Trump to exercise restraint. Building on this neighbourly diplomacy and investing in developing regional stability and a security architecture could help stave off another major US war in the region.

The most important path to peace – and the only means of countering American gunboat diplomacy – does not lie in matching American military might, a contest Iran is destined to lose, but in establishing good relations with its neighbours and accepting regional stability as part of its national security.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

The incident in Isfahan province follows crash of fighter jet in Hamadan province less than a week ago.

Tehran, Iran – Two military pilots and two merchants have been killed after an army helicopter crashed into a fruit market in central Iran.

The crash on Tuesday morning occurred in Dorcheh, a town in Isfahan province, where the army has a major airbase, according to state media, which said the cause was likely a technical fault in the aircraft.

Footage broadcast by state media from the scene of the crash showed the wreckage and emergency responders putting out the fire.

The Army Aviation Training Centre, in a statement, identified the killed soldiers as Colonel Hamed Sarvazad, the pilot; and his co-pilot, Major Mojtaba Kiani.

Two people working at their booths in the market were also reportedly killed on the scene after the helicopter crashed and caught fire.

The army centre said the cause of the crash is under investigation. The local judiciary chief, Asadollah Jafari, said he had also opened a case and dispatched investigators.

The crash comes less than a week after an Iranian Air Force fighter jet, reportedly an old United States-built F-4 model, crashed during a late-night training mission in the western province of Hamadan.

State media reported that one of the pilots was killed, but the other survived after successfully ejecting. The cause of that crash is under investigation, but state media said it was likely caused by a technical fault, as well.

Iran has been largely unable to upgrade its ageing fleet of aircraft, both military and civilian, as a result of decades-long sanctions imposed by the US and its allies.

Iran has purchased a number of fighter and training aircraft from Russia, and has been seeking to buy advanced Su-35 jets, but they have yet to be delivered by Moscow.

The crash of the helicopter took place amid rising tensions between the US and Iran before a new round of nuclear talks, which are set to take place in Geneva, Switzerland, on Thursday.

Iranian officials have warned that the country will not “bow down” to US pressure as Washington bolsters its military presence in the region.

In recent weeks, the US military has amassed hundreds of advanced fighter aircraft, both in military bases and on two aircraft carrier strike groups, as it threatens to strike Iran if it fails to reach a deal on its nuclear and missile programmes.

Tehran has rejected negotiations about its missiles, but has said an agreement may be possible to ensure it will never possess a nuclear weapon.

CK Hutchison says the Panamanian government has taken ‘administrative and operational control’ of its two ports on the canal.

The government of Panama has seized control of two ports on either end of the Panama Canal from a Hong Kong conglomerate following a recent ruling by the country’s Supreme Court.

Hong Kong’s CK Hutchison said on Tuesday that Panama’s government had “made direct physical entry into the terminals at Balboa and Cristobal” and assumed “administrative and operational control” over the two ports on the Panama Canal.

The company said the “unlawful” takeover reflects the culmination of a campaign by the Panamanian state against its subsidiary, Panama Ports, following the Supreme Court ruling last month.

According to a government decree, the Panama Maritime Authority has been authorised to occupy the ports for “reasons of urgent social interest”, according to The Associated Press (AP) news agency.

The maritime authority also has the right to take over port property, including computer systems and cranes, according to the decree.

The state takeover marks the latest twist in a yearlong saga for CK Hutchison, which has been caught in a three-way fight between China, the United States, and Panama following US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House last year.

Starting in December 2024, Trump began to allege that the Panama Canal was being operated by China and promised to “take it back” – using military force if necessary – as part of a greater effort to reassert US dominance over the Western Hemisphere.

Last month, Panama’s Supreme Court ruled that CK Hutchison’s concession to operate the two ports was “unconstitutional” despite the company renewing its concession in 2021 for another 25 years.

The Chinese government’s Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office (HKMAO) weighed in on the controversy, describing the ruling as “absurd” and “shameful”, while warning that the Latin American country would pay “heavy prices both politically and economically”.

Panama’s President Jose Raul Mulino responded, saying he “strongly” rejected China’s threat against his country and that Panama was a country that upholds the rule of law “and respects the decisions of the judiciary, which is independent of the central government”.