【文/观察者网 熊超然】"特朗普总统不顾一切地避免与伊朗开战，但他真的能避免吗？" 在以色列和伊朗连日来持续相互袭击之际，美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）当地时间6月16日报道指出， 强有力的国家安全考量和国内政治因素都表明，在这场以色列宣称为"生死存亡之战"的长期冲突中，美 国应当置身于与伊朗的冲突之外，这一立场是明智的。然而，某些强大的力量可能会让美国更深地卷入 冲突，而非仅仅是像目前对以色列提供武器进行防御这么简单。 早些时候，路透社援引两名知情官员透露，美国总统特朗普已经否决了（vetoed）以色列向美国提出的 杀死伊朗最高领袖哈梅内伊的计划。不过，其中一些因素也不是特朗普能控制的。 如果伊朗攻击美国在中东地区的军事基地和人员，或者是美国在全球范围内的目标，就如同特朗普发文 威胁的那样，华盛顿方面势必将作出强硬回应。此外，如果伊朗通过袭击红海等的国际航运，对特朗普 施加压力，迫使他管束以色列，这可能引发全球能源危机。 在美国国内，特朗普也面临着越来越大的压力。一些共和党人认为，如果在外交上无法迫使伊朗"弃 核"，美国可能别无选择，只能军事介入这场冲突；而推崇"美国优先"运动的右翼人士，则纷纷要求特 朗普坚 ...

Group 1 - The G7 summit will take place from June 15 to 17 in Canada, with significant divisions among member countries on issues like the Russia-Ukraine conflict and climate change, leading to a lack of consensus on a joint communiqué [1][4] - Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau aims to ease tensions with U.S. President Trump and promote trade and security negotiations, avoiding a repeat of the contentious 2018 summit where Trump refused to sign the joint communiqué [1][3] - The summit will feature discussions on various topics, including artificial intelligence, energy security, and global conflicts, with leaders from non-G7 countries like Ukraine, India, Brazil, and Mexico also participating [6][7] Group 2 - The trend of shorter final joint statements has emerged since the 2018 summit, reducing negotiation time and minimizing contentious wording among member countries [7] - The Trump administration's approach has shifted G7's focus back to its original purpose of promoting global economic stability and growth, as indicated by the current agenda set by Canada [7]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the rise of Trump's MAGA group as a significant force in American politics, emphasizing their historical roots and their impact on immigration and foreign policy [2][3][4]. Group 1: MAGA Group Characteristics - The MAGA group is primarily composed of working-class individuals, farmers, and residents of small towns, characterized by lower income and education levels compared to the national average [6][7]. - This group exhibits strong patriotic and nativist sentiments, often feeling alienated by globalization and cultural diversity, leading to a persistent hostility towards immigration and foreign influences [10][11][12]. Group 2: Historical Context - The historical roots of the MAGA group can be traced back to various populist movements in American history, including the Jacksonian democracy and the anti-imperialist sentiments of the 1890s [7][8][9]. - The article highlights that the MAGA group's attitudes towards foreign policy reflect a long-standing tradition of American isolationism, which has resurfaced in contemporary politics [5][6]. Group 3: Political Dynamics - Trump's political success is attributed to his ability to mobilize this historically marginalized group, which has been characterized by anti-establishment sentiments and a rejection of elite political norms [3][4][19]. - The article suggests that the MAGA group's influence on foreign policy is likely to grow, potentially surpassing the impact seen during Trump's first term [4][19]. Group 4: Foreign Policy Implications - The MAGA group's preferences indicate a shift towards isolationism, with recent polls showing a decline in support for active U.S. involvement in international affairs [33][34]. - There is a notable trend among MAGA supporters to prioritize domestic issues over foreign policy, reflecting a broader sentiment of "America First" [33][36]. Group 5: Future Considerations - The article raises questions about the sustainability of the MAGA movement's influence on U.S. foreign policy, particularly in light of the changing political landscape and the potential for internal divisions within the group [35][39]. - It emphasizes the need for ongoing observation of how these dynamics will shape America's international role and policy decisions moving forward [39].

Group 1 - The article discusses the unprecedented impact of Trump's second term on U.S. domestic and foreign policies, highlighting a significant deviation from traditional norms and unpredictability in his diplomatic approach [1][2] - Trump's political base, characterized by populism and anti-establishment sentiments, is identified as a driving force behind his foreign policy, suggesting that the preferences of this group may shape policy outcomes more than in his first term [2][3] - The historical context of the MAGA movement is explored, linking it to past populist movements in American history, which were often marked by isolationist tendencies and a rejection of elite influence [3][4][5] Group 2 - The article outlines the sociological characteristics of Trump's supporters, primarily consisting of lower-income, less-educated individuals from rural areas, who exhibit strong nationalist and anti-globalization sentiments [3][4] - It emphasizes the emotional and cultural factors that contribute to the MAGA group's political identity, including a deep-seated distrust of elites and a preference for local over international concerns [10][11] - The article notes a historical pattern of isolationism among similar groups, suggesting that current trends may reflect a resurgence of these sentiments in response to perceived failures of international engagement [28][29] Group 3 - The article highlights a shift in public opinion regarding U.S. involvement in international affairs, with a growing preference for domestic issues over foreign policy, particularly among Republican supporters [28][29] - It discusses the implications of this shift for future U.S. foreign policy, indicating a potential move towards isolationism and a reduction in international commitments [30][31] - The article also points out the influence of social media in amplifying the voices of the MAGA movement, facilitating a more organized expression of their political views [25][26]

Core Points - The UK and EU have reached a relationship reset agreement, ending tensions since Brexit in 2020 [1] - The agreement includes extending reciprocal fishing rights until June 30, 2038, and establishing cooperation on energy and security defense [1] - A "Balanced Youth Experience Program" will allow young people to work, study, volunteer, or travel in each other's countries for a limited time [1] Negotiation Context - Prior to the summit, negotiations intensified over sensitive issues like youth mobility and fishing rights, with reports of late-night discussions [2] - The agreement may pave the way for the UK to participate in EU security and defense policies, including agricultural trade friction and the role of the European Court in dispute resolution [2] - The geopolitical landscape, particularly the U.S. shift towards isolationism, has provided a rationale for the UK-EU relationship reboot [2] Political Landscape - Recent polling shows UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer's approval rating has dropped to 23%, while support for the Reform Party has increased [3] - The key challenge for the UK government is to navigate sensitive issues without appearing to seek a return to pre-Brexit relations [3] - The two main obstacles in negotiations are fishing rights and the youth mobility plan, with ongoing discussions rather than concrete agreements on the latter [3] Compromise Challenges - The Labour government faces difficulties in reaching compromises on complex issues while maintaining a stance against rejoining the EU [4] - Security and defense consensus may be easier to achieve due to ongoing threats, but other areas like fishing rights and market access remain complicated [4] Trade Relations Outlook - Analysts express skepticism about the agreement significantly improving trade relations, suggesting the summit's outcomes may be largely symbolic [5] - While some agreements may reduce red tape for UK exporters, substantial progress is unlikely without joining the single market, which remains a red line for the UK government [5]

尼日利亚非洲经济研究中心研究员安东尼.布松表示，美国滥施关税是一种贸易保护主义，是对全球贸 易生态系统的破坏，世界各国应该携手努力，推动全球贸易一体化。布松认为，美国政府应该重新审视 他们的关税政策。他说："对不同国家设定"基准关税"和"对等关税"，我们认为这是政策缺陷，它甚至 会对最不发达国家产生影响。比如，根据非洲过去两年的贸易情况来看，该政策对非洲的影响就很大， 特朗普总统需要冷静下来，重新审视这项政策。我们应该走向全球合作，而不是走向孤立主义。"(央视 新闻) ...

Core Viewpoint - The China National Space Administration (CNSA) has approved international applications for lunar samples from the Chang'e 5 mission, allowing seven institutions from six countries, including two U.S. universities, to borrow these samples. However, U.S. researchers face restrictions due to the "Wolf Amendment," which prohibits NASA funding for projects involving Chinese lunar samples [1][6][7]. Group 1: International Collaboration - The approved institutions include the University of Brown and Stony Brook University, both receiving NASA funding, but they cannot use these funds for research on the Chinese samples due to the "Wolf Amendment" [1][6]. - Timothy Glotch from Stony Brook University expressed gratitude for funding from his institution to collaborate with Chinese scientists, indicating a willingness to analyze the samples despite the restrictions [3][4]. - CNSA Administrator Zhang Zhongde emphasized the importance of sharing lunar research for the benefit of humanity, stating that the Chang'e program is open to international collaboration [6][8]. Group 2: Research Objectives - Glotch aims to compare the properties of lunar soil and rock samples with those from the Apollo program, focusing on thermal properties and magnetic characteristics to understand the geological history of the Moon [4][6]. - The research will involve examining ultra-thin rock slices under high magnification to uncover clues about the origin and composition of the rocks, contributing to a better understanding of lunar geology [4][6]. Group 3: U.S.-China Relations in Space - The "Wolf Amendment" has hindered U.S. scientists' access to Chinese lunar samples and vice versa, with Chinese scientists facing difficulties in obtaining Apollo samples from NASA [4][7]. - There have been ongoing discussions between U.S. and Chinese space officials regarding the sharing of lunar samples, but U.S. institutions still face significant domestic obstacles to receiving the samples [7][8]. - Wu Weiren, a prominent figure in China's lunar exploration program, criticized the U.S. for its isolationist policies and expressed a desire for more open communication and collaboration in space exploration [8].

Group 1 - The core viewpoint of the articles revolves around the implications of Trump's tariff policies, which are seen as a double-edged sword that may exacerbate existing economic issues in the U.S. rather than resolve them [1][3][10] - Trump's "reciprocal tariffs" are intended as a tool for "America First," but the fundamental economic principles remain unchanged, leading to potential negative consequences for the U.S. economy [2][4] - The agricultural and manufacturing sectors in the U.S. are particularly affected, facing rising costs and decreased competitiveness due to the tariffs [2][4] Group 2 - There is significant internal dissent within the U.S. regarding Trump's tariff policies, with even members of his cabinet expressing doubts and considering resignation [4][6] - The tariffs impose an invisible tax burden on American consumers, who end up paying higher prices for everyday goods, contradicting the intended protective measures for American citizens [4][6] - Protests against the tariff policies have erupted across the U.S., indicating widespread public dissatisfaction and unrest [6] Group 3 - Trump's approach to trade negotiations, including the intention to isolate China, reflects a strategy of power politics that may undermine America's international standing and alienate allies [7][12] - China's response emphasizes respect, dialogue, and cooperation as effective means to resolve differences, countering Trump's aggressive tactics [9][12] - The ongoing trade conflict is characterized as a test of economic strength, strategic wisdom, and political endurance, with uncertain outcomes for both the U.S. and China [10][12]

而在这种高度不确定的背景下，市场价格的下跌并不自动等于机会。他甚至提醒我们：现在正处于判断 最困难的阶段——不是该贪婪，亦不是该恐惧，而是要承认"我们连自己的预测正确率都低于历史任何 时刻"。 即便如此，马克斯仍在信贷市场中看到了相对的确定性。相比动荡的股市估值，信贷资产的回报路径更 加可预期。 他指出，在过去47年非投资级信贷的经验中，约99%的发行人都履行了承诺。在宏观变量充满不确定 的时刻，这种由契约支撑、违约代价明确的资产，或许正体现出一种"以静制动"的投资逻辑。 关税不仅搅乱了经济、市场，也搅乱了全球人心。 "这是我职业生涯中，见过最大的一次环境转变。" 橡树资本联合创始人霍华德·马克斯 在美东时间4月 4日接受彭博访谈中的这句判断，揭示了一个正被深刻重构的时代。 从贸易摩擦到关税升级，全球经济秩序正处于被巨力搅乱的阶段。 马克斯直言： "我们过去假设未来会像过去，但这一次，没有人知道六个月后的规则会是什么。" 他的核心观点不是判断市场是否便宜，而是指出当前环境下， "对未来的可知性比过往任何时候都更 低" 。 邓普顿所说"在最悲观的时候买入"或许仍有效，但马克斯的提醒是：我们可能还没到那个"最悲观 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article argues that Trump's foreign policy does not fundamentally overturn the traditional U.S. diplomatic approach but rather reflects a more overt expression of the long-standing U.S. hegemonic nature in international relations [1][4][6]. Group 1: U.S. Foreign Policy Under Trump - Trump's administration has been characterized by a series of "America First" policies, which include imposing tariffs, withdrawing from international agreements, and exerting pressure on allies, suggesting a return to a more isolationist stance reminiscent of 19th-century imperialism [2][3][8]. - The administration's actions, such as the imposition of 25% tariffs on imported steel and aluminum, reflect a protectionist ideology that has historical precedents in U.S. foreign policy [2][6]. - Trump's rhetoric about making Canada the "51st state" and threats to annex Greenland illustrate a revival of imperialistic tendencies in U.S. diplomacy [3][5]. Group 2: Historical Context and Continuity - The article highlights that many of Trump's foreign policy actions have historical parallels, such as previous administrations' withdrawal from international organizations and the use of economic leverage to achieve political goals [4][6]. - Notable examples include Reagan's and Obama's administrations, which also exhibited similar tendencies to withdraw support from international bodies when U.S. interests were perceived to be compromised [4][6]. - The historical context of U.S. interventions, such as the CIA's involvement in the overthrow of Congolese Prime Minister Lumumba, underscores a long-standing pattern of prioritizing resource control and geopolitical interests over international norms [6][8]. Group 3: The Nature of "America First" - The concept of "America First" is portrayed as a consistent theme in U.S. foreign policy, driven by a desire to maintain hegemony and respond to perceived threats to national interests [7][8]. - Analysts suggest that the current administration's more blatant embrace of "America First" reflects a response to declining U.S. power and rising anxieties among the elite and the general populace [8]. - The article posits that the roots of Trump's policies can be traced back to historical U.S. expansionism and a self-serving interpretation of democracy that justifies unilateral actions on the global stage [8].