仅仅两周后，数百名伊朗学生占领了美国驻伊朗使馆，时任伊朗最高领袖霍梅尼随后选择扣押了美国大 使馆工作人员作为人质，并提出要求：国王必须被送回伊朗受审。这就是著名的"伊朗人质危机"。在接 下来的444天里，被蒙上眼的外交官的画面被传到了数百万美国家庭的电视机里。 这一外交耻辱和人质营救行动的失败，最终导致卡特在1980年的美国总统大选中落败。卡特并非没有全 力应对这场人质危机，他先是冻结了伊朗120亿美元的资产，随后宣布对伊朗启动制裁。 此后，卡特还秘密支持、甚至可能联合阿拉伯国家盟友们协助伊拉克入侵伊朗。长达8年的两伊战争， 让伊朗全国上下被迫团结在一起抗敌，战争后期伊朗人的怒火已不再止于伊拉克，而是其身后的美国。 阿夫欣还引用了一个观点：美国国内某些势力在为人质危机推波助澜，这就是曾在美国受到高度重视 的"大通银行论"。该理论称，美国大通曼哈顿银行董事长兼首席执行官洛克菲勒进行的游说活动，目的 就是激化伊朗国内的反美情绪，从而为美国冻结伊朗资产创造条件。 美国《雅各宾》杂志 1 月 4 日文章，原题：美国同以色列的关系可能导致其与伊朗开战 美国加利福尼亚 州立大学历史学教授阿夫欣·马丁-阿斯加里所著的《帝国 ...

Core Viewpoint - The visit of UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer to China marks a significant shift in UK-China relations, reflecting a potential realignment of British foreign policy towards economic cooperation with China amidst challenges from the US [1][8]. Group 1: UK-China Relations - Starmer is the first UK leader to visit China since 2018, aiming to reset bilateral relations on a more mature basis [8]. - The visit comes at a time when the UK faces economic challenges, with Starmer acknowledging the need for strategic partnerships to benefit the working class and the economy [8][11]. - George Galloway emphasizes the importance of this visit for the UK working class, suggesting it aligns with their interests and the need for economic growth [8][11]. Group 2: Economic Context - The UK economy is reportedly in recession, contrasting with China's growth rate of 4.7%, which is seen as a missed opportunity for the UK [8][11]. - Galloway highlights the disparity in economic conditions, noting that the UK has been struggling while China continues to develop and grow [8][39]. Group 3: Political Commentary - Galloway critiques the UK government's previous stance on China, suggesting that the narrative of China as a security threat has been counterproductive [11][37]. - He argues that the current political climate in the West is characterized by confusion and a decline in moral and social standards, contrasting it with China's stability and progress [37][39]. Group 4: Social Commentary - Galloway expresses pride in British cultural achievements but laments the current social decline, including rising crime and family breakdowns [37]. - He contrasts this with China's societal harmony and progress, suggesting that the West could learn from China's approach to governance and social order [39][40].

封面图上展示了五位欧洲领导人的照片，德国总理默茨、法国总统马克龙、欧盟委员会主席冯德莱恩、 丹麦首相弗雷泽里克森和意大利总理梅洛尼，他们被画成身穿猎人服装，手持武器的形象，背后背景看 似是格陵兰岛冰川。 此前报道，近日，美国总统唐纳德·特朗普宣布自2月1日起，将对丹麦、挪威、瑞典、法国、德国、英 国、荷兰和芬兰的输美商品加征10%的关税，并威胁若不就美国"全面、彻底购买格陵兰岛"达成协议， 自6月1日起税率将提高至25%。 美国的关税讹诈引发欧洲国家的同声谴责与团结应对。1月18日，上述欧洲8国发表联合声明称，美方威 胁加征关税破坏跨大西洋关系，可能引发危险的恶性循环。 中新网1月28日电 德国《明镜》周刊近日发表的最新一期标题显示："唐纳德，够了！" 图片来源：德国《明镜》周刊报道截图 封面底部写道："特朗普的帝国主义""欧洲如何捍卫自己的立场"。 ...

参考消息 美国国防部23日发布2026年国防战略报告说，美国将确保对西半球关键地区的控制权，使得美国军队和 商业机构能够进入从北极到南美洲的关键地区，尤其是"格陵兰岛、美国湾和巴拿马运河"。 美国新版国防战略报告认为欧洲对美国的重要性降低，称"尽管欧洲仍然重要，但其在全球经济中所占 份额正在缩小且持续下降"。报告还说，终结俄乌冲突"首先是欧洲的责任"，美国的北约盟国应"承担欧 洲常规防御的主要责任"，并在保障乌克兰安全方面发挥领导作用。（记者：操兰漪、徐剑梅；视频： 操兰漪、刘阳） 来源 | 新华社 审核 | 邓媛 最新一期德国《明镜》周刊亮出标题："唐纳德，够了！" 德国《明镜》周刊23日发表的最新一期标题显示："唐纳德，够了！"封面底部写道："特朗普的帝国主 义""欧洲如何捍卫自己的立场"。封面图上，5位欧洲领导人：德国总理默茨、法国总统马克龙、欧盟委 员会主席冯德莱恩、丹麦首相弗雷泽里克森和意大利总理梅洛尼身穿猎人服装，手持武器，背后是格陵 兰岛冰川。 该杂志文章批评特朗普政府最近引发美欧紧张局势，特别是关于格陵兰岛和关税的问题。文章写 道："特朗普显然意图将欧洲变成美国的后院——一个由他统治、可随意割 ...

Core Argument - The book "American Made" by Edward Stettner argues that "Trumpism" is not an anomaly but rather a continuation of darker chapters in American history, reflecting long-standing contradictions within the nation [3][4]. Group 1: Historical Context - The author analyzes six key aspects of American history: religion, imperialism, immigration, tariffs, political persecution, and presidential power, to contextualize the current political landscape [3][4]. - Historical land acquisitions, such as the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, exemplify America's imperial ambitions, where the U.S. doubled its territory at the expense of Native Americans [4][5]. - The U.S. government forced Mexico to cede over half of its territory approximately 40 years after the Louisiana Purchase, highlighting a pattern of aggressive territorial expansion throughout the 19th century [5]. Group 2: Political Practices - The book draws parallels between current government actions and historical precedents, such as the detention and expulsion of individuals without trial, reminiscent of the Alien and Sedition Acts signed by President John Adams in 1798 [6]. - Historical examples of presidential defiance against judicial rulings, such as Andrew Jackson's refusal to enforce Supreme Court decisions, illustrate a long-standing tension between executive power and the rule of law [6]. - The increase of import tariffs to around 50% by President William McKinley is cited as a disastrous move for the Republican Party, reflecting the recurring theme of economic protectionism in U.S. politics [6].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the historical context and implications of the Bay of Pigs invasion, highlighting the failure of the U.S. to overthrow Fidel Castro's government in Cuba and the subsequent strengthening of Castro's regime and socialist policies [1][6]. Group 1: Historical Background - In January 1959, Fidel Castro's forces overthrew the U.S.-backed Batista regime in Cuba, leading to a series of reforms that challenged U.S. economic interests [2]. - The Cuban government implemented land reforms and nationalization policies that affected U.S. investments, particularly in the sugar industry, leading to U.S. sanctions and trade embargoes [2][3]. Group 2: U.S. Response and Invasion Plan - The U.S. government, perceiving a threat from Cuba's alignment with the Soviet Union, planned a military invasion to overthrow Castro, training Cuban exiles for the operation [4]. - The CIA organized the "Brigade 2506," consisting of approximately 1,400 Cuban exiles, and provided military support for the invasion at the Bay of Pigs [4][5]. Group 3: Invasion Outcome - The invasion, which began on April 17, 1961, was met with strong resistance from Cuban forces, leading to the defeat of the U.S.-backed troops within 72 hours [5][6]. - The U.S. suffered significant losses, with 89 dead, 250 wounded, and 1,197 captured, marking a major failure in U.S. foreign policy [5][6]. Group 4: Aftermath and Global Reactions - The failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion solidified Castro's position in Cuba and led to the declaration of Cuba as a socialist state [6]. - The event drew international condemnation of U.S. actions, with protests in Latin America and strong support for Cuba from the Soviet Union, which promised military assistance [7].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the recent U.S. military action against Venezuela, highlighting the capture of President Maduro and the implications of this event on international relations and U.S. foreign policy [1][3][4]. Group 1: U.S. Military Actions - The U.S. launched airstrikes against multiple military targets in Venezuela, including La Guaira Port and several air force bases, marking a significant escalation in military threats since August 2025 [1][3]. - The operation involved the use of special forces and was described by U.S. officials as a law enforcement action rather than an act of war, which has sparked political debate regarding the legality of the action [4][6]. Group 2: International Reactions and Implications - The military action has been widely condemned by the international community as a violation of international law and the sovereignty of Venezuela, with accusations of U.S. imperialism and terrorism [3][4]. - The U.S. government's narrative attempts to shift focus from the invasion to issues surrounding Maduro's legitimacy and alleged drug-related crimes, thereby diverting attention from the act of aggression itself [5][6]. Group 3: Media and Narrative Control - The article emphasizes the U.S. strategy of using narrative manipulation to frame the military action in a favorable light, including portraying it as a necessary law enforcement measure [5][6]. - There is a concern that the focus on individual figures like Maduro oversimplifies the broader geopolitical implications and the historical context of U.S. interventions in Latin America [7][8]. Group 4: Economic Interests - The article suggests that U.S. foreign policy, particularly in Venezuela, is heavily influenced by oil interests, which remain central to its diplomatic strategies [8][9].

Group 1 - The core viewpoint is that President Trump claims if the U.S. does not take action regarding Greenland, Russia or China will take control of it [1] - Trump's statement has sparked criticism and mockery in the comments section, with users suggesting that if the U.S. does not act, it is akin to allowing others to take over Washington D.C. [1] - Some commenters accuse Trump of reverting to imperialistic rhetoric, calling for global opposition to such behavior [1]

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the recent U.S. claims to control Greenland, raising significant concern and alarm among various European nations, particularly Germany, which perceives these statements as a threat to peace and stability in the region [1]. Group 1 - German citizens express shock at the U.S. imperialistic rhetoric, indicating that such statements are reminiscent of outdated colonial attitudes [1]. - Concerns are raised that these U.S. assertions could endanger both European peace and the United States' own standing [1]. - Some German citizens believe that the remarks made by former President Trump are exaggerated negotiation tactics aimed at securing a more favorable position in diplomatic discussions, advocating for resolution through diplomatic channels instead [1].

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. plans to manage and profit from the reconstruction of Venezuela, particularly focusing on controlling its oil resources through a three-phase plan [1][19][15]. Group 1: U.S. Control Over Venezuelan Oil - The U.S. government aims to control Venezuelan oil sales indefinitely, with revenues deposited into U.S. government-controlled accounts [15][13]. - A three-phase plan has been outlined, where Venezuela is expected to transfer 30 to 50 million barrels of sanctioned high-quality oil to the U.S. at market prices, potentially valued between $1.5 billion and $2.5 billion [19][20]. - The U.S. intends to create conditions for major American oil companies to enter Venezuela and is considering compensation mechanisms for U.S. oil companies that have invested in Venezuela [20][19]. Group 2: Venezuelan Government's Position - The interim president of Venezuela, Delcy Rodríguez, expressed an openness to energy relationships that benefit all parties and emphasized the need for economic cooperation based on clear commercial contracts [3][5]. - Rodríguez stated that Venezuela aims to maintain relations with countries across the Americas, Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Europe, asserting that the country will not yield to any form of aggression [5][3]. Group 3: Implications of U.S. Actions - If the U.S. blockade continues, Venezuela's oil production is projected to plummet from approximately 1.2 million barrels per day at the end of 2025 to less than 300,000 barrels per day, severely impacting the government's ability to import goods and maintain public services [9][11]. - The U.S. has reportedly submitted a list of demands to the Venezuelan government, including cutting economic ties with China, Russia, Iran, and Cuba, and prioritizing oil sales to the U.S. [26][28]. Group 4: Political Dynamics - Following the forced control of Maduro, key members of his administration have remained in power, which U.S. intelligence suggests may help maintain short-term stability beneficial for U.S. control over oil resources [28][32]. - The approach of controlling leadership while allowing core members to remain in power marks a departure from previous U.S. strategies of outright regime change [32][24].