La delegación estadounidense encabezada por el vicepresidente JD Vance llegó a Pakistán este sábado para dialogar con funcionarios iraníes, con el objetivo de consolidar un alto al fuego en Medio Oriente y avanzar hacia el fin definitivo de la guerra.

La negociación, donde Pakistán será mediador, enfrenta varios obstáculos, ya que Israel y los terroristas de Hezbollah intercambiaron disparos a lo largo de la frontera sur del Líbano. El régimen terrorista condicionó el inicio de las conversaciones a la implementación de un cese al fuego en ese país y a la liberación de activos bloqueados.

El presidente de Estados Unidos, Donald Trump, destacó el viernes que “un buen acuerdo contemplaría que Irán no tenga un arma nuclear”: “Es el primer objetivo. No pueden tener armas nucleares, es el 99% de lo que buscamos”.

En Islamabad, las calles están desiertas este sábado en las cercanías al Hotel Serena, sede de las conversaciones, luego de que las fuerzas de seguridad cerraran las carreteras.

A continuación, la cobertura minuto a minuto:

Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations took a swipe at President Donald Trump on Tuesday hours before Trump’s deadline to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, calling one of the president’s posts on Truth Social «deeply irresponsible» and «profoundly alarming.» 

Trump has given the Iranian regime until 8 p.m. ET to reopen the Strait of Hormuz — a key waterway — or face strikes against its power plants and bridges.  

In a post Tuesday morning, Trump said, «A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again,» and, «I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will.» 

«Today the President of the United States again resorted to language that is not only deeply irresponsible but profoundly alarming, declaring that, quote, ‘the whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back,’ unquote,» Amir-Saeid Iravani said at U.N. headquarters in New York on Tuesday afternoon.

RUSSIA, CHINA VETO UN RESOLUTION AIMED AT REOPENING STRAIT OF HORMUZ, HOURS BEFORE TRUMP DEADLINE

«It is regrettable and alarming that while in full view of the international community, the President of the United States shamelessly and brazenly issues threats to destroy all civilian infrastructure in Iran, including bridges, power plants and energy facilities, by setting a deadline and openly reveals this intent to commit vile crimes and crimes against humanity,» Iravani added. 

The White House, when asked by Fox News Digital for reaction, said, «The Iranian regime has committed egregious human rights abuses against its own citizens for 47 years, just murdered tens of thousands of protestors in January, and has indiscriminately targeted civilians across the region in order to cause as much death as possible throughout this conflict.»

CHINA AIDING IRAN MISSILE PROGRAM AMID US-ISRAELI STRIKES, REPORTS SAY

A satellite image shows the Strait of Hormuz, a key maritime passage connecting the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman, vital for global energy supply. (Amanda Macias/Fox News Digital)

«As President Trump said today, Iran can never have a nuclear weapon, and the Iranian people welcome the sound of bombs because it means their oppressors are losing. The President will always stand with innocent civilians while annihilating the terrorists responsible for threatening our country and the entire world with a nuclear weapon,» White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly added. «Greater destruction can be avoided if the regime understands the seriousness of this moment and makes a deal with the United States.»

Trump also said Tuesday, «now that we have Complete and Total Regime Change, where different, smarter, and less radicalized minds prevail, maybe something revolutionarily wonderful can happen, WHO KNOWS?» 

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

«We will find out tonight, one of the most important moments in the long and complex history of the World,» the president added. «47 years of extortion, corruption, and death, will finally end. God Bless the Great People of Iran!» 

A group of at least seven law professors have mounted a campaign to challenge the longstanding interpretation of birthright citizenship, arguing in favor of President Donald Trump’s effort to narrow the constitutional provision, even as Supreme Court justices signal skepticism.

The legal scholars’ arguments aim to persuade the Supreme Court and opponents of Trump’s efforts that there are serious originalist and historical arguments for narrowing birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment that deserve consideration rather than dismissal as a fringe political theory.

Ilan Wurman, a law professor at the University of Minnesota, told Fox News Digital the recent wave of support is intended to reinforce the point that birthright citizenship is not a settled matter despite the institutional consensus on it.

«That several prominent law professors have come out over the past year, including a few in the past month, in varying degrees of support for the Trump Administration’s birthright citizenship executive order, shows that their position is serious,» Wurman said. «The Supreme Court cannot simply rely on the conventional wisdom. It will have to show its work.»

TRUMP ELEVATES IMMIGRATION FIGHT AT SUPREME COURT, TURNING UP HEAT ON DEMOCRATS AHEAD OF MIDTERMS

Wurman, who specializes in constitutional law, was one of dozens who also weighed in on the case by submitting amicus briefs to the high court ahead of April 1 oral arguments on birthright citizenship, which grants automatic citizenship to most babies born on U.S. soil under the 14th Amendment.

He argued, in part, that the amendment never intended to grant illegal immigrants’ babies citizenship, saying that in the 19th century, parents who were residents of a country owed allegiance to the country in exchange for protections from its government.

«This exchange of allegiance and protection was often described as a ‘mutual compact,’» Wurman wrote. «Lawful aliens generally fell within the scope of the rule, while foreign soldiers and ambassadors did not. … Illegally present aliens would likely have fallen outside the scope of the rule.»

The other law professors include Randy Barnett of Georgetown University, Kurt Lash of University of Richmond, Richard Epstein of New York University, Tom Lee of Fordham University, Adrian Vermeule of Harvard University and, most recently, Philip Hamburger of Columbia University, each of whom has argued in varying degrees that Trump’s birthright citizenship order is constitutionally defensible.

SCOTUS SLATED TO WEIGH FUTURE BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP PROTECTIONS FOR MILLIONS — HERE’S WHAT AT STAKE

President Donald Trump holds a signed executive order on AI, in the Oval Office of the White House, in Washington, Jan. 23, 2025. Trump said he will attend Wednesday’s arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court on a case centered around birthright citizenship. (REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque)

Trump’s order, signed soon after he took office, would prevent children born to mothers who are illegal immigrants or legal temporary visitors from gaining automatic citizenship. While all the justices, aside from Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, appear poised to toss out Trump’s order, the case has nevertheless invited polarizing debate. If approved by the high court, it could strip citizenship from those ineligible for it under Trump’s new interpretation and broadly shift immigration policy.

The Trump administration has contended that temporary visitors and illegal immigrants are not «subject to the jurisdiction» of the United States and that that phrasing in the amendment was intended to apply to freed slaves in the Civil War-era. The administration has argued that birth tourism companies have illegally exploited the generous citizenship policy and that it also incentivizes illegal immigration.

Chief Justice John Roberts challenged Solicitor General John Sauer during oral arguments on the small exceptions built into the 14th Amendment, such as children born to foreign diplomats, saying they were not comparable to a wide category of illegal immigrants.

JUSTICE JACKSON SPARKS ONLINE UPROAR AFTER LINKING BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP TO STEALING A WALLET IN JAPAN

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts attends inauguration ceremonies in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol on January 20, 2025, in Washington, DC. Chip ( Somodevilla/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo)

«The examples you give to support that strike me as very quirky,» Roberts said. «You know, children of ambassadors, children of enemies during a hostile invasion, children on warships, and then you expand it to a whole class of illegal aliens. … I’m not quite sure how you can get to that big group from such tiny and sort of idiosyncratic examples.»

The American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who argued against the executive order told the Supreme Court the policy was enshrined in the 14th Amendment to «put it out of reach of any government official» and that its exceptions were intentionally narrow.

«It excludes only those cloaked with a fiction of extraterritoriality because they are subject to another sovereign’s jurisdiction even when they’re in the United States, a closed set of exceptions to an otherwise universal rule,» ACLU lawyer Cecillia Wang said.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Wurman noted that the professors siding with Trump’s executive order have been met with «swift and vicious» reactions. David Bier, immigration expert at the libertarian CATO Institute, said the bloc of dissenters was unserious.

«Oh SEVEN!? That’s remarkable given that to qualify as a judge or appointee you need to align yourself with the president,» Bier wrote on X. «The case is a joke. It’s sad that these people are debasing themselves in a losing effort for an ignoble cause.»