La misión Artemis II marca un nuevo hito en la historia de la exploración espacial: después de más de 50 años, una tripulación humana regresó al entorno de la Luna. La nave fue más allá de la órbita terrestre baja, rodeó nuestro satélite y nos permitió contemplar su lado oculto.

En este contexto, es necesario mirarnos en la dimensión que nos abre este asombroso viaje lunar y valorar la adhesión del Ecuador a los Acuerdos Artemis en junio de 2023, firmada en Washington como el vigésimo sexto signatario. Fue una decisión de política exterior seria y meditada, con implicaciones estructurales para la inserción de nuestro país en el sistema internacional de este siglo.

En un mundo cada vez más fragmentado, donde la rivalidad entre grandes potencias tensiona el multilateralismo, el espacio ultraterrestre se configura como un dominio híbrido: campo de competencia estratégica y, al mismo tiempo, laboratorio privilegiado de cooperación internacional. Los Acuerdos Artemis, impulsados por Estados Unidos junto a otras naciones visionarias, buscan consolidar principios esenciales como el uso pacífico del espacio, la interoperabilidad de sistemas, la sostenibilidad de las actividades y la transparencia en la exploración.

Para un país como Ecuador, incorporarse a esta arquitectura en formación significa ocupar un lugar en la definición de las reglas de gobernanza de la emergente economía espacial, un sector que las proyecciones internacionales sitúan como uno de los principales motores del crecimiento global en las próximas décadas.

La cooperación espacial no es una idea lejana ni ajena a nuestra realidad. Puede generar beneficios concretos en áreas tan importantes como la agricultura, el monitoreo del ambiente y el clima, las telecomunicaciones, la medicina y la gestión de riesgos naturales. También puede impulsar el empleo calificado, transferencia tecnológica y atracción de inversión extranjera directa, herramientas indispensables para diversificar la matriz productiva y reducir su vulnerabilidad a los altibajos de las materias primas.

A estas ventajas se suma un activo geoestratégico único, frecuentemente subestimado y hasta ignorado: la posición ecuatorial del país. La Nasa ha explicado que estar sobre la línea equinoccial permite aprovechar mejor la rotación de la Tierra, lo que pudiera disminuir el uso de energía y combustible, además de reducir costos en determinados lanzamientos. A eso se suma otra ventaja importante: frente a varios puntos de salida, Ecuador tiene menos amenazas climáticas como huracanes o tornados, fenómenos que pueden alterar la programación de los despegues como ocurrió en la misión Artemis I, en 2022, cuya salida tuvo que postergarse.

Sin embargo, la adhesión a los Acuerdos Artemis por sí sola no basta. El desafío radica en transformar ese paso inicial en una política de Estado con continuidad, visión y ejecución. Ello exige al menos cuatro líneas de acción convergentes: 1) la formulación de una estrategia nacional aeroespacial integral; 2) el fortalecimiento de alianzas público-privadas con actores líderes del sector; 3) la inversión sostenida en educación STEM (ciencia, tecnología, ingeniería y matemáticas) desde la básica hasta la universitaria; y 4) una participación de liderazgo y propositiva en los foros de gobernanza de los Acuerdos Artemis.

La cooperación con Estados Unidos en este ámbito se enmarca, además, en un contexto más amplio de relaciones diplomáticas basadas en intereses compartidos y vínculos previsibles y orientados al largo plazo.

Con Artemis II habiendo culminado su audaz periplo lunar, la ventana de oportunidad permanece abierta, pero no es ilimitada. La historia reciente enseña que las naciones que logran posicionarse en sectores emergentes son aquellas que logran alinear ambición estratégica, continuidad política y capacidad de ejecución.

Pero este desafío no es únicamente nacional. Es, sobre todo, regional. América Latina enfrenta una disyuntiva histórica: continuar como espectadora periférica de la nueva economía espacial o articularse como bloque capaz de generar capacidades propias, insertarse en cadenas globales de valor y negociar desde una posición de mayor densidad estratégica. La fragmentación regional, que ha limitado históricamente la proyección internacional del continente, constituye hoy el principal obstáculo —más incluso que las restricciones tecnológicas o financieras.

En el mito griego, Apolo -dios de la luz, la profecía y la razón- guiaba a los héroes hacia lo desconocido, iluminando caminos que parecían imposibles. Hoy, en esta era de exploración renovada, el programa Artemis, heredero simbólico de aquel espíritu, representa el progreso humano.

América Latina, al unirse en esta gran empresa compartida, no solo abraza una oportunidad tecnológica o económica. Reafirma un compromiso civilizatorio con el uso pacífico del espacio, con la innovación como motor de desarrollo y con una alianza estratégica basada en valores comunes de libertad, democracia y búsqueda del conocimiento. La próxima frontera de nuestro progreso no es solo lunar o tecnológica. Es, ante todo, estratégica y moral.

* Guillermo Lasso Mendoza es el expresidente de Ecuador

With a second round of talks likely to take place between the U.S. and Iran’s regime this week over its illicit nuclear weapons programs, leading experts on Tehran’s program say the Trump administration was right to walk away.

After nearly a day of talks, Vice President JD Vance’s team pulled the plug on the negotiations taking place in Pakistan, something welcomed by experts in the field.

«The U.S. team was wise to walk away once it became clear the Iranians would not agree to Washington’s core nuclear demands. Tehran maintaining enriched uranium stocks and uranium enrichment capabilities provides it with a pathway to nuclear weapons, plain and simple,» Andrea Stricker, deputy director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ nonproliferation program, told Fox News Digital.

A core dispute between the U.S. and Iran is over Tehran’s desire to enrich uranium — the material used to build nuclear weapons.

WITKOFF WARNS IRAN IS ‘A WEEK AWAY’ FROM ‘BOMB-MAKING MATERIAL’ AS TRUMP WEIGHS ACTION

In 2018, President Donald Trump withdrew from President Barack Obama’s nuclear weapons deal with Iran because his administration argued that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the formal name of the deal, permitted Iran to build an atomic bomb.

When asked what a good nuclear agreement would look like, Stricker said, «A good deal requires the regime to not only turn over its nuclear fuel, dismantle key facilities, and commit to a permanent ban on enrichment, but to cooperate with an IAEA investigation that fully and completely accounts for and dismantles Iran’s nuclear weapons-relevant facilities, equipment, documentation, centrifuges and related production capabilities.»

Stricker acknowledged that the process could take several years, but noted that «the IAEA is well-equipped for this mission and has experience dismantling nuclear weapons programs in Iraq, Libya and South Africa. Anything less and Iran will likely cheat on its commitments and reconstitute a breakout pathway.»

TRUMP REVEALS IRAN MADE ‘SIGNIFICANT PROPOSAL’ AFTER ULTIMATUM, BUT ‘NOT GOOD ENOUGH’

Sen. Lindsey Graham said Monday he opposes a reported proposal by the U.S. for a 20-year ban on Iran’s uranium enrichment under a potential deal.

«I appreciate President Donald Trump’s resolve to end the Iranian conflict peacefully and through diplomacy. However, we have to remember who we’re dealing with in Iran: terrorists, liars, and cheaters,» Graham posted on X.

«If this reporting is accurate, the idea that we would agree to a moratorium on enrichment rather than a ban on enrichment would be a mistake in my view,» he said.

«Would we agree to a moratorium for al Qaeda to enrich? No.»

In this photo released by the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, technicians work at the Arak heavy water reactor’s secondary circuit, as officials and media visit the site, near Arak, 150 miles southwest of the capital of Tehran, in December 2019. (Atomic Energy Organization of Iran/AP)

A regional official from the Mideast confirmed to Fox News Digital that a 20-year moratorium on enriched uranium was made by the U.S. and rejected by the Islamic Republic.

David Albright, a physicist who is the founder and president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, D.C., praised the U.S. decision to end the talks in Pakistan. Writing on his X account, which is closely followed by Iran watchers, he stated: «The U.S. was Right to Walk Away in Islamabad.»

Albright told Fox News Digital the move by the U.S. negotiators «makes it clear that this is not negotiating for negotiating’s sake. And leaving threw Iran on the defensive, signaling it as the losing state in the war. Moreover, the Iranians would not have shifted their positions in any significant way. They usually have no flexibility. But Iran wanted to have negotiations continue in order to try to tie the hands of the U.S. and Israel, while trying to portray themselves as victors. Now, Iran has to decide whether to accept the U.S. offer or risk war resuming.»

He added that a good nuclear deal for the U.S. would mean «no enrichment and no stocks of HEU [Highly Enriched Uranium] and LEU [Low Enriched Uranium]; Iran cooperating with the inspectors and verifiably ending its nuclear weapons program and providing a complete nuclear declaration, something it has never done.»

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi were greeted by Pakistan Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar and Army Chief Field Marshal Gen. Asim Munir upon their arrival at Nur Khan airbase in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, on April 11, 2026. (Pakistan Ministry of Foreign Affairs/AP)

Albright continued that «If Iran signals willingness to accept the U.S. position, meeting again makes sense. 

«Iran has absolutely no need to enrich. Its only civil need is for a small amount of 20% enriched for its small research reactor, the Tehran Research Reactor, and it has enough 20% enriched uranium in fuel or nearly made into fuel stored in Iran and in Russia under JCPOA [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action] arrangements for 20 years.»

He concluded, «To be flip, and paraphrase Abbie Hoffman, I have the right to yell theater in a crowded fire, but I don’t. Iran’s emphasis on its right to enrich is as irrelevant and beside the point.»

Former Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms, a Democrat running for governor in Georgia, has faced ethics-related scrutiny during her time in government, but that hasn’t stopped Bottoms’ ambition for higher office.   

Before launching her gubernatorial bid, Bottoms drew criticism in Atlanta over her use of public resources while serving in city government — from taxpayer-funded mailers packed with photos of herself to city-paid travel expenses that initially covered her husband’s Super Bowl airfare. 

Bottoms also drew criticism over her ties to a contractor that later landed lucrative city contracts after she signed an initial consulting contract with the firm while leading the Atlanta Fulton County Recreation Authority (AFCRA) and just days before leaving the city council as she was preparing to become mayor, with the company’s CEO later donating to and fundraising for her campaign.

Even with Atlanta’s history of corruption scandals, former Atlanta City Council leader Jennifer Ide, who served as the head of a city council ethics committee while Bottoms was mayor, said the Democratic gubernatorial hopeful’s past scandals, in particular her alleged pay-to-play scheme with a contractor, should be «concerning» for voters.

NYC DEM, HOCHUL AIDE UNDER INVESTIGATION OVER ALLEGED MIGRANT SHELTER BRIBES

«I mean, I think it’s concerning,» Ide told Fox News Digital. «I don’t think that the voters want to feel like special interests impact the outcome of an election.»

As executive director of AFCRA, a position she held that earned her a six-figure salary even while also serving on the city council and running for mayor, Bottoms signed the first of three contracts for a company called Con-Real to do work for the city. The first contract, awarded in April 2017, was less than $100,000, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Just days later, she exited office as her mayoral run was heating up.

Meanwhile, in June 2017, roughly two months later, Con-Real won a second $2.4 million contract, despite the company’s bid being about twice what its competitor bid, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The outlet added that both contracts appeared to have been executed without the recreation authority’s board voting to approve it.    

Ide said the absence of board approval was among the issues that made the Con-Real contracts appear troubling to people in Atlanta government, though she said she was not familiar enough with AFCRA’s rules to say definitively whether any formal procurement rule had been broken. However, according to Kyle Gomez-Leineweber, policy director at watchdog Common Cause Georgia, AFCRA did amend its contracting process following the controversy with Bottoms.

«There were serious concerns that were raised around ethics,» he added.

GOP BILLIONAIRE TRYING TO WOO TRUMP’S SUPPORT IN KEY GEORGIA RACE BANKROLLED HIS 2024 PRESIDENTIAL RIVALS

Con-Real founder and CEO, Gerald Alley, reportedly held a fundraiser for Bottoms’ mayoral campaign in August 2017, and campaign finance records showed he also donated close to $4,000 to Bottoms’ mayoral campaign just days after winning the lucrative arena contract.

Keisha Lance Bottoms, former mayor of the city of Atlanta, attends the Cancer Moonshot event on October 24, 2022 in Washington, D.C. (Getty Images)

The subsequent year, in 2018, while Bottoms was mayor, Con-Real won a third contract for $1.4 million. Again, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, they were the highest bidder. 

«It sure looked fishy that Con-Real l was not the lowest bidder,» Ide pointed out. «I don’t know exactly what the procurement rules are for the recreation authority but for the city the lowest responsive bidder is who would have needed to have been selected.»  

In June 2025, less than a month after Bottoms announced her bid for governor, Alley donated the maximum allowable amount for a primary election of $8,400, campaign finance records show.

«I really believe that as people start to dig under the surface, they’re going to see that she’s not fit for office,» Humberto Garcia, a Democrat who lives in Atlanta and founded the anti-Buckhead City movement Neighbors for a United Atlanta, said.

Vehicles travel along a highway in downtown Atlanta, Georgia, US, on Wednesday, June 28, 2023. (Photographer: Alyssa Pointer/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Beyond the Con-Real matter, Bottoms’ record already includes a string of ethics-related incidents, including a $37,000 state ethics fine over campaign-finance violations, questions over taxpayer-funded campaign-season mailers packed with photos of herself, and backlash over using public funds for certain expenses, including airfare for her husband’s Super Bowl trip and thousands of dollars in limousine spending.

Both Ide and Garcia lamented that Bottoms, as mayor, was «absent-minded,» and they questioned whether she would do what is in the best interest for Georgians if elected governor. 

«If you’re going to run for the highest office in the state, there needs to be no questions about whether you’re being influenced by your campaign donations in that kind of way,» Ide told Fox News Digital.

Fox News Digital reached out to the Bottoms’ campaign and Con-Real but did not receive a response.

The Democratic primary for Georgia’s gubernatorial race will take place on May 19. Currently, Bottoms is leading in most major polls, with former Georgia General Assemblyman and Chief Executive Officer of DeKalb County Michael Thurmond coming in second in many of the same polls, per The New York Times.